banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (04/07/85)
This has been discussed in the arms discussion newsgroup... From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk@UCB-VAX.ARPA Date: 27 Mar 85 16:59:14 CST (Wed) To: ltuxa!mgnetp!ihnp4!ucbvax!arms-d@UCB-VAX.ARPA Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V3 #17 >From: ericson@NYU-CSD1.ARPA (Lars Warren Ericson) > Asked about the prospect of sharing defensive weapons with the > Soviet Union, as proposed by President Reagan in his re-election > campaign, Mr. Ikle said such a development was "unlikely" until > the Russians had agreed to abolish most of their offensive weapons. >I believe this is a retraction of the policy. This isn't the first time some off the wall thing said by the President is later corrected with the now-familiar explanation "The President misspoke." Of course there is no intent to share SDI technology. It will be one of the most advanced weapons systems we have ever constructed, if it ever is approved, and will be treated as such. Can anyone explain to me why this shouldn't be viewed as an offensive/defensive system? Anything that can shoot down missiles can shoot down satellites, blinding the Soviets intelligence in preparation for a first strike. Of course, the Soviets can protect their satellites, and we can develop means to counteract the protection, and .... wheeeee! Here we go, an arms race in space... Mike Kelly ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 01:22:15 est From: ericson@NYU-CSD1.ARPA (Lars Warren Ericson) To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Nuclear build-down/sharing technology As for SDI: Reagan Administration officials, at least a month ago, were reported in the New York Times to have retracted the promise to share information on SDI implementation with the Russians. Why are people still talking about this as if it were policy? Given the Reagan Administration's past history, this was promise was easily as specious as the identification of ketchup with vegetables. The promise itself, regardless of the utterer, has been attacked on two grounds: first, the Russians could not trust our designs, because we could be giving them a Trojan Horse; second, if we were not, they could turn our openness against us, scrutinizing our true plans for weaknesses. ...I couldn't have said it better myself! ...Al Banner