daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (The devil himself) (07/29/86)
Return-Path: <pyramid!kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 15:01:28 pdt From: pyramid!kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #122 Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d To: voder!nsc!ihnp4!abnji!politics > Date: Saturday, 12 July 1986 12:25-EDT > From: maynard!campbell at ucbvax.berkeley.edu > To: arms-dXX.LCS.MIT.EDU > re: 10 warheads > Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d > Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. > > > ...Just > >what constitutes "extensive protection" against ICBMs (personally I > >don't mind 10 warheads getting through but would object to 1000) > >and just how likely SDI is to achieve it is a different question... > > > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry > > Gee, Henry, I don't know about you, but 10 warheads would definitely > ruin MY day. Seriously, what bothers me most about SDI is that it > attempts to solve what is essentially a POLITICAL problem with > TECHNICAL means. This is compounded by the Reagan administration's > demonstrated contempt for political solutions. It's much better to > simply prevent the missiles from ever being fired than it is to > attempt to construct untestable defenses which by their nature > require a level of performance that most workers in the field > publicly state is impossible to achieve. > -- > Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works Inc. > ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA > UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 What bothers me most about the opposition to SDI (whose value as a system is completely separate from the advisability of building it), is the desire to solve an essentially POLITICAL problem with MORE POLITICS. It is, indeed, "much better to simply prevent the missles from ever being fired", but that is rather like saying "it is much better to simply prevent bad things from happening". The unavoidably adversarial nature of free societies and the Soviet Union make it impossible for sufficient trust to be developed in both directions that nuclear weapons can go away. Why do some people have more trust in TECHNICAL solutions than POLITICAL solutions? Because TECHNICAL solutions require no trust of the Soviet Union, something likely to change over time in unpredictable ways. IF a technical solution can be developed, it doesn't require trust of the good intentions of the Soviet Union -- something that many people in this country manage to delude themselves about, time and time again. Clayton E. Cramer -------
cramer@kontron.UUCP (08/10/86)
> Date: Saturday, 12 July 1986 12:25-EDT > From: harvard.harvard.edu!maynard!campbell at ucbvax.berkeley.edu > To: arms-dXX.LCS.MIT.EDU > re: 10 warheads > Newsgroups: mod.politics.arms-d > Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. > > > ...Just > >what constitutes "extensive protection" against ICBMs (personally I > >don'tmind 10 warheads getting through but would object to 1000) and > >just how likely SDI is to achieve it is a different question. ... > > > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry > > Gee, Henry, I don't know about you, but 10 warheads would definitely > ruin MY day. Seriously, what bothers me most about SDI is that it > attempts to solve what is essentially a POLITICAL problem with > TECHNICAL means. This is compounded by the Reagan administration's > demonstrated contempt for political solutions. It's much better to > simply prevent the missiles from ever being fired than it is to > attempt to construct untestable defenses which by their nature > require a level of performance that most workers in the field > publicly state is impossible to achieve. > -- > Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. > ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston > UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 What bothers me most about the opposition to SDI (whose value as a system is completely separate from the advisability of building it), is the desire to solve an essentially POLITICAL problem with MORE POLITICS. It is, indeed, "much better to simply prevent the missles from ever being fired", but that is rather like saying "it is much better to simply prevent bad things from happening". The unavoidably adversarial nature of free societies and the Soviet Union make it impossible for sufficient trust to be developed in both directions that nuclear weapons can go away. Why do some people have more trust in TECHNICAL solutions than POLITICAL solutions? Because TECHNICAL solutions require no trust of the Soviet Union, something likely to change over time in unpredictable ways. IF a technical solution can be developed, it doesn't require trust of the good intentions of the Soviet Union -- something that many people in this country manage to delude themselves about, time and time again. Clayton E. Cramer -------