ARMS-D-Request@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (01/21/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, January 20, 1986 7:54PM
Volume 6, Issue 27
Today's Topics:
SDI as an offensive weapon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 03:34:02 PST
From: ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To arms-d-request
Subject: SDI as an offensive weapon
In a recent article, the "anti SDI" camp brought up the
potential offensive capabilities of space based lasers (burning cities, etc).
This is the strongest piece of evidence I have seen from the anti SDI
side, yet some dismissed the argument out of hand, saying
"yes, but, ... it isn't a perfect offense, they could retaliate."
This is a hypocritical response, since these same people
repeatedly support an imperfect defensive application.
More important, it misses the point completely.
I have not entered the "SDI feasibility" debate,
because I believe it borders on the irrelevant.
SDI is dangerously destabilizing whether it works or not.
If it has any offensive capability at all, this compounds the problem.
Let me assume the goal of SDI is to increase international
stability, and reduce the arms race. This is the advertised goal,
but you never know. Ideologists like Reagan may actually want the thing
because of its strong offensive capabilities, or technological delusions,
or whatever. at any rate, the goal should be to reduce the arms race.
We know from the start that SDI is not 100% guaranteed perfect,
nor is it a physical impossibility (though it comes pretty close).
Therefore, when we begin development, the Soviets, who are incredibly paranoid,
will wonder "but what if SDI does work, there is a chance.
Besides, it might have offensive capabilities."
Just to be safe, they will have to build more missiles.
This chain of events follows whether SDI is an effective defense/offense,
or orbiting computers stuck in infinite loops.
Our government, who is equally paranoid without comparable excuses,
will wonder "but what if SDI doesn't work, there is a chance."
Since the Soviets now have more bombs, we will have to build more bombs,
just in case it fails. Just call SDI the 25th leg of the hypertriad.
Now the Soviets see that we again have the same number of missiles as they,
yet we also have SDI, which might work, so they better build more
missiles. Iterate forever.
Since the Soviets cannot build a comparable ABM system,
the asymmetry exists forever, driving the reaction to certain destruction.
During Safeguard (don't you love these idiotic euphemisms),
some very wise people saw the inevitable consequences of these ABM programs,
and signed a treaty prohibiting these necessarily destabilizing systems.
Reagan, who is technically illiterate, and incapable of learning
from history, has resurrected the ABM spector of death for us all.
karl dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************