ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/03/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, December 2, 1985 6:36PM
Volume 5, Issue 33
Today's Topics:
Star Wars - The Wall Street Journal and Scientific American
Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 13:27:00 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Star Wars - The Wall Street Journal and Scientific American
Some interesting quotes from "Analyzing Risks - In Star Wars
Debate, Tactical Issues Nearly Get Lost In The Shuffle", a front
page piece in the Oct 15, 85 western edition of the Wall Street Journal.
...
I found this quite interesting, considering that up until now the
WSJ has been a supporter of Reagan and his Star Wars policies.
There is a big split at the WSJ between the reporting staff and the
editorial staff. The editorial staff -- responsible for most of their
pro-SDI pap -- has bordered on utterly irresponsible. Also, the
biggest raver -- Greg Fossedal -- is no longer with the WSJ.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 2 Dec 1985 15:13:54 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: A High Tech Maginot Line
The "High Tech Maginot Line" is an excellent description. People have
been attacking SDI in very unimaginative ways -- saying that it couldn't
perform its intended function (shooting down ICBM's). This is analogous
to saying that the Maginot line really wouldn't survive the kind of
attack it was intended to face (frontal assault).
The better way to criticize SDI is to note that it will cost hundreds
of billions of dollars, then imagine all the new radically different
kinds of *offensive* weapons that an adversary could develop with that
kind of budget. I offered as an example Orion-type space warships.
An even better example is ultra-high yield thermonuclear weapons
(> 1000 MT) detonated far offshore, destroying coastal areas by massive
tidal waves (these are probably not very expensive). Another example
would be a supersonic cruise missile with a nuclear-reactor powered
jet engine (since it would only fly once, and has no crew, nuclear
propulsion seems feasible). Nuclear propulsion might permit the
cruise missile to fly fast enough to avoid most defenses yet still
be able to fly intercontinental distances.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************