gsp@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Perlman) (08/16/84)
These comments do not necessarily represent the options of AT&T. I was watching a CBS news show and feel compelled to make some observations about the so-called Star Wars defense movement. Star Wars, as supported by President Reagan, looks at the possibilities of advanced technology anti-weaponry like particle beams and X-ray lasers to pick missiles out of the air before they hit their targets. The logic is that as much as 95% of the missiles targeted at the U.S. could be thwarted, making it impossible to knock out the U.S. counter-strike capability. Research into the possibilities is being pushed through the House for between $25 and $50 billion, and for a working system to be installed, proponents speak of bills in the $500 billion range. I am so strongly opposed to this plan that I am going to leave my usual apolitical stance to speak out against it. There are so many flaws in the plan, that there has to be some movement against it. It will be impossible to mount a campaign comparable to the proponents because of their massive financial interest and organization. Think of it, defense contractors looking for the largest contracts ever. Military personnel, with sure bet prospects of lucrative consulting jobs, say they have only the country's well-being at stake. I don't believe it. I don't want you to either, or at least, I would like you to think about the problem. Besides the end, we are talking about enough money to give a college education to every unemployed person in the country. If I thought the military and contractors were simply greedy but supporting a basically sound plan, I would not speak out against it. Consider the 95% figure quoted. The person making this claim discarded a child's question about the other 5%, saying that we have to think about how many we are stopping. I think that is like buying a car from one dealer because the percentage markdown is higher simply because the dealer begins from a high price. Five percent of a few thousand nuclear warheads is still enough to economically cripple this country. I have long thought that hitting New York alone would have devastating economic impact so that I would probably die at the hands of a crazed stock investor. Still, the 95% figure is impressive, though perhaps not if you believe as I do that these defensive weapons are highly prone to attack. If the proposed weapons are in orbit as planned, then they should be as easy a moving target as possible, and they would not be camouflaged. Suppose some enemy decided to use some cheap ground-based beam to pick each one off, one by one? What could we do? Nuke them? No, that would be suicide. We might knock out their satellites, because we would want to be sure to revenge a $500 billion loss, but then we would be as vulnerable than before. I see no merits for the Star Wars plan. The logic seems faulty. the motivation of the proponents is suspect. I maintain that a half a dozen bombs hitting major U.S. cities would reduce the whole country to an uncivilized mess. As it stands now, I see the present fleet of nuclear subs roaming the seas for months after an attack an effective and expensive enough deterrent. I urge you to adopt a stand on this important issue and write your representatives. A simple note is almost as good as a detailed one, but any note is infinitely more powerful than nothing. Gary Perlman