barry@ames.UUCP (Ken Barry) (08/31/84)
[==----------*ZAPP!!!!]
I'd like to throw an idea out for general comment and reaction.
Let's suppose, first of all, that we come up with some Star Wars space
defence that looks reasonable enough on paper to make it worth building.
Those unable to seriously entertain such a concept may as well stop reading,
here, and go on to the next article.
OK, let's say our best estimate is that it could stop 75% of
the incoming in a massive nuclear strike - could we not then eliminate
75% of our offensive capability unilaterally, without the seemingly impossible
task of getting both US and USSR to agree to an arms limitation treaty?
The idea, obviously, is that if only 25% of their incoming can get through,
we then need an offensive force only 25% of theirs to maintain parity.
The same logic would apply whatever the estimated effectiveness of the
defense was - plug in your favorite percentage.
So, OK, it's not a perfect formula for disarmament; a Soviet
space defense would complicate things if they didn't also make a voluntary
cutback on offense along with it. And further buildups of Soviet offense
would require the same from us, if we couldn't increase the stopping-power
of our defense. But it would at least scale things down somewhat, wouldn't
it?
The political practicality of such a unilateral reduction in
offensive capability is perhaps arguable, but I can cite some grounds
for believing in the possibility. First, the present administration's
distaste for arms reductions is irrelevant; it will take a good deal
longer than another 4 years to build a sizeable space defense, and Reagan
will be long gone. Public approval for reduction of the nuclear arsenal
seems, if anything, to be growing, and a practical plan for such reductions
which would not leave the country defenseless should get wide popular
support. And, finally, there's the matter of cost. Any credible defense
against atomic attack is bound to be large-scale, and quite expensive.
What could be more natural than cutting back our large expenditures on
offensive weapons as a way of getting the money to build the defense?
So, the question I'm asking is this: if you are opposed to the
Star Wars defense notions, would you still oppose it if:
1) It DID seem technically feasible, and;
2) It was tied to a build-DOWN of our offensive nuclear weapons.
Comments?
[The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry