redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) (12/01/85)
Paul Koloc writes: >The "monumental discovery" [in the Russian SDI program] is a compact >pulsed high power density fusion device based on work by Kurtmulleav >at K. P. The power source in addition as direct MHD drive for beam >weapons, may be for both a boost phase rocket engine and an electric >mode drive for pulsed "super high specific thrust" orbital engines. >This would reduce the cost of the "SDI" program by at least 10... A fusion reactor that was compact and powerful enough for use in rockets would indeed be a marvellous thing. I'm always impressed at how some claim that the Russians are on the verge of incredible breakthroughs, while others say that they need to steal all their technology from the West. However, a compact power source is just one of many major advances that would be needed for SDI. Given that you can power a fairly energetic beam (of something), it still has to be generated, aimed, put into space to begin with, and defended from someone throwing a rock at it in the opposite orbit. Cut the cost of SDI by 10? Not hardly. He also writes: >What must be done is to rid the solar system of fission devices; >even a commercial reactor could conceivably wipe out the concept >of humanity as we know it in a few short centuries. But like a >one year old 500 kg child playing with your shot gun, please >won't work. Try to give him something else, less deadly, that he >perceives as more fun. One basically has to "update" the defensive >power of the masses with something they would take pride and feel >psychologically secure. That means "put a substitute" defense >in place and then "scrap" the nuclear based one. This argument, that a good enough SDI will eliminate nuclear weapons, always baffles me. SDI wouldn't even protect against all the different kinds of weapons now in existence. Cruise missiles would still get through, and probably submarine-launched ones as well. The nuclear arms race is not going to get called off just because a defense is found against one part of the strategic triad. Furthermore, there have been nearly perfect defenses in the past, and they have not prevented war. In World War I, barbed wire and machine guns were an almost perfect defense against infantry attacks. Each side lost millions of men in hopeless assaults against fortified positions. So did they decide to call things off? Did they say "We cannot beat them, so let's negotiate."? Of course not. Instead they tried to beat the defense with offensive weapons like tanks, and ultimately they succeeded. Why would SDI be any different? Counter-measures to it are already being thought about. "Ridding the solar system of fission devices" would indeed be a great thing, but technical tricks like SDI won't do it. John Redford Posted: Sun 1-Dec-1985 13:54 Jerusalem Local Time (GMT+2) To: RHEA::DECWRL::"space@mc"