Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (10/07/85)
Here is a non-political (for Josh) injection of facts into the ASAT debate. 1) A long time ago (1960s), the US carried out ASAT tests similar to what the Russians have. We gave it up. 2) The US had a secret Nike Zeus base on Johnston Atoll. The Nike Zeus was originally designed as a nuclear-tipped ABM, but in this case was installed for ASAT use. The base was dismantled in the 70s (1975?). 3) The Homing Overlay experiments at Kwajelein Atoll (1 of 3 successful) provides a basic ASAT capability, as well as an exo-atmospheric ABM capability for which it is intended. The homing vehicle is launched from a ICBM-sized booster (a Minuteman booster?). Statements such as "We're far behind the Russians in ASAT research" or "We can't let them have a monopoly on ASATs" are false given the above facts.
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/08/85)
In article <8510071640.AA06325@s1-b.ARPA> Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Here is a non-political (for Josh) injection of facts into the ASAT debate. > >1) A long time ago (1960s), the US carried out ASAT tests similar to what >the Russians have. We gave it up. > >2) The US had a secret Nike Zeus base on Johnston Atoll. The Nike Zeus was >originally designed as a nuclear-tipped ABM, but in this case was installed >for ASAT use. The base was dismantled in the 70s (1975?). > >3) The Homing Overlay experiments at Kwajelein Atoll (1 of 3 successful) >provides a basic ASAT capability, as well as an exo-atmospheric ABM >capability for which it is intended. The homing vehicle is launched from >a ICBM-sized booster (a Minuteman booster?). > >Statements such as "We're far behind the Russians in ASAT research" or "We >can't let them have a monopoly on ASATs" are false given the above facts. Given that the Soviets *have* an operational ASAT system, and we don't, I don't see the above statments as false. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP ( Mike D McEvoy) (10/15/85)
One of the key (and most ignored by the ANTI-ASAT groups) reasons for building ASAT systems is to protect the carrier battle group. Our beloved comrades have several (many) observation platforms that are dedicated to observing these battle groups. According to several DOD reports, an operational carrier based ASAT system improves the survivability of the battle group by a factor of 2 to 10 by reducing the effective targeting accuracy of the russian delivery system (If you can't see them, you can't hit them (as easily)). Since the US uses the carrier battle group as one of the primary means of protecting our interests, how can such a system (carrier based ASAT systems) be viewed as destabilizing if it maintains the status quo?? It would seem to me that war would escalate very quickly if we lost this mainly conventional military force early in a major conflict. Please lower flames when responding....
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (10/16/85)
> Since the US uses the carrier battle group as one of the primary > means of protecting our interests, how can such a system (carrier based > ASAT systems) be viewed as destabilizing if it maintains the status quo?? > It would seem to me that war would escalate very quickly if we lost this > mainly conventional military force early in a major conflict. The answer to this is that an aircraft carrier isn't of much use if the geostationary satellites it uses for communication have been wiped out by a high-altitude ASAT. The Soviets do not currently possess such a weapon, and a ban on further testing of ASATs on both sides would prevent them from developing such a capability. The major function of the Soviet ocean reconnaissance satellites are radar observation and electronic intelligence gathering. According to Admiral Noel Gaylor, a member of the UCS panel on ASAT weapons, the means exist to protect ships from these satellites: spoofing the relatively weak radars, operating in electronic silence, and above all, relying on NAVSTAR for navigation and on tight line-of-sight beams to geostationary satellites for communications. I strongly suggest you read the UCS book "The Fallacy of Star Wars", ISBN 0-394-72894-7, before you decide this issue. This book has sections on both SDI and ASATs. Phil