karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (09/21/85)
I read on the AP wire yesterday that the SOLWIND (P78-1) satellite, target of last week's ASAT test, was transmitting useful scientific information right up to the time of impact. Pretty symbolic of the military's rape of the basic sciences, if you ask me. Phil
ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/25/85)
Perhaps this info was being gathered and relayed by another, more useful satellite. Why not get all the facts first. Moreover, rather than make snide remarks about the military I think they deserve a round of applause for a successful test. Not only is the ASAT program progressing nicely, but compared to the Soviet version, ours is a bargain.
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (09/29/85)
For those of you who would like to know why I am so outraged by Reagan's recent decision to test the ASAT, the arguments against ASAT testing are well expressed in the Scientific American article "Antisatellite Weapons", on pages 45-55 of the June 1984 issue. I cannot do the article justice by summarizing it here, so I strongly recommend that everyone interested in this topic read the article before continuing this discussion. Phil
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (10/01/85)
> I read on the AP wire yesterday that the SOLWIND (P78-1) satellite, target of > last week's ASAT test, was transmitting useful scientific information right > up to the time of impact. > Not only that, accoring to Aviation Leak and Space Technology, some of the mission scientists were pretty upset about destroying the satellite. Furthermore, the same issue said that DOD plans to scrap the ASAT program after a few tests to save money.
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (10/01/85)
I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear
missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they
only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.
I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil. We are
talking about a defensive weapon here. Why don't you anti-ASAT people
go campaign against machine guns. They have killed more people than an
ASAT ever will.
Sean
--
- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
- Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
- University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPAfisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.) (10/02/85)
>(Approximate) >The Soviets DO have an ASAT... >Why not complain about THEIR space junk Since when do two wrongs make a right? Since we depend far more heavily on military satellites than they do, how will our having an ASAT offset the fact that they have one? Burns UUCP: ... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher ARPA: fisher%dvinci.dec@decwrl.ARPA
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (10/02/85)
> I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear > missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they > only stop 10%, that's more people that will live. > > I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil. We are > talking about a defensive weapon here. Why don't you anti-ASAT people > go campaign against machine guns. They have killed more people than an > ASAT ever will. > > Sean So, supposing that the USA and USSR have 46 times overkill, then the ASAT will cut that down to 41.4. All right! I'll only be 90% as dead! ASAT's don't kill people, they just provide a false sense of security. People kill people. -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (10/02/85)
> I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear > missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they > only stop 10%, that's more people that will live. You are making a common mistake, that of confusing anti-satellite weapons ("ASATs") with the Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI" or "Star Wars"), a so-called "research program" to develop ways to shoot down nuclear missiles. While some elements of the technology are the same, the first task is far easier than the second. > I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil. We are > talking about a defensive weapon here. Why don't you anti-ASAT people > go campaign against machine guns. They have killed more people than an > ASAT ever will. Until now, military satellites have been one of the VERY few technological innovations that have contributed to (instead of undermining) stability. They are the "eyes and ears" of each country's military staff. By providing the means to see what the other side is up to, satellites decrease the chances of being taken completely by surprise. By relaying communications to their nuclear forces, they improve the credibility of the "deterrent". Threatening these satellites can only aggravate an already dangerous situation. How would you respond if an important "spy" satellite suddenly stopped transmitting? Assume a technical failure? Assume the worst, namely that an attack is imminent? Blinding somebody who has a shotgun aimed at you is not a wise move, nor is stocking up on acid in preparation for such a move. The other reason why the ASAT test is such a bad decision is because neither side currently has the ability to attack satellites much above a few thousand kilometers. Our most important early-warning and communications satellites are generally in geostationary orbits, and were safe as long as the Soviet moratorium held. Now that Reagan has broken the moratorium, I fully expect a free-for-all to ensue in which ASATs capable of destroying satellites even in GEO to be developed. The result could be a disaster. Again, I'd like to strongly recommend the article on Antisatellite Weapons in the June 1984 issue of Scientific American. These points and many others are discussed in excellent detail. Phil
brent@poseidon.UUCP (Brent P. Callaghan) (10/03/85)
>I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear >missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they >only stop 10%, that's more people that will live. > >I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil. We are >talking about a defensive weapon here. Why don't you anti-ASAT people >go campaign against machine guns. They have killed more people than an >ASAT ever will. Wrong! The current ASAT weapons are designed to knock down spy satellites in long-term, well defined orbits. They are totally ineffective against sub-orbital nuclear warheads and have no ability to recognise decoys. Spy satellites are a vital tool in nuclear limitation treaty verification. They have done more to reduce cold war tensions than any amount of politicking. Shame on those who threaten the continued existence of the humble spy satellite. A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars. What's more, it is verifyable. How will we ever be sure of the "knock down" ratio of the completed SDI ? Can we honestly believe that it will be 90% and can the U.S. maintain the system at that level for any length of time? -- Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ {ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent (201) 576-3475
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/04/85)
In article <2258@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: > >I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear >missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they >only stop 10%, that's more people that will live. > >I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil. We are >talking about a defensive weapon here. Why don't you anti-ASAT people >go campaign against machine guns. They have killed more people than an >ASAT ever will. > >- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or >- Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean >- University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA Sorry, Sean, but you're confusing ASAT with SDI. ASAT only kills satellites, and not ballistic missiles. As for your comment about stopping 10% of the warheads: well, if those war- heads were going toward our Minuteman silos, yes, SDI enhances the silo's survivability. On the other hand, if those warheads are going toward a city, it is not clear if significantly more people will survive. In general, one warhead leaking through SDI to hit a city is unacceptable, in my judgement. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/05/85)
I decry the politicization of this list. --JoSH
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/05/85)
> I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear > missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. ... > -- > > - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or > - Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean > - University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA Huh? What does the ASAT have to do with nuclear missiles? Doesn't 'ASAT' stand for "Anti-SATilite"? Currently, there are no ORBITAL nuclear missles (that we are being told about). -- Dave Messer ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer) (10/05/85)
> A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive > alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars. > What's more, it is verifyable. How will we ever be sure of > the "knock down" ratio of the completed SDI ? Can we honestly > believe that it will be 90% and can the U.S. maintain the system > at that level for any length of time? > -- > > Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan > AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ > {ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent > (201) 576-3475 Hmmm. Lets see, currently the USSR has an "overkill" ratio on the order of 10 to one, so if we got a 50% reduction, they can only wipe us out 5 times. On the other hand, they can never know how effective SDI is unless they launch an attack; that might be a mistake if SDI turns out to be 99.99% effective. I don't think I would risk it if I were them. So, suppose the US wants to preemptively attack the USSR and SDI turns out to be only 70% effective; both sides get it. You know, if we can't tell how good SDI really is, either side would be pretty foolish to test it. It seems to me that a trillion dollars (wildly pessimistic) would not be too high a price for makeing ICBMs unusable for a first strike. -- Dave Messer ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/05/85)
In article <1296@poseidon.UUCP> brent@poseidon.UUCP (Brent P. Callaghan) writes: > >A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive >alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars. >What's more, it is verifyable. How will we ever be sure of >Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan > AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ > {ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent > (201) 576-3475 I don't think it is verifiable. I can name two things that defy counting: our cruise missiles, and their reloadable silos (while you can count the holes, you *don't* know how many missiles are associated with each one.) -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/05/85)
In article <649@decwrl.UUCP> fisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108.) writes: > >Since when do two wrongs make a right? Since we depend far more heavily on >military satellites than they do, how will our having an ASAT offset the fact >that they have one? > >Burns > Is it acceptable for the Soviets to have the capability to kill our birds, while we do not? I don't think so. The so-called "ban on space weapon testing" the Soviets put in place is a crock: they've had years to test their own weapon. If they could stifle development of our ASAT, they win big. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (10/06/85)
In article <2258@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: > >I am completely for the ASAT tests. Anything that can shoot down nuclear >missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me. Even if they >only stop 10%, that's more people that will live. Sean, you're confusing ASAT with SDI. They have very little to do with each other. ASAT is a method of killing satellites; the weapons the Soviets and the Americans have tested are useless against missiles. Trying to perfect the ability to destroy enemy satellites is very bad (both when we do it and when the Russians do it), because: 1) if several important spy satellites malfunction at about the same time, we (or the Russians) might assume that the other side has destroyed them in preparation for a nuclear attack (why else would you destroy enemy reconnaissance satellites?), and shoot "first"; 2) testing ASAT creates large amounts of hazardous debris; a few more tests may make low earth orbit unusable for satellites and unsafe for manned missions (in practice, the orbits of the debris may decay rapidly, getting rid of most of the junk, but what about when we, or they, start going after satellites in higher orbits (like geosynchronous)? I don't think SDI will work either, but that's a completely different debate. One can think of ASAT as a means of destroying the enemy's defenses in space; ASAT itself is NOT defensive at all. It is in the strong interest of both sides to immediately agree to stop all ASAT testing. Such a treaty is easily verifiable. If we don't do it, and both sides accelerate testing, space will not be safe for large structures or for manned missions. My opinions only, -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (10/07/85)
> > I decry the politicization of this list. > > --JoSH I decry the weaponization of space. Since the superpowers have seen fit to escalate the arms race to space, I don't see how a space discussion group can avoid talking about space weapons and their implications. Phil
Carter@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (_Bob) (10/10/85)
From: bellcore!petrus!karn at ucb-vax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil R. Karn)
I decry the weaponization of space.
Since the superpowers have seen fit to escalate the arms race to space,
I don't see how a space discussion group can avoid talking about space
weapons and their implications.
There is a real difference between a general-information list and a
political one (on which people tend either to preach to the converted
or to exchange invective with their enemies). I think it's legitimate
to keep them separate.
Flamery in pursuit of the Star-Wars and ASAT issues seems to have
killed ARMS-D, and it would be shame to see that happen to SPACE
as well. I'm with JoSH.
_Bix241@sdcc6.UUCP (ix241) (10/11/85)
I would have to say that most of the 'debris' has fallen into net.space. John Testa UCSD Chemistry sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix241