space@mit-mc (03/29/85)
From: John Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA>
While I don't believe that SDI (aka Star Wars) would solve the problem
of nuclear defense even if it lived up to Reagan's wildest hopes, which it
almost surely will not, I suspect that research into SDI may lead to some
interesting (from a military point of view) offensive weapons. Six years ago,
I worked in the military energy group a company whose specialty was analysis of
the "Soviet Threat." At that time, there was a good deal of interest in using
high energy lasers ("HELs" as everbody refered to them) as tactical weapons. I
saw at least one paper that outlined a system using very large lasers on space
platforms as space-to-air defensive and space-to-surface offensive weapons.
The virtues of such a system are that it could destroy large tactical or small
strategic targets (ships, communication facilities, missle silos) "surgically"
- i.e. without damage to surrounding structures. No blast, no radiation. In
peacetime the platform power supply (huge solar panels or a fairly large
reactor pumping out somewhere on the order of 10^8 watts) could send usable
power to earth by defocussing the beam. So called "surgical" strategic weapons
have great appeal in the military, since the threat of mutual assured
destruction following the use of nuclear weapons on strategic targets has
limited modern warfare to relatively small tactical engagements. Threatening
to use nuclear weapons in response to any provocation short of nuclear attack
is like your first grade buddy threatening to hit you with a bat if you shoot
rubber bands at him again. He probably could, but you know he isn't going to
do it, he knows he isn't going to do it, so you zip one off your finger at him
and run away laughing. On the other hand, if he threatened to shoot you with a
paper clip, you might think twice. Military planners have been looking for
strategic paper clips since 1954, when the hydrogen bomb made baseball bat
warfare "obsolete".
Since most people still believe that thermonuclear weapons have made
general war impossible, the notion of developing a completely new offensive
weapons system seems pointless to them. Others recognize that limited war is
still possible, at least in theory, and don't like the idea of weapons systems
of limited destructiveness that could make it less painful to break the
strategic stalemate. If these weapons are developed as part of a defensive
research program, however, the risk of public opposition is much smaller. This
is not to say that I believe the SDI program is an offensive program in
disguise, since the offensive weapons I have mentioned above are orders of
magnitude larger than any of the defensive systems that have been discussed
publicly. However, there is usually a very fine line betwen offensive and
defensive technology, as the framers of the ABM treaty were well aware. I
wouldn't be surprised if offensive space weapons are already in the works, and
those who are concerned about their undermining the present nuclear peace, or
about the growth of military operations in space, should be on guard.
Johnhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/02/85)
> ...I > wouldn't be surprised if offensive space weapons are already in the works, and > those who are concerned about their undermining the present nuclear peace, or > about the growth of military operations in space, should be on guard. I hate to tell you this, but offensive space weapons already exist. They are called "ballistic missiles", and they spend all but the first few seconds and the last few seconds of their *working* lives in space. They're dangerous, and should be banned. A bit late for that, though... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry