MG9G%CMCCTF@sri-unix.UUCP (07/17/84)
The benefit comes from the fact that all strategic sattelites occupying GEO would be destroyed. Obviously this would hurt both countries -- but about 80%, I believe the article said, of US strategic (read military) sattelites are in GEO, while nearly 80% of Russian military/strategic sattelites are NOT in GEO. Thus, the US would be hurt much more than the USSR. --------
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (07/19/84)
>The benefit comes from the fact that all strategic sattelites occupying >GEO would be destroyed. Obviously this would hurt both countries -- but >about 80%, I believe the article said, of US strategic (read military) >sattelites are in GEO, while nearly 80% of Russian military/strategic >sattelites are NOT in GEO. Thus, the US would be hurt much more than >the USSR. I don't see any benefit here, I see levels of hurt. When someone's got thier hand over yours and you hit it with a hammer, you do not benefit simply because he has more broken bones than you do. Neither can write a poem. I challange the assumtion that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. are in a zero sum game where damage to one is benefit to the other. It has never been proved, and we are not at war - contrary to popular belief. In fact, we live on the same planet, breath the same air, drink the same water, and fear the same weapons. We are completely dependent on each other for our security. Our fates are inextricably bound. We'd better realize that.