dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) (03/02/84)
I agree with Judd Rogers that a space treaty would be very hard to enforce, especially with the Soviets. They have already referred to the Shuttle as a space weapon, and they're hard at work building their own! I don't think we should sign any space weapons treaty, since space weapons can reduce the chances of an ICBM hitting me. There's already a treaty banning nuclear weapons in space, and that leaves satellite killers and ABM weapons. I think the Soviets are getting worried about our growing space weapons effort, and want to stop us before we gain an advantage. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
richard@sequent.UUCP (03/04/84)
>> .... They have >> already referred to the Shuttle as a space weapon, and they're >> hard at work building their own! If you don't believe the shuttle is a space weapon, you're pretty innocent. What do you think our Pentagon boys are so interested in it for? "Death-rays don't kill people, people kill people." ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard
al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/12/84)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Judd Rogers that a space treaty would be very hard to enforce, especially with the Soviets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Space treaties are not particularly hard to monitor. Launches are easy to spot and track although things can be hard to find once they lose themselves. Enforcing any treaty with the Soviets is impossible since we can't physically force them to stop anything, we can only follow suit. They seem to keep their word pretty well though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have already referred to the Shuttle as a space weapon, and they're hard at work building their own! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what. And bully for them on their shuttle..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we should sign any space weapons treaty, since space weapons can reduce the chances of an ICBM hitting me. There's already a treaty banning nuclear weapons in space, and that leaves satellite killers and ABM weapons. I think the Soviets are getting worried about our growing space weapons effort, and want to stop us before we gain an advantage. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Soviets have an excellent record in keeping their treaties, notwithstanding the blither blather in the media. They actually seem more into stoping this madness than we are. Monitoring is very important though, Russia cannot be trusted without independent verification. Space weapons may reduce the chance of an ICBM hitting you Dave, but they're useless against cruise missles, bombers, sub based missles if you live near the coast, and (probably) half a dozen things that are cooking in the labs. Space weapons are not really effective against nuclear bombs. They are effective against space systems, which include the shuttle, Ariane, space station, IRAS, every commercial booster, future space colonies, etc., etc. Another thing to add to your dreams: designs for 10 gigawatt space solar power systems exist. Hook those to space based laser weapons and the time it takes to deliver a killing blow to a country drops from the present 30 minutes to a few seconds. Think about it.