giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (11/21/83)
[10 .. 9 .. 8 .. 7 .. 6 .. 5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. ] GROW UP!!!! Anybody who seriously thinks about nuclear weapons for more than 5 nanoseconds will realize that our #1 concern is *NOT* Russia. Granted, they can inflict the greatest damage to us, but they know we can clobber them also. But, so long as it is the best interest of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. not to have a nuclear war, we will not have a nuclear war. The serious problem is if a lunatic and/or fanatic and/or power-crazy third-world politician gets a nuclear weapon. After all, can you see bombing Iran or Libya completely into the dark ages because a terrorist who *may* be associated with that country tried to bomb New York, London, Paris, or any other western (or eastern) city? (Granted, that may only take a single tactical warhead :-)). This is (fortunately) not a serious problem *yet*, but I remember reading somewhere that Quadafi was willing to pay megabucks for a nuclear warhead. (I think I saw that in Newsweek). While terrorists may be able to smuggle the bomb under the ABM system, there is still the problem of accidental launch. After all, accidents do happen. For example, remember the missile that blew up in its silo a few years ago, propelling the warhead a good distance away? Hopefully, the side which accidently launched a missile would (1) explode it (chemically, not nuclearily) at a safe attitude, and (2) immediately call the other side and let them know what was happening. However, I would feel a lot safer if I knew *each* side could destroy the missile if the self-destruct did not work, instead of taking out Hamberg or Kiev. Finally, I doubt that we will ever go to the extent (read: expense) of being able to knock out *all* incoming warheads in a *major* strike. However, I would fully support an ABM system capable of knocking out everything up to a moderate size attack, primarily because it would give us more breathing room in a crisis. After all, we would probabily start will small exchanges in the beginning of the crisis, exactly what this type of system is designed to quench. [If this continues we need to move to net.nuclear.flames.] Bruce Giles decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP) UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)
mwe@astrovax.UUCP (11/22/83)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Message-ID: <140@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Nov-83 15:05:11 EST
CP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 14
I must strongly disagree with one point in Bruce Giles article.
An ABM system capable of taking out moderate strikes is exactly what
we don't need. Of course, any defensive system is destabalizing to the
current balance of terror, but from the Russian point of view, what use
could a defense against moderate strikes be put to? Why, only to shoot
down a second strike of course, and they would be very nervous (probably
to the point of being forced to the infamous "launch on warning").
How would you feel if you found out that the Soviets were deploying a
defense that wasn't capable of stopping an all out strike by the US,
but could shoot down about the number of missiles we would have left after
a first strike by them?
--
Web Ewell Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!mwe