wrongLogin (04/04/83)
Aside from questions of feasibility and cost, there are
several serious criticisms of Reagan's Star Wars proposal.
1. There is a problem of preventing one side from merely
destroying the space platforms before launching an
attack.
2. Both sides would have to develop such systems
simultaneously; otherwise, one side would see itself
about to be rendered impotent. The dangers in such a
situation need not be elaborated.
3. There is some question whether the word "defensive"
retains any meaning in today's military environment.
Recall how the U.S. military establishment reacted to
the news of a purported massive Soviet civil DEFENSE
program.
4. The deployment of such systems does not eliminate the
threat of cruise missiles, biological or chemical
weapons, or conventional weapons. Indeed, it could
easily force reliance on such systems.
We have heard the "war to end all wars", "weapon to end
all weapons" argument many times before. The entire proposal
is typical of Reagan's childlike approach to difficult
problems.karn (04/05/83)
I agree with the criticisms voiced about Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" proposal. Considering that even ONE incoming warhead slipping through a defensive system would cause destruction on an unprecedented scale, and the many ways in which any ABM system, space-based or otherwise, could be circumvented, it really seems like a complete waste of money. There are much better applications of space for true defense, but the prerequisite is a level of political maturity and pragmatism that I don't anticipate in the current administration. For example, take the resources proposed for the space-based ABM system and put them instead on improved surveillance whose results are routinely made public. Let the whole world know exactly what our (good) surveillance capabilities are and exactly what the Soviets are up to. I then think that verifiable strategic arms reduction treaties become entirely practical, at a tiny fraction of the cost of an ABM system. Such a system would also have excellent spinoff benefits for earth resources and weather forecasting, but of course Reagan doesn't consider providing a common defense against nature (i.e., weather) to be a proper function of government - only defense against other humans. Phil
michael (04/06/83)
Rather than simultaneously creating 'killer satellites', lets simultaneously reduce and eliminate the weapons that these satellites are targeted for.
jonab (04/12/83)
Reply-To: jonab@sdcvax.uucp (Jonathan Biggar) Organization: System Development Corp. (A Burroughs Company) References: <houxb.231> <eagle.868> As far as I am concerned, anything that could stop even one warhead from reaching its target is worth many billions of dollars, especially if that target is a city. Jon Biggar dec-vax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!jonab
wolit (04/14/83)
Jon Biggar writes:
As far as I am concerned, anything that could stop even
one warhead from reaching its target is worth many billions
of dollars, especially if that target is a city.
Well, I disagree. If something that could stop even a thousand warheads
CAUSES, however indirectly, even one warhead to REACH its target, it's
not only a waste of every penny spent on it, but its construction is a
crime against humanity. If one superpower is led to believe that
its military power is about to be rendered useless, it might just
decide that it will never face better odds of "winning" a conflict
than right now. Further, if either side finds a false sense of
security in an ABM system (even if it is admitted to be less than
fully effective), it loses much of the incentive to find REAL
solutions to the threat of war, like exploring avenues of cooperation,
disarmament, etc. Finally, if a politician decides, in the face of the
overwhelming evidence that ANY currently conceived ABM system will not
work, to go ahead and promote it anyway, as a rallying point and a
smokescreen, he is performing an expensive and dangerous disservice to
his employers. But beyond all this, most of the military proponents of
an ABM system (most of whom are in the Army, since this is the service
that would "get the contract" and is the only one without a strategic
nuclear role right now) envision using it to defend land-based ICBMs,
NOT cities, since cities are both too fragile (near-misses are as good
as hits) and too difficult to defend (one hit on your ICBM field
leaves all the other missiles in that field intact). Given the
current debate about whether it's a good idea to have land-based ICBMs
at all, I question the wisdon of committing ourselves to their
defense.
Jan Wolitzky, BTL Murray Hill, rabbit!wolithenry (04/20/83)
Into the fray against Jan Wolitzky again (sorry, Jan): Most of the discussion I have seen on the topic of ballistic-missile defense confuses two important but secondary issues with the primary issue that is really behind all this. The secondary issues are the ones on which most of the debate is now focussed, while the primary issue deserves greater emphasis. The first of the secondary issues is how practical it is to set up such a system in the immediate future. Note that I say "in the immediate future", since anyone who presumes to predict what will be possible/practical 20 years from now is talking nonsense. There are people who have made stupid pronouncements about how fundamental laws of physics prevent such a thing from ever working; what they really mean is that THEY can't think of a way to make it work that does not violate the laws of physics. The history of technology offers endless examples of people who found ways around such silly pronouncements, not by violating the laws of physics but by finding new ways of applying them. This is a secondary issue because it is clearly a short-term worry. The odds that a workable method WILL be found, even if the current ideas don't pan out, approach 100%. The other secondary issue is how to get everybody set up with it simultaneously so nobody will feel they have to strike first before the other guy's defense system is ready. This is clearly important, but there are ways to handle it. Simply giving the other guy the technology to set up his own system is one way; putting the system under international administration of some kind is another. <flame on> The primary issue, which is being ignored by many people who argue against such systems, is DO YOU REALLY FIND IT ACCEPTABLE TO BE HELD HOSTAGE FOR YOUR LEADERS' GOOD BEHAVIOR??? The notion of peace through mutual assured suicide has been around for so long that some people seem incapable of seeing its disadvantages. I, for one, do not enjoy having a pistol held at my head 24 hours a day. The chances of war by accident, alone, suffice to make this situation totally unacceptable except as a temporary stopgap. This particular stopgap has already lasted too damn long. It's time, high time, long past time, for a serious effort to find something better. Note that I am *not* talking about piddling expenditures on long-range research -- I am talking about a major project to end the single biggest threat to your life and mine. It is probably premature to set a completion date for the project, since this depends on when the technology will be good enough to do the job, but it is *NOT* premature to get started. As for the expense, I do not advocate spending N billion on something that won't do the job, but I do advocate spending almost any amount on something that WILL. And I'm willing to spend quite a bit on something that has even a high probability of doing it. (Even if it lets a few warheads through, there's a fair chance that none of them will hit me. That's lots better than the chance I have now.) How much is your life worth to you? Mine is worth quite a bit to me. <flame off> Compared to this, all questions of how to build such a system and how to handle the tricky transition period are secondary. The need for such a thing is obvious; I rejoice that, at long last, somebody high enough up to have some influence on policy has made a commitment. About time, dammit! Henry Spencer U of Toronto
swatt (04/20/83)
Is there anybody who could post a 1-2 page summary of the arms race of the late 19th and early 20th century? It seems to me the very rapid advance of arms technology in that era and its climax in WW I might have relevance to what is going on today. - Alan S. Watt
sample (04/21/83)
The better they make the missile defense systems, the better they'll make the missiles. The proposed ABM system is just more fodder for the inatiable military/industrial complex.
wolit (04/21/83)
Henry Spencer thinks that whether or not an ABM system could work is not really a very important thing to think about before making its construction a highest national priority and committing many gigabucks to the attempt. There are many who believe that psi energy can manipulate objects at a distance. Most scientists don't believe THAT, either, so perhaps we should throw a few trillion into an ESP-ABM system and cover all our bets. His solution to the other "secondary" issue of an ABM system being destabilizing, and therefore MORE likely to cause a warhead to reach it's target (because it makes it more likely for the warhead to be launched), is even better: give the Russians an ABM system, too. Come on, Henry, Reagan won't even let a chess-playing computer into the USSR, for fear of giving them a technological edge! He's not about to hand over our most advanced military system. The fact that the Secretary of Defense shares your idea (or was it the other way around) gives you an idea of how desperate this administration is to get ANY defense bill through Congress. But, surprisingly, I find myself in complete agreement with Henry's "primary issue" -- that of wishing to remove the public from being held as hostages by the nuclear strategy of our leaders. That's why I'd like to see our land-based ICBM's removed completely. Because of advances in guidance system accuracies, they no longer represent a survivable deterrence; indeed, since their masters must "use them or lose them" in the event of a perceived threat, they are now useless to us in that role, and must be seen by our opponents as indicating our intention to start the shooting ourselves. Because of THIS, they invite a pre-emtive strike on our home territory, which is not exactly what you'd like a defensive system to do! And, speaking of "primary" issues, let's not forget that the '84 Presidential primaries are not many months away. The anti-nuclear rallies of last summer were enough to persuade Congress to drop production funding for the MX -- we have the opportunity now to force a real change for the better in our foreign policy. (Henry, since you've got a foriegn return address yourself, you're cordially invited not to respond to this point.) Jan Wolitzky, BTL MH, rabbit!wolit
jj (04/22/83)
Well, I'm a bit annoyed by this arguement, even though I agree completely with the thoughts about being held hostage by world leaders. (The elected ones worry me the least, by the way, it's the ones that have nothing at all to lose that bother me.) So, what am I disgusted about??? Several people have, quite jeeringly, and with little justification apparaant, pointed out that the "Star Wars" defense plan is totally unworkable, ridiculous, stupid, hopless, etc. While I don't make any technical arguements about the current plans, or even have any technical knowlege of them, (which is the same state my opponents occupy, it seems to me) I am reminded of a few other "unworkable" technical plans, such as a national phone system (which, it was argued in the 1930's, could never exist, since it would "consume" 35% of the population as operators), electric power (which was just FAR too expensive), space travel (There's nothing to PUSH against.), and so on. While I don't particularly like weapons, I like the idea of covering my own with a shield a lot better than that of covering theirs with plutonium. I am really annoyed at the utterly defeatest reaction of "It won't work!, It just can't!" and the jeering attitude that comes along with it. I've read the same articles that most other people have, and I can't see any fundamental limits, just some huge technical ones. Technical limits, as the phone system, computers, automobiles, and bumblebees show, have a way of disappearing in good time. In the future, I request that authors who feel the systems are impossible show us their reasoning, complete with a PROOF that a physical law is being VIOLATED. I do not accept engineering or technical difficulties as proof. Just consider the results of convincing Bell, Edison, Gottard, Columbus, and Fermi that their particular quest was "impractical." I think it's about time that we considered our defense, rather than our offense. If they (generic "they", please) can't hit us, then we're not threatened. If we aren't threatened, then I doubt very much that we will remain so utterly paranoid. "Give peace a chance" <and yes, I know that that's a misquote.> rabbit!<don't bother, I use raid on my mailbox>jj
wolit (04/22/83)
Jim Johnston reiterates a point made by Henry Spencer, among others, namely that ideas which were once considered technologically impossible are feasible and even commonplace today. Of course, this is true. It is also a good argument for continued funding of basic research, which I support. It is NOT a good idea, however, to throw huge amounts of money at a project that is currently, on good evidence, unfeasible. When Edison invented the light bulb, the government did not respond by supplying him with a large fraction of the Gross National Product. It certainly did not do so BEFORE he had a working model, let alone at a time when the best evidence was that light bulbs were impossible. Also, light bulbs are a good idea; there is still considerable doubt that a working ABM system would be. Jan Wolitzky