[net.space] ABM Systems in Space

arlan (04/01/83)

[Since this .group seems moribund, let's spice it up a bit, shall we?]

I applaud Reagan's ABM system stance.  We should take war into space and
keep it there if possible.  

I cannot believe the incredibly stupid comments against ICBM defense:
"We'll pollute outer space" [isn't 100 megatons better out there than down
                            here?]

"We'll be more likely to attack the Russians" [Sure; believe that and I'll
                                              give you a ticket to Afghanistan,
                                              Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
                                              or points East...]

"It can't be done; it's like shooting at a dime with a rifle from 19 miles..."
[Gee, that one hasn't been dusted off since July 19, 1969]

For those who are interested, the very last American ABM launched from
Kwajalein in the 1970s physically knocked down the ICBM warhead launched
from Vandenberg, so I heard.  No warheads needed!

Everyone seems to forget that right now, there is ZERO defense against
an incoming warhead.  What's going to happen when a crazy Red launched
just one?  Do we absorb it?  Do we hit back, just once?  Or do they
decide to launch everything?

A minimal ABM system would allow flexibility, not to mention saving
tens of millions of lives--ours and theirs.
--arlan andrews, abi/indy

geo (04/07/83)

Sorry Arlan, I don't think you, or Reagan, quite understands
the nature of the Arms Race.  If I am building a system that
renders me safe from your attack, then you must attack me
now, before I am finished, or give up your option to do so.

Let me recommend to you the book, "Offense and Defense in the
International System", by George H Quester.  His main thesis is
that peace depends upon the nature of the current military technology.
He suggests that if the current military technology favours the
defensive, even 'Hawks' keep the peace, and that if the technology
favours the offensive, even 'Doves' make war.  World War One, in
this view was the result of mistaken evaluation on the part of
the decision makers; they thought that the current technology
favoured the offensive, and they were wrong.

crc (04/08/83)

The thesis that if the military technology favors the defensive even hawks
will keep the peace doesn't hold water.

The military technology of 1914 - machine guns and barbed wire vastly favored
the defensive, yet one of the bloodiest wars in history was fought then.