karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr3.223200.9420@novell.com> tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes: >In article <670552208.6477@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com >(Chuck Karish) writes: >>In article <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> swoodcoc@isis.UUCP >>(Steven Markus Woodcock) writes: >>> With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when >>>it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral >>>M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival). >> >>It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself >>that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent >>tool in an offensive setting. I see no clear-cut moral distinction >>between the two concepts. > >So you see no difference between a scud and a patriot? Both are tactical weapons. They have precious little to do with the topic of this thread. >And you see no clear cut moral distinctions between defense and an >indiscriminate weapon of terror. The weapons that make up SDI have no inherent moral content. Unless one accepts Mr. Woodcock's premise that "we" are the Good Guys and will always behave honorably, you have to consider that these tools could be used either in a defensive or in an offensive context. The SDI shield would be much more effective after an American first strike, after the enemy's missiles are mostly destroyed. SDI weapons could be used to destroy enemy surveillance satellites in any sort of conflict. Some of the directed-energy weapons originally proposed might have been usable to destroy targets on the ground. Inasmuch as SDI makes the idea of a winnable nuclear war more attractive, it's part of the "indiscriminate weapon of terror" that makes up the MAD deterrent. Scuds are, at least, aimable; fallout isn't. Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000