Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: ARROW ABMM Keywords: What's going on here? Message-ID: <8886@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 9 Aug 89 03:57:55 GMT References: <8797@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 61 Approved: military@att.att.com From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <8797@cbnews.ATT.COM>, arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) writes: > It is my understanding that American taxpayers are funding, > to the tune of $65.2 million per year, an Israeli > development called the Arrow. I don't know if it's the Arrow or not; however, Israel does have some SDI R&D contracts. The U.S. has been urging all interested friendly nations to join in, partly to help have SDI accepted politically (or economically...) by NATO et al. > 2. Does this not violate the ABM Treaty? Whether or not SDI violates the ABM treaty is a matter for talk.politics; I have my own very firm opinion, but this isn't the place for it. In any event, I believe that the Israeli project is directed towards intercepting short and medium range missle, those that would be used by its likely opponents. I don't think the ABM treaty covers that case. > 3. Why would we not develop such an advanced weapon > ourselves particularly in light of the fact that we are > paying for it? We don't have the engineering staff to pursue all possible options. There's another point, rather more subtle. It may appear a bit tangential to sci.military, but I don't think so; logistics are a part of military strategy as well. Modern warfare is technological. Furthermore, the state of the art is such that you *can't* come online instantaneously; you have to have the trained corps of engineers, technicians, etc. How do you maintain such a staff during peacetime? Once a war starts, you won't have time; they can't master the necessary body of knowledge quickly enough to help. The obvious answer is that you subsidize them to do something related, preferably something that's also politically acceptable. (Military expenditures during peacetime are not very popular.) Much of the early U.S. space program was there for this very reason -- to keep aerospace engineers employed doing something related to missle and jet plane design. Having them actually build weapons wouldn't have flown, so to speak, nor would direct subsidies to Boeing et al. for civilian aircraft have been contemplated at the time. (Reference for all this: "The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Program". I forget the author, but the book won a Pulitzer Prize, I believe.) I think that a lot of SDI is like this. If it works (obviously debated), it may or may not be useful (another topic for talk.politics). But in the interim, it's providing employment for lots of technical types -- people who can be redeployed to doing something immediately useful in event of a crisis. Funding Israel to do development of this has similar effects -- it strengthens the technological base of a strategic ally. (Note here that I'm very carefully not saying that Israel is morally right or wrong, simply that the U.S. perceives a long-term strategic or geopolitical benefit to the alliance. Again, I have some very firm (and sometimes loud) opinions, but I'll keep them out of this newsgroup.) --Steve Bellovin