Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Pegasus
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055602.13818@amd.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 15:37:14 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.055442.14741@amd.com> <1991Apr13.014851.22702@amd.com> <1991Apr16.041607.28295@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 21
Approved: military@amd.com


From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)


In article <1991Apr16.041607.28295@amd.com> prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>How far could one go with this sort of thing before concerns would be
>raised about such a vehicle having a ASAT capability and therefore being
>regulated by the ABM treaty?

The ABM Treaty doesn't restrict the development of ASATs per se, but
rather restricts the deployment of ABM launchers and tracking radars
and prohibits development of "exotic" systems.  One loophole in the
1972 treaty would allow testing of interceptor systems in an ASAT
capacity.  Congressional opposition, not bilateral agreements, is a
greater obstacle to ASAT research....

	[Any further discussion along this line should probably go to
	 ARMS-D if its still around, not sci.military, since treaties
	 don't fall within the group's charter. --CDR]

-shane