Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker
From: speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
Message-ID: <3925@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 22:44:46 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3925
Posted: Fri Nov 18 22:44:46 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Nov-83 00:53:22 EST
References: <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 22

Something the unwashed masses don't seem to understand is why
we don't have ABMs and why they were abolished.  Anti-ballistic
missles seem like a great idea don't they?  Purely defensive
weapons used to protect the country from a first strike rather
than initiate a nuclear exchange (actually Moscow still has some).
Simple, huh?

Turns out, however, that with ABMs there's more of a likelyhood
of a world leader saying to himself, "Well, I'm protected by
MY ABMs so I'll try to cream my opponent with a first strike."

Without ABMs everyone lives under the threat of anhialation...
and supposedly with this arrangment no one will attempt
to start a nuclear war.  In other words, we give everyone
very very sharp swords and no shields.

But then there's this talk of a winnable nuclear war...
-- 

					- Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
					speaker@umcp-cs
					speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay