Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)
From: giles@ucf-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS
Message-ID: <1085@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 12:54:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1085
Posted: Mon Nov 21 12:54:47 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 04:43:54 EST
References: <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>, <3925@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 52

[10 .. 9 .. 8 .. 7 .. 6  .. 5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. ]

GROW UP!!!!

Anybody who seriously thinks about nuclear weapons for more than 5
nanoseconds will realize that our #1 concern is  *NOT*  Russia.
Granted, they can inflict the greatest damage to us, but they know
we can clobber them also.  But, so long as it is the best interest of
both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. not to have a nuclear war, we will not
have a nuclear war.

The serious problem is if a lunatic and/or fanatic and/or power-crazy
third-world politician gets a nuclear weapon.

After all, can you see bombing Iran or Libya completely into the dark
ages because a terrorist who *may* be associated with that country tried
to bomb New York, London, Paris, or any other western (or eastern) city?

(Granted, that may only take a single tactical warhead :-)).

This is (fortunately) not a serious problem *yet*, but I remember
reading somewhere that Quadafi was willing to pay megabucks for a
nuclear warhead.  (I think I saw that in Newsweek).

While terrorists may be able to smuggle the bomb under the ABM system,
there is still the problem of accidental launch.  After all, accidents
do happen.  For example, remember the missile that blew up in its silo
a few years ago, propelling the warhead a good distance away?

Hopefully, the side which accidently launched a missile would (1) explode
it (chemically, not nuclearily) at a safe attitude, and (2) immediately
call the other side and let them know what was happening.

However, I would feel a lot safer if I knew *each* side could destroy
the missile if the self-destruct did not work, instead of taking out
Hamberg or Kiev.

Finally, I doubt that we will ever go to the extent (read: expense) of
being able to knock out *all* incoming warheads in a *major* strike.
However, I would fully support an ABM system capable of knocking out
everything up to a moderate size attack, primarily because it would give
us more breathing room in a crisis.  After all, we would probabily
start will small exchanges in the beginning of the crisis, exactly what
this type of system is designed to quench.


[If this continues we need to move to net.nuclear.flames.]


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)