Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxt!smeier
From: smeier@ihuxt.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.tv.da
Subject: Re: Deterrence, MAD and Overkill
Message-ID: <264@ihuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Nov-83 10:19:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxt.264
Posted: Wed Nov 30 10:19:56 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 23:36:31 EST
References: <771@ihuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 24

On the subject of a simple satelite system carrying cheap interceptor
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 20

rockets to reduce the number of missiles that get through:

destabilizing?  you bet!

Would a nation as paranoid as the USSR, which shoots down civilian
passenger planes, just sit there and let the USA put up a system that
renders their nuclear arsenal ineffective?  No, they would build
anti-satelite weapons to shoot it down, they would build *more*
missiles to assure that enough would get through, and they would have to
build their own defensive system, forcing us to have more nukes so that
they couldn't launch a first strike and knock out our retaliatory
strike.  So the net effect would be to escalate the arms race, and
increase the risk of war.
Unless, of course, we could have an agreement with the USSR that we
would both have a defensive system without taking steps to counter them.
But this means we would have to trust eachother anyway, so we might as
well just agree on arms reduction in the first place.

                                    Steve Meier
                                    ihnp4!ihuxt!smeier