Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <295@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 07:27:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.295
Posted: Mon Aug 27 07:27:33 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Aug-84 00:12:06 EDT
References: <966@ulysses.UUCP>, <363@vu44.UUCP> <189@ho95b.UUCP>, <284@fisher.UUCP> <4264@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 47

>> .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which
>> were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an
>> earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against
>> land-based ICBM's. 

>Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible.  I agree
>that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but
>intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs.  It means
>the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be
>faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles.
>The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles,
>although the detection and speed problems are still worse.

Yes, dealing with SLBM's rather than ICBM's is a matter of degree, but
all the estimates of Star Wars' effectiveness assume the target is a
land-based ICBM. Effectiveness against SLBM's would be much lower, and
SLBM's launched at coastal (or near coastal) targets would be nearly
impossible to stop. And, if for some reason, SLBM's COULD be
intercepted with some high level of effectiveness, the USSR would only
emphasize Cruise missile construction or blast the Star Wars
satellites out of space.

>Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in
>degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers.  Technology
>for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although
>a leakproof air defence is very difficult.  The less said about the
>current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious
>technological barrier to major improvements.  It's mostly a question of
>will:  our air defences have reached their current sad state through two
>decades of neglect and low priority.

A high state of readiness for air-defense may be able to stop a few
hundred bombers, but no conceivable air-defense system can cope with a
few thousand cruise-missiles (note also that cruise missiles, when
compared to other strategic nuclear weapons, are extremely economical.
Buying a few thousand of them would only cost a few billion dollars.).
How will you stop an SLCM launched from a fishing trawler 12 miles off
shore from hitting a coastal city? 

My point is that Star Wars', as a counter-measure against ICBM attack,
is open to a VARIETY of counter-counter-measures, including Cruise
missiles, SLBM's, anti-satellite weapons, dummy warheads, expansion
of warhead inventory, etc. Even if some of these counter-counter-
measures could be thwarted, not all of them can, and so Star Wars will
be thwarted fairly quickly.
					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david