Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site proper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!nsc!proper!mikevp
From: mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re:  Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <1537@proper.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Aug-84 15:35:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: proper.1537
Posted: Sat Aug 25 15:35:34 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 02:37:47 EDT
References: <7546@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Proper UNIX, San Leandro, CA
Lines: 25

<< this line is a figment of a deranged imagination >>

One thing that gets lost in the shouting on the subject of "Star Wars"
defense is that the "Star Wars" stuff is only one of several proposals.
The "Star Wars" tag was stuck onto the subject of a ICBM defense by those
who desire to ridicule the whole concept of defending this country from
ICBMs.  Those people (Kosta Tsipis and others) then analyze lasers, particle
beams, etc., as if these, not defense, were the subject under consideration.
Then they solemly pronounce that such things are forever impossible.
  Leaving out the possibility of directed-energy weapons, there are other
technologies for ICBM defense.  SWARMJET and GAU-8 guns as point defense 
around ground targets, the "High Frontier" orbiting box-cars full of 
Sidewinder missiles, ABMs like the one tested recently, and other near-term
technology certainly can't be ruled out if you're really interested in
discussing the merits of an ICBM defense.  To dismiss the whole subject
as "Star Wars" is not very honest.
  It seems pretty obvious to me that an anti-defense argument based solely
on attacks on directed energy feasablity shows that the person making the
argument either doesn't know what he's talking about or is intentionally 
trying to deceive.
 
     Mike Van Pelt.
	  <<<Any typos are entirely the fault of this %@#^!%
	     Televideo terminal, which is sending intermittant
	     garbage.>>>