Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Ballistic Missile Defense
Message-ID: <1822@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 8-Sep-84 19:12:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1822
Posted: Sat Sep  8 19:12:29 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:05:20 EDT
References: <204@tekigm.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 46

Your scenario of the Air Force liking even a 50% effective
BMD system is quite correct, but you make it sound like
using BMD to protect silos is something the DoD is hiding.
Its not.  The first BMD system deployed will certainly not
have 100% effectiveness, or anywhere close enough to save our
cities ffrom a countervalue strike.  We shouldn't expect it to.
Protecting our silos is something I and many others see as vital
to the survival of our landd based ICBM force.  Note, BMD 
in this case is a fform of 'active' hardening.  Noone protests
when people propose improving the hardness off our silos
but scream bloody murder when you talk about using BMD to
to do the same thing.  Look, if you have a certain P(k) on
a silo, and you lower it by increasing its hardness, or lower
it by decreasing the number of incoming warheads, its still
lowered.  You seem to despise the idea of protecting our land based
missile force.  Do you really want them vulnerable?  BMD used
in this way is clearly stabilizing.  If you use BMD to protect
your most accurate heavily mirved missiles, there is no advantage
to having it in a first strike.  If we launched one, those
silos would be empty and would be protecting nothing.  If we
were attacked, it would increase the number of missiles 
surviving for a retaliatory strike.  

   You say this is expanding the arms race.  Well, quite 
frankly, what I'm cconcerned with is stability.  And having
a vulnerable land based missile force is destabilizing.  It
encourages the enemy to launch a strike since its so easy to
take them out.  By the same rationale, I would assume you
would be opposed to exchanged ICBM's for SLBM's.  You view
that as an expansion, even though the world is more stable 
afterward.  This is the same mentality of the freezniks.  They
want to stop everything, even systems that icrease stability.
I or one am not happy with the state of the world now, and
like to change it for the better instead of locking us in
to what we have now.  BMD will make the world much better
off.  People who think that you can somehow remove useful
weapons systems from the world's arsenals by signing some
piece of paper are really fooling themselves.  The issues
simply arent that simple.  We need to use reason when dealing
with problems like this, and not be motivated by hysterical
emotions...


				Milo Medin
				NASA Ames Research Center