Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <869@ames.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 17:18:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.869
Posted: Tue Mar 12 17:18:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 02:42:57 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 46

> You are not being fair.  Blainey's chief argument in 'cause of war'
> is that war originates out of ambiguity in power distribution.
> That is, if one side percieves itself to be clearly inferior
> to another, they will not attack.  They may try and become
> stronger, but as long as who's on top remains clear, peace will
> continue, on the terms of the stronger.  
> 

However, if one side perceives itself clearly stronger than the other, it
may attack (e.g., Afganistan).

> Let me say this, many of us who have worked on defensive systems
> (as I have) don't believe that a global shield can be built
> now, or in the near term.  What we do believe is that 
> significant increases in deterrence are achieveable.

That doesn't mean someone like Reagan won't come to belief that the
system bilt to protect missles won't protect the people.  That's where
the problem lies.

> If you feel that the land based ICBM forces are vulnerable
> (as I do) and that they are needed (as I do), then they
> must be protected.  Protection can be had with active or passive means.
> Nobody complains about building hard silos, but when building
> interceptors to stop RV's targeted at those same silos, we are
> somehow encouraging WW III.    

Silo's can't destroy peaceful space assets (e.g., space station).  Silo's
don't move the arms race into a dangerous new field.  Silo's don't cost
$26 billion JUST FOR THE RESEARCH, never mind deployment.  Nobody believes
silo's will protect the population.  Perhaps more important, nobody CAN
believe that.

> 
> Many of the people who argue against BMD are people who buy
> MAD.
> 

I don't really like MAD.  But it has one tremendous virtue - it has been
shown to work.  Frankly, I'd prefer to dismantle the d--- things.



If star wars could really protect the population of the US, no price
is too high.  But half a trillion dollars or so to protect a bunch
of missles?  Forget it.  There must be a better way.