Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <5549@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 19:37:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.5549
Posted: Sat Mar 16 19:37:11 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 02:46:39 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA> <869@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 62

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

That's exactly my point.  If the USSR percieves itself to be stronger
than the US, the chance of war increases.


> 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.
> 

Oh, it will protect the people as well, if its a global space
based system.  It won't protect them 100%, but some damage
limitation will occcur if 90% of the incoming warheads are
destroyed.  Massive casualties?  Yes.  Less casualties?  Also Yes.

> 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.
> 

If nuclear war breaks out, I hardly think the loss of civilian 
space assets will be significant.  The space station would be
a significant loss, not because of its civilian value, but 
because of its great military value, but thats another story.

And if you lessened the chance of war by building such a system,
I think it would be worth it.  I just can't imagine the Soviets
launching a first strike knowing that it will only be 5% effective.

Also, superhardened silos are VERY expensive to build.  As for
moving the arms race into a new dangerous field, if the total
danger is reduced, thats fine with me.  Besides, you're quite
naive if you think that space is free from weapons now...


> 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.
> 

So would I, I would prefer not having a defense budget at all,
but the real world isnt like that.

> 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.

How about 1/2 a trillion to prevent nuclear war by increasing
deterrence substantially?  The end result is the same.
You're missing the point as to why we build missiles in the first
place...

Better way?  Well, we're all waiting for someone to come up
with it...


						Milo
					Milo