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!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars -> Nuclear war
Message-ID: <897@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 20:29:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.897
Posted: Fri Mar 22 20:29:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Mar-85 02:42:08 EST
References: <827@ames.UUCP> <5201@ucbvax.ARPA> <869@ames.UUCP> <5549@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 54

> If the USSR percieves itself to be stronger
> than the US, the chance of war increases.
> 
And if the US percieves itself as capable of attacking without unacceptable
damage WE may attack, e.g., Grenada, Vietnam.  Why not USSR?

> 
> 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.

I have talked to a number of people who are have worked on ABM systems
for years.  None of them believe that star wars can protect the population
of the US from catastrophic destruction.

Star wars can, and very well might, destroy civilian space assests 
whether nuclear war breaks out or not.  These assets are not now
at risk.  The controller of star wars will be capable of denying
all other nations access to space.  This will allow national sovernty (sp)
to be established in orbit.  The nation system threatens to destroy
our civilization on Earth, I'd like to keep free access to space.

> 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.
> 
But star wars won't lessen the chance of war, it will increase it.
Even if a Soviet first strike got our ICBMs a single Trident could
destroy their society.  Over 60% of our nuclear force is on submarines,
more is based on bombers, and the missles in Europe can reach much
of Russia.  A successful first strike against this force is simply
not credible.  With star wars I think a first strike by the side with
the best star wars defense is extremely likely.  Star wars will
work much better if you know when the strike comes and if some
missles and command and control can be destroyed on the ground.  This
is the case for the side that strikes first.  The situation is even
worse if star wars components themselves are suseptable to a first
strike.

> Besides, you're quite
> naive if you think that space is free from weapons now...
> 
No, I'm informed.  There is ONE operational space weapons system, a very
limited Soviet system.  None of these weapons are actually in orbit at
this moment.  There are lots of spy satellites, but I'm all
for those.  You can't kill people with spy satellites.

> 
> I would prefer not having a defense budget at all,
> but the real world isnt like that.
> 
Circa 1800:  'I would prefer not having slaves at all, but the 
real world isn't like that.'