Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!mnh
From: mnh@utcsri.UUCP (Mark N. Hume)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Star Wars
Message-ID: <1003@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 15:40:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1003
Posted: Tue Apr  9 15:40:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 15:53:05 EST
References: <909@ubc-vision.CDN> <389@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 36


I have had extensive discussions with a friend in the International
Relations field (specializing in nuclear arms matters) and his
analysis of the SDI is far more threatening than the discussions on
this group indicate.

He is obviously following quite closely the US SDI proposals, and
is also concentrating on the USSR's responses.

His analysis goes like this:

The US defence establishment (not the Political wing of the government
but the military) wants SDI not to 'make nuclear weapons obsolete' but
to protect missile silos from a preemptive Soviet attack (remember all
the debate about putting the MX in moving launchers under the desert?).

The analysis follows by saying that the Military does not want SDI as
a defensive shield for people but rather to make it possible for the
US to wage in a *controlled* manner, a nuclear war with the Soviet
Union (who starts the war is not defined).

All the political talk about 'just a research project' is a load of
****, as show by statements made in congress by the military to the
effect that SDI is an integral part of the US weapons systems.

The political talk about 'making nuclear weapons obsolete' is the line
given to the president (who does beleive this) by the military so that
congress and the people of the US will support SDI.

So the bottom line of his analysis is that the US military want
SDI so that they can controll a nuclear war (not to prevent one).

Isn't that scary?!

-- 
Mark N. Hume