Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: keeping MAD working
Message-ID: <5436@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 7-Apr-85 02:13:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5436
Posted: Sun Apr  7 02:13:08 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 02:13:08 EST
References: <910@ubc-vision.CDN>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29

> ...I wasn't aware that SDI was intended be effective against stealth
> bombers

It's not, but conventional air defences will be, when augmented with
sensors that can see the things.  "Stealth" is a red herring; there is
no stealth gadget that is very useful against lidar (laser radar), which
will undoubtedly be developed as a military sensor now that stealth
aircraft are becoming a big thing.

> ...cruise missiles...

Same comments.  They make air defence harder by being smaller and more
numerous, but there's nothing fundamental involved.

> ...and the new mid-range ballistic missiles...

SDI should do quite well against these, although the reaction times
needed will be somewhat shorter than against ICBMs.

> ...SDI will be no defense at all...it will simply force 
> a shift in the sorts of offensive weapons which will be deployed!

By this argument, there is no such thing as a defence, anywhere, ever.
Of course the mix of offensive weapons will shift to maximize their
effectiveness against the defences, including SDI, but the net result
will still be a major reduction in the effectiveness of offensive weapons.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry