Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dolqci.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!dolqci!mike
From: mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: SDI and Arms Control
Message-ID: <306@dolqci.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 07:13:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: dolqci.306
Posted: Wed May  1 07:13:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 08:08:26 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: US. Dept. of Labor, Emp. Train. Adm. Q. C. Group , Wash DC.
Lines: 56


	I'm probably going to get char-broiled for this one but 
here goes.

	With all the yelling and screaming and sabre-rattling etc by the
various factions for and against arms control and SDI, it often becomes
very hard to see the forest for the trees.  I personally am not 100% for
or against arms control, and definatly 100% FOR SDI.  Folks, look at the
facts objectivly for a minute.  Is SDI an offensive weapons system?? No.
A great number of people seem to think that SDI==Nukes in space. This is
simply not the case.  There IS some possiblity that someone will
eventually get around to putting some nukes in orbit, but I don't see
how SDI will increase this risk. (With Mirv vehicles now in the 1-5 ton
class, consider how easy it would be to slip a couple up on one of those
"secret" DOD missions on the shuttle.  I agree, at least partially, with
those that say SDI may not be 100% effective.  So what? even if it is 10
to 15% effective, (and current estimates are in the 80-90% range for
ICBM's, stratagically, it makes a whole lot of sense.  The primary
reason for it making sense is simple.  $$$.  Historically, it is always
far more expensive to come up with a counter-measure than to come up
with the original measure, on an almost geometric scale.  By putting SDI
into action, or at least continuing the development, we force the Soviets
to respond by coming up with some kind of counter-measure.  (Their
current ASAT system would not work, as SDI would treat an ASAT just like
another ICBM and fry it.) In order to come up with an effective
counter-measure, they would have to do somthing. Spend LOTS of bucks
(rubles).  This is one reason for having so many different weapons
systems for nuke delivery on BOTH sides.  Each is forcing the other to
spend money to come up with defenses.  Whether they want to admit it or
not, the Soveits are spending as much as they dare on defense now.  Much
more, and it will completly cripple their economy.  If we're going to
spend money for a new weapons system, why not for a DEFENSIVE one that
does not carry Nukes, rather than something else.   

	On arms control, I will simply say this.  The Soviets have
repeatedly demonstrated that they are out for nothing less than total
domination of the world.  (Look at Hungary, and Afganistan to name but
2).  If they are willing to disarm, so am I. BUT IT MUST BE VERIFIABLE!!
I would trust a hungry shark not to bite me if I were bleeding before I
would trust that bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists.  If they are willing
to enter into some mutually-verifable disarmament agreement, one with
teeth to see that it's enforced, fine, let's do it yesterday.  To disarm
ourselves unilaterally is not even suicide, it would be genocide.  In
evey case in the past, if the Soviets have felt an area could be taken
over by force with an "acceptable risk", they've done so.  As much as I
wish we could play nice, I don't see how we can without baring our
throats to the Soviets. 
-- 

  Mike Stalnaker  UUCP:{decvax!decuac,cbosgd,seismo}!dolqci!mike
		  AT&T:202-376-2593
		  USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213
		
		  "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not
		   have one. Appeal to his better interests instead"
						--Lazarus Long