Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site charm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!charm!grl
From: grl@charm.UUCP (George Lake)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: SDI and Arms Control
Message-ID: <647@charm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 12:07:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: charm.647
Posted: Mon May  6 12:07:47 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 00:47:45 EDT
References: <306@dolqci.UUCP>
Organization: Physics Research @ AT&T Bell Labs Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 18

FLAME:  Stalnaker has really given us a muddle on SDI to deal with.
First:  He argued that countermeasures are always more expensive,
so we force th Russians to spend many Rubles on their own ABM
system.

This is nonsense.  If the system isn't 100% effective (as Stalnaker 
suggests that it won't be), then they just spend more on cheaper
missles.  Or they diminish SDI efficiency to zero by increasing
the power to weight ratio of their missles.  This insures that
their is insufficient time to draw a bead and fire in the thrust 
phase.

OR, they just build more cruise missles, bombers and subs.  SDI is
only slightly effective for subs and COMPLETELY ineffective for
cruise and bombers.  

SDI is a treaty violation, diplomatically a disaster and
technically impossible.