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.politics
Subject: Re: Some problems with Star Wars (LONG)
Message-ID: <5705@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 19:14:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5705
Posted: Tue Jun 18 19:14:50 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 19:14:50 EDT
References: <1186@utcsri.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24

While I agree with many of the points raised in the paper John posted,
I must dispute one of them.

>           Yet more problems: while missiles are many and  unpredictable,
>        satellites  are few, fragile and move in predictable orbits.

Given a tiny fraction of the money that some people claim SDI "would have
to cost", we can build space-launch systems that will vastly reduce the
cost of Earth-to-orbit transport.  We can also, again with off-the-shelf
technology and relatively modest capital investments, import lunar or
asteroidal materials at lower cost than launching them from Earth.  Given
these developments, satellites can be numerous, and armored or maneuverable.
(And a major SDI system can be far cheaper than many of its opponents claim
it "must be", since launch costs usually dominate such estimates.)

I would also observe that the dangerously-provocative nature of the
actions needed to ready some types of SDI systems for action is an
argument against those specific types of system, not against all SDI
systems.  Including this under "why SDI is a bad thing" is misleading
advertising, to say the least.	[This does not invalidate the more general
point that chain-reaction readiness increases are dangerous.]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry