Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Reagon's Giant Tennis Racket in the sky . . . Message-ID: <544@ihu1m.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 14:52:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ihu1m.544 Posted: Wed Jul 24 14:52:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 08:25:32 EDT References: <3230@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 115 -- > Say, guys (and dolls) how about a little jaw jaw on 'Star Wars' > from the point of view of will/can it work. Ken Perlow contrasts > it with the English radar net of WWII fame and says the opinion > was that the radar would work - not a true statement by the way, > it was thought by many as useless and took an uphill fight (like > many new ideas in peace or in war) to produce You twist my words magnificently, Ken. Fact is, the scientists knew radar would work (the principles had already been proven). Estimating its effectiveness and selling the project to the military are other issues. And the analogy still stands--it was an effective defense, and it stopped about 20% of German ordnance. I won't quibble over essential minima bandied about for Star Wars (80%, 95%?). The defense has not yet been imagined that can't be overwhelmed to some unacceptable degree by sheer saturation. Perhaps I should have stuck to my original analogy of the Maginot Line. That defense was never breached (and it was never finished, either). > - and that somehow > the Star Wars Defense is something that there is a consensus on > to the effect that it won't work or can't be built. Also not true > - got to stop reading only those Commie Front rags Ken Actually, the guy who convinced me of Star Wars' lunacy was John Ruina of MIT, past director of DARPA and scientific advisor to several Republican administrations. He speaks quite eloquently on the issue, and purely from a technological perspective. It's marvelous--he's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative! > -the growing consensus is that it CAN be built and WILL be effective > that it, or anything, will not be 100% effective is a red > herring, especially now that the (Commie) Concerned Scientists > for Peace have been shown to be lying in their figures put about > to dispute the concept - they keep revising downward certain key > figures that make their case. Where are the 'scientists' who said > lasers in space couldn't be built??? I mean those not recalled to > Russia. What lying and revising of figures are you talking about, Ken? Star Wars effective--against what, how many, and for how long? There's no doubt that we can build anti-missile weapons and shoot things down with them--that technology was worked out in the 50's. Of course, all such tests have used targets with no built-in defenses, solitary targets that the testers knew were coming. It's time to destroy a few myths: We sent a man to the moon, but the moon didn't mind being visited. They laughed at the Wright Bros, at Einstein? Who did? Jes' plain folks, perhaps, but not scientists. Scientists are laughing at Star Wars. For the purposes of this discussion, though, I'll grant that the hardware can be built. Ken Arndt is a manager, wouldn't you know, so he is woefully ignorant about how primitive, how paleolithic our software technology is. It's all art, Ken--we do it with mirrors. There are no algorithms for assembling, let alone testing, designing or debugging, a system that complex here on earth. Not to mention up there, where it's a little hard to get at and decisions must be made in all-too-real time. I'm not talking about the inevitable bugs that *must* (provably) be deeply embedded when the thing is finished; we don't even have the basic tools necessary to generate such software. Tools which themselves must be debugged (a lengthy process) before they can be used. Computer scientists are quite in agreement on this point. Whether they'll sell out for the govt's money is another matter. Of course we should work to develop such a technology, and we were indeed doing so well before Star Wars. But the difference between such algorithm development and the sacred Star Wars mission is the difference between doing research on aging and stating that it is the goal of this nation that humans live forever. (The analogy is Ruina's.) > Arndt' you glad boobs rule in the Worker's Paradise? I mean we > all like boobs here, except for a certain minority of a minority > who think I don't like them, but if the Krem Vax guys were really > on the ball they'd be a lot further along the road to happyness... Boobs they are indeed. I shudder to think about the bugs in *their* programs. And they don't like Star Wars--so it must have some value, eh? Ah yes, what a great idea--basing the keystone of our nation's defense on what the Russians think. Something we've never been able to fathom. Bet they spend a lot of money developing a system to shoot ours down, though. Now *there's* a viable project. > I view Usenet as a sort of extended school paper. It attracts > the maladjusted loudmouths - tee hee, not me of course... Of course. You're one of the best adjusted loudmouths I know. Well, I'll leave it at that--I don't kiss and tell. > On second thought, let's not talk about it. Let's just watch it > be built! That will be fun, won't it? And even more fun to pay for. And let's not forget the joys of abrogating the ABM treaty. Now there's an interesting treaty. Both sides have fun nailing each other over violations (that's politics), but for all the years the thing's been in effect, none of those violations has been serious (in the sense of a truly destabilizing development). Well, we'll change that in short order. Ride 'em, Ronnie! > Keep chargin' > Ken Arndt I have to--this scam is on Ronnie's tab, but the bill, and the joke, is on us. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 24 Jul 85 [6 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***