Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Star-wars,heh,heh Message-ID: <1063@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 17:43:45 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1063 Posted: Wed Jul 31 17:43:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 02:28:58 EDT References: <573@mtuxt.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 100 > Star Wars is not only the biggest joke of the 20th century but a > foolish and dangerous prospect. > First of all some backround: UNIX is written with approx. 10,000 > lines of code, has been around for years, and is by no means > bug free. UNIX also has very limited real time capabilities. > Star wars would require approx. 2 MILLION lines of code, and > have to run in real time BUG FREE. This is completely ludicrous. Some background: I seem to recall from my days programming IBM mainframes that OS/VS2 had about 6 million lines of source; it was written by large teams of programmers, not by clever hackers in their spare time. It was undoubtedly not bug-free, but it worked. As for real-time, no one *tried* to make UNIX real-time except recently, as an afterthought on an OS that wasn't designed for it. > While we may be able to accomplish this one day in the 21st > century, we may not make it in the interim for various reasons: "one day in the 21st century" is probably a good estimate. I like that answer better than "never", which is what we get if we don't even try to build a defensive system. I plan to be alive in the 21st century, how about you? How about your children? > 1)The russians will just increase the number of warheads past > the saturation point of the system, rendering it useless. If aggressors can overload the system for a lot less money than it takes to build it, then it won't work as a defense against a massive attack; no argument. But I don't think we have enough facts to be certain this is the case. Let's spend some money and find out. > 2)The russians will continue to develop killer satelites that > are easily built TODAY. These devices need no advanced intelligence. > All you have to do is get them in the general vicinity of a > Star Wars station and BOOOM! How 'bout protecting the Star Wars defenses against killer satellites? > 3)What do we do in the interim? You mean, until the defense is in place and functioning? Well, I guess we do what we've been doing all along, we maintain our offensive weapons while negotiating for a mutual reduction. > 4)What do we do about the ever increasing deficit? Hey, c'mon, what are we doing *now*? Yes, BMD will cost money. We can get some of it by building fewer *offensive* weapons, once we're sure the defensive system is credible. Besides, the massive beef-up of our space capabilities required to implement Star Wars should result in some very profitable spin-offs, in terms of our ability to exploit space industrially and commercially. Even if Star Wars did turn out to be another Maginot Line, it might pay for itself many times over by the indirect stimulus it gives to commercial space development. > The mere controversy surrounding this beast could in itself start > the holocoust. By the way ask your local nuclear physicist what > would happen to the earths atmosphere when all these nukes are > detonated in the stratosphere. Break up of the ozone layer by > itself (which will be the first to go) will kill us from UV > exposure alone, not to mention radiation swirling around the earth. Gee. I guess maybe we shouldn't have a nuclear war, then. Did someone post something I missed saying we *should*? > Any one who supports this fiasco is an ignorant idiot who is also > suicidal. Go ahead and kill yourself but don't take us with you. Thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot this was net.flame, and not net.politics! I therefore have a question in return: when are all the mindless Chicken Littles in the world going to at least get the *question* right, never mind the answer. *Nobody's* advocating war! The question of the hour is what the best strategies are for avoiding war. I like the idea of pursuing any ideas that offer some hope, and I find the people (on both sides of the question) who want to make this into a liberal vs. conservative name-calling contest more than a little ludicrous. Any scientist whose devotion to science supercedes their pet political notions ought to be willing to admit that we don't yet have firm answers to a lot of the technical issues raised by the Star Wars idea. Let's have some research, and see what's feasible. > The only way to overcome this nuclear nightmare is through peacefull > discussion and carefull disarmement. It somehow must be done. > We must all make it possible. We must learn to have faith in > humanity. And we must put our ability to accomplish anything > into usefull purposes, not unreachable idiotic plans designed > to make industrialists richer. Reagan can go where the sun doesn't > shine. Can you spell "red herring"? Or are you so mentally crippled by your political fantasies that you really think support for BMD somehow equals opposition to arms limitation treaties? Personally, I like both approaches to the problem of avoiding war. Don't want all my valuable eggs in one basket. How "idiotic" of me. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry