Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site circadia.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave
From: dave@circadia.UUCP (David Messer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Re: ASAT test (actually about SDI)
Message-ID: <173@circadia.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 08:03:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: circadia.173
Posted: Sat Oct  5 08:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 06:00:24 EDT
References: <2258@ukma.UUCP> <1296@poseidon.UUCP>
Organization: Quest Research Inc., Burnsville, MN
Lines: 27

> A 50% reduction in nuclear arsenals is a far more attractive
> alternative to wasting a trillion dollars on Star Wars.
> What's more, it is verifyable.  How will we ever be sure of
> the "knock down" ratio of the completed SDI ?  Can we honestly
> believe that it will be 90% and can the U.S. maintain the system
> at that level for any length of time?
> -- 
> 				
> Made in New Zealand -->		Brent Callaghan
> 				AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
> 				{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
> 				(201) 576-3475

Hmmm.  Lets see, currently the USSR has an "overkill" ratio on the
order of 10 to one, so if we got a 50% reduction, they can only
wipe us out 5 times.  On the other hand, they can never know how
effective SDI is unless they launch an attack; that might be a
mistake if SDI turns out to be 99.99% effective.  I don't think
I would risk it if I were them.  So, suppose the US wants to
preemptively attack the USSR and SDI turns out to be only 70%
effective; both sides get it.  You know, if we can't tell how good
SDI really is, either side would be pretty foolish to test it.
It seems to me that a trillion dollars (wildly pessimistic) would
not be too high a price for makeing ICBMs unusable for a first strike.
-- 

Dave Messer   ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!circadia!dave