Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
From: john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: A Bit of History
Message-ID: <353@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 09:00:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.353
Posted: Tue Oct  8 09:00:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Oct-85 07:25:19 EDT
References: <8510071640.AA06325@s1-b.ARPA>
Reply-To: john@gcc-bill.UUCP (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 24

In article <8510071640.AA06325@s1-b.ARPA> Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Here is a non-political (for Josh) injection of facts into the ASAT debate.
>
>1) A long time ago (1960s), the US carried out ASAT tests similar to what
>the Russians have.  We gave it up.
>
>2) The US had a secret Nike Zeus base on Johnston Atoll.  The Nike Zeus was
>originally designed as a nuclear-tipped ABM, but in this case was installed
>for ASAT use.  The base was dismantled in the 70s (1975?).
>
>3) The Homing Overlay experiments at Kwajelein Atoll (1 of 3 successful)
>provides a basic ASAT capability, as well as an exo-atmospheric ABM
>capability for which it is intended.  The homing vehicle is launched from
>a ICBM-sized booster (a Minuteman booster?).
>
>Statements such as "We're far behind the Russians in ASAT research" or "We
>can't let them have a monopoly on ASATs" are false given the above facts.

Given that the Soviets *have* an operational ASAT system, and we don't, I 
don't see the above statments as false.
-- 
John Allred
General Computer Company 
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john