Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!mdm
From: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP ( Mike D McEvoy)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: A Bit of History
Message-ID: <400@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 16:22:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.400
Posted: Tue Oct 15 16:22:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:20:43 EDT
References: <8510071640.AA06325@s1-b.ARPA> <353@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Reply-To: mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP ( Mike D McEvoy)
Distribution: net.space
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 18
Keywords: ASAT
Summary: A bit more history

One of the key (and most ignored by the ANTI-ASAT groups)
reasons for building ASAT systems is to protect the carrier
battle group.  Our beloved comrades have several (many) observation
platforms that are dedicated to observing these battle groups.
According to several DOD reports, an operational carrier based
ASAT system improves the survivability of the battle group by a factor
of 2 to 10 by reducing the effective targeting accuracy of the russian
delivery system (If you can't see them, you can't hit them (as easily)).

Since the US uses the carrier battle group as one of the primary
means of protecting our interests, how can such a system (carrier based
ASAT systems) be viewed as destabilizing if it maintains the status quo??
It would seem to me that war would escalate very quickly if we lost this
mainly conventional military force early in a major conflict.

Please lower flames when responding....