Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: A Bit of History
Message-ID: <650@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 12:49:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: petrus.650
Posted: Wed Oct 16 12:49:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 20:57:21 EDT
References: <8510071640.AA06325@s1-b.ARPA> <353@gcc-bill.ARPA> <400@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Distribution: net.space
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 25

> 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.

The answer to this is that an aircraft carrier isn't of much use if the
geostationary satellites it uses for communication have been wiped out
by a high-altitude ASAT. The Soviets do not currently possess such a weapon,
and a ban on further testing of ASATs on both sides would prevent them from
developing such a capability.

The major function of the Soviet ocean reconnaissance satellites are radar
observation and electronic intelligence gathering. According to Admiral Noel
Gaylor, a member of the UCS panel on ASAT weapons, the means exist to
protect ships from these satellites: spoofing the relatively weak radars,
operating in electronic silence, and above all, relying on NAVSTAR for
navigation and on tight line-of-sight beams to geostationary satellites for
communications.

I strongly suggest you read the UCS book "The Fallacy of Star Wars",
ISBN 0-394-72894-7, before you decide this issue. This book has sections
on both SDI and ASATs.

Phil