Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-raynal!kovner
From: kovner@raynal.DEC
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: SDI
Message-ID: <980@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 15:20:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.980
Posted: Tue Oct 22 15:20:18 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 00:04:56 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 28


One point which I have not seen made about SDI is the (to me) impossibility of
deploying even a 100% successful system. Any such system will take sufficient
time to deploy that the other side could easily launch a pre-emptive strike
between the time a system is developed and by the time it is deployed. To me,
deploying even an imperfect system could cause a pre-emptive strike by the
other side, especially if the other side is not CONVINCED that the system is
imperfect. And, after all, why deploy such a system if it does not work?
(Except for the profits made by the companies producing it; something not
likely to be appreciated by a Communist government.) 

I am thus forced to agree with those that say that SDI is of no use without
international cooperation. I do say that it would be of tremendous use in
preventing a country with few nuclear missiles from starting a war. A few
missiles could be easily handled by a system designed to defend against
thousands. However, it is probably easier to assemble (or steal) nuclear
weapons than missiles; thus terrorists planting bombs is a greater threat
than a small country obtaining nuclear missiles.

I would also like an end to the threat of nuclear war. I just do not see
how SDI alone could produce it.

Steve Kovner 
UUCP:  { decvax, allegra, ucbvax }!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-regina!kovner
ARPA:  kovner%regina.DEC@decwrl.ARPA

Stay tuned for "32 Seconds to Cairo", the story of the first captain of a
submarine with nuclear piles.