Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.politics
Subject: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Message-ID: <1289@ames.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 21:19:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1289
Posted: Thu Dec 19 21:19:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:33:31 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.space:4996 net.politics:12619

The latest Aviation Week had some interesting stuff about star wars 
(a.k.a. SDI).

First, Britain joined up.  Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding
stated that SDI is meant to suppliment deterrance (sp?), not replace it.  I.e.,
was still get mutual assured destruction (MAD), just at a much higher
price.

Second, there was an extremely interesting chart that looked like
is was developed for some high level briefings.  It list four
kinds of targets that must be protected.  Strategic Offensive Forces
were at the top of the list and  cities at the bottom.  In addition,
there was a region on the graph labeled 'Completely Effective Defense'
corresponding to 0-5% 'leakage' in SDI systems.  Since there were
3,500 target in the four categories, I figure 1,000-2,000 of those
must be cities.  5% leakage corresponds to 50-100 nuclear explosions
in U.S. cities.  Assuming 200,000 casualties per explosion (fairly
conservative I'd say) that gives us 10-20 million dead Americans
in the first few hours of a nuclear exchange  - after we built a
'Completely Effective Defense' at great expense.

Gives you a nice warm feeling, doesn't it?