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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.politics
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Message-ID: <772@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Dec-85 17:45:55 EST
Article-I.D.: petrus.772
Posted: Fri Dec 20 17:45:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:35:25 EST
References: <1289@ames.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.space:4997 net.politics:12621

> First, Britain joined up.  Interestingly, the memorandum of understanding
> stated that SDI is meant to suppliment deterrance (sp?), not replace it.

Indeed. Given that SDI is being sold to the American public as a way to
"render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete", I think we're seeing the
biggest hand-waving con game of all time. UCS points out that there are
really TWO very different forms of ballistic missile defense, which they
call "Type One Star Wars" and "Type Two Star Wars". The first is an
inpenetrable shield that protects cities and makes offensive weapons
obsolete. The second is a "hard point" defense that protects only our
retaliatory capability.  The only people who still profess to believe in
Type 1 Star Wars are Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger. In comparison,
Type 2 Star Wars is more feasible, but still extremely unwise strategically.
If we hadn't led the way in developing and deploying MIRVs as the answer to
a Soviet ABM system that never materialized, we woudn't now "need" a defense
to protect our deterrent.

> ..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.

"Ten million!  Twenty million, tops!"
--General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott).

Phil