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!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!al
From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.politics
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Message-ID: <1325@ames.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 21:01:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1325
Posted: Thu Jan  9 21:01:17 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 08:12:29 EST
References: <1289@ames.UUCP> <620@moscom.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.space:5184 net.politics:12926

> A 50% effective SDI protecting
> our missiles would mean that we need 50% fewer missiles for "defensive"
> purposes.
> 

Alternately, we could launch a first strike against the USSR, knock out
50% or more of their missles, and stop the other 50% with SDI.
The Soviet's see this comming, of course.  This is the legitimate part of their
argument against SDI.  They have no intention of allowing us to attack them,
assume that we will if we can, and will take whatever steps necessary, 
including attacking us, to avoid such a fate.  This, my friends, is how
we go about destroying civilization.