Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site nike.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!caip!im4u!nike!medin
From: medin@nike.UUCP (Milo S. Medin)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.politics
Subject: Re: Aviation Week on Star Wars
Message-ID: <20@nike.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Jan-86 19:06:01 EST
Article-I.D.: nike.20
Posted: Sun Jan 12 19:06:01 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 05:33:19 EST
References: <1289@ames.UUCP> <772@petrus.UUCP> <1149@lll-crg.ARpA> <386@pedsgd.UUCP> <19@nike.UUCP> <762@spar.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@nike.UUCP
Reply-To: medin@nike.UUCP (Milo S. Medin)
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.space:5190 net.politics:12949
Summary: advancing technology


Technology advancing does not necessarily invalidate MAD, indeed,
just the opposite.  Technology has made counterforce possible.
Over the past 10 yrs, US nuclear throweight has dropped 40%.
We simply don't need that much bang anymore.  Weapons are not getting
larger, if anything, they're getting smaller.

You are of course right, none of this addresses the root causes
of the problem, conflicting national interests.  But since we really
can't change people, and we can easily change technology, technology
will drive nature of warfare.  Your point about technology not
providing a permananent solution, I also agree with.  This means
that this course is expensive, however, it has worked.  There
are not always nice options that fix all the problems.  Sometimes,
your options are all bad, but some not as bad as others.  I don't
claim to provide an answer to the underlying problem, and
neither should SDI expected to either.  Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people
kill people.  There, that should generate a few flames...

					Milo