Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Adverse effects of the Abolition of
Message-ID: <1280@pucc-i>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 10:41:25 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1280
Posted: Fri Feb  7 10:41:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:07:26 EST
References: <1245@pucc-i>.UUCP> <7800958@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 63

In article <7800958@inmet.UUCP>, janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> 
> 
> (1) this could equally  apply  to  any  defense
> research  (anything may grow offshoots) ; but their objections to
> SDI are in a class apart; 

     The REAL promise of SDI (let's not kid ourselves) is domination of
near Earth space.  There are just too many ways to deliver nuclear weapons
for them to EVER be made obsolete.  Thermonuclear weapons are the ultimate 
in mass destruction, never to be matched (unless they find some way to put
antimatter in a bomb...).  As an ASAT system, or an Anti-ASAT system, SDI
will be next to unstoppable.  In today's world, he who can shoot down the other
guy's satellites has a huge advantage.  This is why they object so vehemently.


> (2) they've spent many, many years  and
> enormous  sums of money on SDI: by now, they are much more likely
> to fear something known or estimated than  something  quite  unk-
> nown;  

     Therefore, they know that it is beyond their technology for the foreseeable
future.  They suspect that it is not beyond ours.  They know enough to know
that it is possible, but not enough to actually do it.  Do you think that they
are comforted by this thought?

> (3) their decision-making process is very rational, it has
> no place for psychotic complexes; 

      Of course not; Hitler was psychotic, Idi Amin was psychotic.  The Russians
are *neurotic* (but then, so are we).

> (4) they know  American  inten-
> tions  and plans very well, through their intelligence: if Ameri-
> can first strike has never been in the cards  (as  I  believe  is
> true), they know it; 

      I hope the Russians aren't as knowledgable about are intentions as all
that...remember the classic Reagan Gaff of all time?  The famous "Congress has
outlawed Russia...we start bombing in 10 minutes" remark.  I bet that gave 
Reaganologists in the Kremlin some food for thought.

> (5) Russians are no more paranoid than other
> people. This is a myth, like most ethnic stereotypes. If you  are
> looking  for paranoia, listen to talk, on the right, of Trilatral
> commission; on the left, of Reagan and Falwell. In any case, pro-
> perties of Russians in general have little bearing on the mental-
> ity of the tiny, select and ethnically diverse group making these
> decisions.

     I think that America would be (rightfully) paranoid if we had been invaded
*three* times in the century, losing about 30 million people in the process.
We would be even more paranoid or Russia if we had been invaded by them during
our Civil War.  I also think that the current conservative trend worries them.

> Why invoke far-fetched exotic psychology when there is an obvious
> reason  for  Soviet  opposition  to  Star  Wars: (1) They believe
> (rightly or wrongly) that it may work  -  this  is  confirmed  by
> their  own  long-term  commitment  to  it; 

     This, I agree with.

     Michael Lewis @ Purdue University