Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <1473@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 14:29:58 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1473
Posted: Sun Mar 16 14:29:58 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 22:30:01 EST
References: <312@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 20

> >> According to this reasoning, you should support SDI, since SDI would 
> >> cut down the Soviets' effective number of missiles--(say) 95% of their
> >> missiles won't get through, meaning they have, in effect, 95% fewer
> >> missiles.
> 
> >       Meaning they have, in effect, great incentive to produce 20 times as
> > many missiles.
> 
> One can have the incentive, but lack the ability.  I don't remember who
> said this, but it went something like this: "The USSR without its military
> would be India!" -- meaning that its military masks an economic backet
> case.  It has a hard time supporting what it has now.  I rather doubt
> that it can build and support 20 times more.
> David Olson

   So what do you think they'll do, if star wars works and they can't keep up?
Resign themselves to existing at our sufferance or attack?
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j