Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Start Wars: 95% is no good: re to Arromdee
Message-ID: <1050@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 14:04:17 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.1050
Posted: Mon Mar 17 14:04:17 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 20:18:43 EST
References: <312@drutx.UUCP> <1473@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 30


    
>> 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.

Even according to Start Wars advocates like Lt. Gen Abrahamson,
stopping 95% of *current* Soviet warheads is the *best* Start Wars
can be expected to achieve.  What does this mean?
This means that out of the Soviet Union's 7500 *current* strategic 
warheads 350 strategic warheads would still strike targets in
the US.  These 350 strategic warheads would pack the destructive
power of thousands of Hiroshimas - enough to thoroughly obliterate
the US and our population.  Indeed the Soviets have approx 900,000
times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima - 5% of
that arsenal is roughly 45,000 times the destructive power of
Hiroshima.  Of course not all of this destructive power is
concentrated in *strategic* nuclear warheads or nuclear warheads
capable of striking the US. But there is certainly plenty enough
to kill millions of Americans.  This is *IF* the Soviets deploy
no new weapons to counter our Start Wars program.
 
It should be quite obvious than any dreams that Start Wars can
somehow "defend our population" is simply that : a dream
on the order of saying we could put a man in the Alpha Centauri
system by the Year 2000!
 
          tim sevener   whuxn!orb