Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth Message-ID: <391@ihnet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 15:45:22 EST Article-I.D.: ihnet.391 Posted: Mon Mar 17 15:45:22 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Mar-86 18:03:15 EST References: <312@drutx.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 38 >>> 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. >I rather doubt >that it can build and support 20 times more. > dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) If we can build a space based defense shield, the Soviets can probably increase their arsenal 20 fold. Some have estimated cost ratios of ten to one. Check the past issues of Scientific American; October 1984 if I remember correctly. It is expensive to shoot down each additional missile or decoy, and relatively cheap to deploy them. Granted, the Soviet economy is weaker than our own, but not *that* much weaker. So often, politicians tell us to spend a dollar, because it will force the Soviets To spend a dime. To be honest, newer estimates may not be as gloomy, since the proposed space plane (if built) could place "stuff" in low earth orbit for much less. When factored in, I doubt if this will make the difference. If anyone has more recent estimates, please post them. Again, when discussing SDI, the risks are probably more important than the economics. In both areas, I think ground based ABM systems win hands down (if we must have ABM systems at all). If sufficiently provoked, I will post my thoughts on SDI. -- The moon is more important than the sun, because the moon gives us light at night; when we really need it! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad