Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Start Wars: 95% is no good: re to Arromdee
Message-ID: <2034@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 15:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2034
Posted: Fri Mar 21 15:03:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:01:52 EST
References: <312@drutx.UUCP> <1473@mhuxt.UUCP> <1050@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 46

> >> 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.
>
for research proposals for SDI and my general impression was that
research proposals for SDI, and my impression was that the idea
of SDI is based on physical principles, like possibility of creating
a powerful X-ray beam ar to propel small pellets to speeds 20-30 times
larger than the speed acievable by gun bullets.

However, almost none of those ideas is supported by any of existing
technologies.  This reminds me the idea of fussion power.  According
to predictions made 20 years ago, by now we should have prototype
fussion power stations.  Now nobody ventures to make any predictions:
after spending billions of dollars and twenty years, scientists
find more problems than solutions.  Example:  to contains very hot
plasma, powerful electromagnets are used, however the existing
electromagnets are still to weak and already too unstable to dream
about any industrial use involving large energies.

We know how difficult it is to build a flawless nuclear power station
or a space shuttle.  We also know how under political pressure an
experimental and potentially dangerous vehicle may be converted,
for propaganda purposes, into an "dependable space truck", used
to carry senators, foreign princes and school teachers.  Now we
can read that no expert could reasonable assert that the shuttle
was any more dependable than a prototype of a military aircraft.

Even in the case of space shuttle, based on well-checked physical
principles (unlike the principles supporting SDI) and and which is
a devise by many orders of magnitude simpler, we witnessed huge cost
overruns (which gobbled many parts of the space programs) and delays.
Now the space program is a shadow if its former self.  Similarly,
incorporating SDI as a cornerstone of our defence can gobble tremendous
resources which could be used for more conventional defence, military
research and, last but not least, civilian research.

A last remark on SDI.  US has also another program: to build a
stealth bomber, which inside atmosphere will be udetectable
by radar.  How SDI can defend against such a strategic
bomber?   Will be it possible to build undetectable submarines
with undetectable cruise missiles on board?  It seems that it
is easier to develop countermeasures for SDI than SDI itself.

Piotr Berman