Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bartok!mahoney
From: mahoney@bartok.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Start Wars: 95% is no good: re to A
Message-ID: <1859@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 10:33:47 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1859
Posted: Mon Mar 24 10:33:47 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 20:59:28 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 36


---------------------Reply to mail dated 20-MAR-1986 14:29---------------------


>[Tim Sevener]
>> 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.
> 
>   Main goal of Star Wars as I see it is not as much to win a war,
>but to prevent it in the first place: it significantly reduces
>benefits of the first strike for the opposite side, even
>if the system is only 95% (or 20% for that matter) efficient.
> 
>   Ability to blow up enemy's missiles immediately *after* the
>launch makes the first strike even less attractive for the
>offender

This makes perfect sense to me the following doesn't.

> (it also makes less attractive counter-measure of building
>more missiles to neutralize the system).

Why is this true?  Can you explain this to me.

> 
>   When choosing between building 50000 more missiles or SDI
>(and I wish we needed neither) I am all for SDI.
Personally I am aginst SDI I don't really see it as feasible.  I did support
at one time but in its present state (as envisioned) it would be far too 
complex.  Plus there would be no real way to test the software's relibility.
I must say though I am not totatly convinced that it may never be feasible.

>							Alex Zatsman.

Brian Mahoney