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: SDI: 95% isn't the point: re to Sevener
Message-ID: <1478@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 09:59:41 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1478
Posted: Mon Mar 24 09:59:41 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 21:01:34 EST
References: <312@drutx.UUCP> <1473@mhuxt.UUCP> <1050@whuxl.UUCP> <2269@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 20

> >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?
> >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
> 
> Also, you continually refer to it as "Start Wars".  This seems to me like
> name calling and nothing else.  Even if you do believe that SDI will start
> wars, calling it "Start Wars" is like calling a fetus "she" in net.abortion,
> or referring to all liberals as pinkos.

    Not quite.  A random fetus may not be a "she", and many liberals probably
*aren't* pinko's, but if SDI works, it probably *will*  'start wars'.
> Kenneth Arromdee
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j