Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!elsie!imsvax!rcc From: rcc@imsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Message-ID: <227@imsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 15:26:30 EDT Article-I.D.: imsvax.227 Posted: Mon Aug 20 15:26:30 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 05:25:48 EDT References: <1742@tekig1.UUCP> Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD Lines: 131 [> == Brian Diehm] > OK, I'll bite. Why is the Star Wars defense system such a bad idea? Answer: Because the so-called defence system can't. Let's set aside all the problems they're going to have building the large focusing mirrors they're going need, and the problem of what kind of power source they're going to use (current satellite power sources are designed for low output over a long period of time, it takes a *lot* of power to power a laser, but that power is only needed for fractions of a second at a time). So, although it *may* be possible in the next 10 years to develop satellite based weapons systems capable of tracking and destroying missles, those satellites would be ridiculously vulnerable. Question: What will it take to destroy a multi-million dollar defense satellite? Answer: About 5 cents worth of gravel in a retrograde orbit. Satellites are *easy* to kill. Let's say a satellite is orbiting the earth at geosynchronous orbit. Somebody decides he really doesn't want that satellite there. Now, assuming he knows where the satellite is (not too difficult in this day and age), this means that he can launch something by rocket off a launch pad or by plane (ala the new F-15 ASW weapon, more about that later). Ok, let's do a little math. (Note: I want the numbers to come out even so I'm going to round the figures down in order to make life easier) Satellite speed = 22,300 miles * 2 * pi (neglecting radius of earth) approx. = 125,000 miles/hour approx. = 5,000 miles/hour (conservative figure) If the satellite hits an object that's standing still, the impact speed will be 5,000 mph. If the object is in a retrograde orbit (same orbit, going the other direction), double the impact speed. An impact speed of 10,000 mhp is nothing to sneeze at. That's a *lot* of kinetic energy. A 5 pound rock hitting something at 10,000 mph will do a lot of damage. The figures get worse as the orbits get lower since the satellites are now moving faster so they won't fall into the earth's atmosphere. The really nasty thing is that suppose the super-defensive satellite hits the 5 pound rock with its particle-laser-whatever beam. You now have 5 pounds of gravel that's going to hit at 10,000 mph. Not much of an improvement. The end result is the same. One very unhappy satellite. Now, some of you may be asking "Why hasn't the military been experimenting with this sort of anti-satellite weapon?" I'll give three reasons. First, the weapon is too obvious. You don't *need* to test it. It's like dropping a rock on an ant. You know what's going happen. Splat. There aren't any fancy electronics or gadgets involved, just simple physics. Second, there's one problem with putting shrapnel into a retrograde orbit. You take out *everything* in that orbit. The military tends to prefer more precise implements of destruction. Thus, the plethora of anti-satellite weapons that move alongside a satellite and explode, or the ones that catch satellites in a net/parasol and explode (such as the F-15 launched AS weapon), etc., etc. All these weapons take out a single satellite and leave the rest relatively safe. Third, people want Star Wars, because although it may not work, it means lots of bucks for the military contractors and it has a lot of emotional appeal. > Suddenly, it becomes well within the realm of technology to do just what >all the peace-loving people want: to make nuclear weapons obsolete, without >replacing them with even WORSE destructive weapons. Instead of us saying to >our opponents "If you destroy us, we'll make sure YOU don't survive, either" >we simply being able to say "Your nuclear attack won't work." Maybe we'll be able to say that someday, but not with Star Wars. > In an age when the MAD balance of power is beginning to crumble, JUST WHAT >IS SO BAD ABOUT SUDDENLY MAKING THE NUCLEAR THREAT INEFFECTIVE? (Note that it >becomes ineffective for both sides, too). See above. > Now, the extremist conservatives point out that Russia seems mickle >anxious to have the USA bargain away this option, and they ask why? I am not >a radical conservative, but it also makes me wonder why? It seems to me that >if the Russians do this and we don't, then our threat suddenly is not only made >obsolete, but becomes inhumane and inappropriate. Note also that it doesn't >matter for that last statement if star wars type defense works or not, it only >matters that the Russians believe it will work for them. Two reasons: First, in order to clear the skies of Star Wars satellites in a cost-effective and efficient manner, you'd have to clear the skies of the communications and spy satellites as well (note that this is not an undesirable thing, especially if some of the comsats or spysats are ABM-sats in disguise). The problem is that they have their own satellites up there as well which they don't want to lose. People hate making major decisions without adequate information. However, given a choice between losing their own satellites and not being able get any ICBM's through, I don't think they'd spend much time making up their minds in a crunch. Second, it's a short step from putting up explosive satellites in orbit to putting up satellites with nuclear warheads in them into orbit. Once *that* happens, it doesn't take a quantum leap of brilliance to say, "Hey, instead of using these satellites with nukes in them on other satellites, why don't we use them on ground targets instead. That'll cut the enemy's reaction time from 15-30 minutes down to under 5. Wow." The Russian's don't want to see this anymore than some us do. MAD is bad enough the way it is. Why make things worse if we don't have to? > So, if the technology works, I ask why is the concept so bad? Because the technology won't. A defensive system has to be defendable itself and this one isn't. > Two quick comments: I think that from here on this should be moved to >net.politics; I am responding only because this was brought up here. Also, I >don't need emotional flames in response, I need constructive information about >why my views are inaccurate. OK, third quick (obvious) point: my views are >solely my own and not my employer's. This is going into net.politics and net.follow-up because I think people should see this. Too many people of been letting the Star Wars hype bypass their brains. Unfortunately, this is one decision that has to made correctly or we're all in trouble. We don't have weapons out in space -- yet, but once they get there, it's going to be near impossible to get them out. And the most effective weapons in space are the offensive ones, not the defensive ones. -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc USnail: Integrated Microcomputer Systems, Inc. Suite 400 6100 Executive Blvd. Rockville, MD 20852