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