Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oddjob.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <390@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 17:39:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.390
Posted: Sat Aug 18 17:39:48 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 04:13:18 EDT
References: <966@ulysses.UUCP> <1255@vax2.fluke.UUCP>, <814@ihuxb.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago: Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 44

I always had hoped that I would never post an article that had quotes-
within-quotes, but here I go.  ">>" denotes Kurt Guntheroth 
and ">" denotes Allen England .

>> Lets say the Star Wars defense plan is 95% effective ...
>> Now lets say the Russians have 10,000 nuclear warheads,
>> a relatively good estimate for their strength by the time
>> we could implement Star Wars).  0.05 * 10,000 = 500.

>Suppose the Soviets go for a pre-emptive strike against military targets and
>only launch 1000 bombs.  50 get through which is not enough to cripple our
>retaliatory capability.

I can only think of one proponent of arms build-up who is skillful at
hiding the holes in his logic, and Dr. Teller does not spend his time
arguing on USENET.  Allen England would have us believe that our
hypothetical defense is 95% effective and at the same time have the
Soviets disbelieve it so strongly that they would attempt a first
strike with only one-tenth of their weapons.

>> According to the newest theories, 100 bombs is enouch to cause a
>> global climatic catastrophe. ...

>First, these are only theories and no one knows if they are correct.

How shall we test these "theories"?  Shall we just hope that they are
false?  How shall we test the hypothetical defense?  Shall we just
hope that the "theories" on which it is based are true?

>> There is exactly one defense against nuclear war; proscription of nuclear
>> weapons.  Until then, there is no safety in any defense plan.

>This is the kind of defeatist attitude which prevents progress in all
>areas.

Is the opposite attitude, which claims that a large enough military
budget will make us safer, leading to progress?

There is very little rational debate in your statements, Allen England.
Could you please think harder or move your remarks to net.flame?  I,
for one, will promise not to argue with you in that newsgroup.
___________________________________________________________
Matt		University	ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford	of Chicago	UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt