Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan Message-ID: <421@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 14:00:06 EDT Article-I.D.: astrovax.421 Posted: Fri Aug 17 14:00:06 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 01:11:34 EDT References: <809@ihuxb.UUCP> <968@ulysses.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 54 I would like to make a few points in favor of ballistic missile defense systems: 1) The criticism that such a system would not be 100% reliable is a complete straw man. When was any defense system of any kind 100% reliable? The point is that such a complex and not realistically tested system would create great *uncertainty* in the mind of any would be attacker thus improving deterence. It would enormously reduce the lure of a pre-emptive counterforce attack during times of crisis, probably the most realistic scenario for a "rational" descision to use strategic nuclear weapons. 2) If a massive attack ever did occur, such a system could only help to reduce the death and destruction terrible though they might be. It is simply not true that being hit by 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 warheads are all equivalent. 3) By the time such a system could be developed and deployed, it is fairly likely that a substantial number of new small nuclear powers will have appeared. A defense system might well be perfectly effective against such a small attack, or an accidental launch, or a "demonstration" attack. These arguements are fairly straightforward and widely appreciated but there are other MORE IMPORTANT reasons which I think are less widely understood. They are as follows: 4) A missile defense system is an attractive project to (at least some elements of) the military industrial complex. It offers the opportunity of opening up a huge new military enterprise. This may seem like a drawback to idealists who would like to see as few resources as possible "wasted" on military activities; realistically, however, the military industrial complex is such a powerful and influential economic interest that it is hard to imagine us giving up the development of new *offensive* weapons systems without some substitute activity to replace it. A defense system could serve this purpose as well. 5) A missile defense system would make it far easier to imagine a negotiated reduction of offensive missiles to low levels (even zero!) since it would mean that a small amount of cheating or deception would not be too important. Thus the usual verification roadblock might be bypassed. 6) Finally and most speculatively, it is hard to feel confident about the prediction that defense systems could never work very well. Technological developments are notoriously hard to forecast, and it should be noted that as compared to offensive weapons research very little effort has yet been devoted to defensive weapons. One could imagine a (relatively) happy future in which both sides had elaborate, expensive, and effective defense systems based in space. In the event of war, the issue would be decided in space at little cost in human life; a space battle would give one side the command of space and destroy the other's defense system. The losing side would then be forced to yield to avoid a nuclear attack to which it could not effectively respond. This may not sound great but compare it to the current MAD strategy. Ed Turner astrovax!elt