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