Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan Message-ID: <4264@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 17:52:13 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.4264 Posted: Thu Aug 23 17:52:13 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 17:52:13 EDT References: <966@ulysses.UUCP>, <363@vu44.UUCP> <189@ho95b.UUCP>, <284@fisher.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 24 > .................................. SLBM's or Cruise missiles which > were relatively immune to a Star Wars defense. As I pointed out in an > earlier article, even an effective Star Wars is effective only against > land-based ICBM's. Either I didn't see that article, or it didn't seem plausible. I agree that a Star Wars defence is of little use against cruise missiles, but intercepting SLBMs is not much harder than intercepting ICBMs. It means the detection network has to be better, and the reaction time has to be faster, but these are problems of degree, not fundamental obstacles. The same comments apply to long-range "tactical" ballistic missiles, although the detection and speed problems are still worse. Cruise-missile defence is essentially an air-defence problem, worse in degree but not different in kind from intercepting bombers. Technology for high-percentage air defences has existed for a long time, although a leakproof air defence is very difficult. The less said about the current state of our air defences, the better, but there is no serious technological barrier to major improvements. It's mostly a question of will: our air defences have reached their current sad state through two decades of neglect and low priority. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry