Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site vu44.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcvax!vu44!jack
From: jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars Defense Plan
Message-ID: <363@vu44.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Aug-84 06:00:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: vu44.363
Posted: Sat Aug 25 06:00:59 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Aug-84 04:35:15 EDT
References: <966@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 27

(The original article was in net.general, but I added net.politics,
since I think that is more appropriate).

Among the objections Gary has against the Star Wars program are
two things that are valid for almost all of the recent weapon
systems, namely that they probably won't work, and that they
are only kept alive by people who have a *personal* interest
in it.
 If you look at the Cruise missiles (especially interesting to
us in Europe), even people who are *not* against nuclear arms
think they're a bad thing. We had an American documentary program
on TV here a couple of months ago in which some people who
had been deep into the cruise project said that the thing was
virtually worthless, because of some serious design flaws.
 The program also showed that the only reason the cruise project
wasn't abandoned was the fact that the people who were in the
places to make decisions were so involved with it that the end of
the Cruise missile would probably also be the end of their career.
 That's really a great joke, isn't it? You have to pay through the
nose for weapons we don't want, and after you get them you find out
that they don't even work.........

	Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack

PS: Don't misunderstand me, I'm against *all* weapons, wether they
work or not. The arguments here are only meant to get some of you
over to our side :-). (Well, make that a :-( ).