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 :-( ).