Text File

Aucbvax.1405 fa.arms-d utzoo!duke!mhtsa!ucbvax!VaughanW.REFLECS@HI-Multics Sun May 24 16:27:47 1981 Re: Empires + Modern Weapons the analysis fails to take into account x-ray zapsats (see aviation week some time in february) which cannot be foiled by aluminum (pun intended) nor by ablative coatings. the analysis also assumes 30% beam switching and tracking time, which is ridiculous. the assumption that killing the laser satellites would destroy our defense is faulty; we could adopt a doctrine of launching our icbm's if the zapsats were attacked en masse.

x-ray zapsats are cheap to build and launch (low mass). they are one-shot weapons, like icbm's; but the technology is *not* adaptable to ground-based use. they are considered defensive in nature, as they can only destroy small objects (the size of an icbm or a bomber).

were the analysis correct, the conclusion would still fail -- the fact that a defense is of limited adequacy does not imply that it should not be used. it would be foolish to remain defenseless while we searched for the *perfect* defense.

some magazines should carry warnings, like a pack of cigarettes: "the spurious arguments contained in this publication may be hazardous to your mental health." the bulletin of the atomic scientists is one of these; its editors and authors long ago subjugated their ethics to their sense of "moral duty".

Bill

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.