Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Physics:piner
From: piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: high.frontier
Message-ID: <1349@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Jun-84 06:28:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1349
Posted: Tue Jun 12 06:28:55 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jun-84 23:47:28 EDT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Dept.
Lines: 93


Well, time to enter the debate. First let me summarize the debate.
It seems to go back and forth something like this;

Pro: "Look at this neat defense system. Let's build it."
Con: "It won't work. Forget it."
Pro: "Well, it will be expensive, and it has some bugs.
      But we can make it work."
Con: "Well, you're right, it can be made to work in theory.
      But there are too many counter measures".
Pro: "Ok, so it isn't perfect, but isn't it better to take out
      some of the warheads than to let them all land."
Con: "It is an escalation of the arms race. It will cost a lot
      of money and will just make things worse."
Pro: "But I would rather have a defensive arms race than an
      offensive arms race."
Con: "It's worse"
Pro: "Better!"
Con: "WORSE!"
.
.
.
  The argument then gets even more heated. I have been thinking about
this debate. I must admit that I like the idea of defensive weapons
rather than offensive weapons myself. But I had to scan my memory
to find if history could shed any light on this debate. Indeed it can.
   In the 60's this debate was about the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile)
system. The arguments above are just about the same arguments that
were put forward when the ABM system was debated. The proponents won.
It was decided to build an ABM system. The Russians decided to build
one too, of course. It was seen that these system were going to be
very expensive, imperfect and perhaps destabilizing. So the Soviet
Union and the United States agreed to build only four such systems.
Each side would build two. The plan was to build one system to
defend a missile base in the west, and one system to defend the
capital. The Soviets decided on a similar plan.
   The US started work on the first system in the west. The second
one the protect the capital was to be built after the bugs were
worked out on the first one. The Soviets started work around Moscow.
After the US system was partly built, it was decided that the system
would never be worth the money, and it might not ever be made to
work. In short, those folks who had argued against it's technical
feasibility had been right. The Soviets did complete the system
protecting Moscow, I don't think they ever built the second.
The system around Moscow is not expected to work by US experts.
   So what's so bad about this. We gave a good idea a good shot.
So a few billion dollars were spent to find out it was a mistake.
That's not so bad to defend our country, is it? Well, there was
a side effect to the ABM plan. When it was decided to build these
systems, weapons designers started work on counter measures.
The idea they hit upon was decoy war heads. Put several decoys
on each missile, then the Soviets would have to shoot more
targets to get your warhead. Then someone got the bright idea,
"Why use dummy warheads? why not use real ones?" And so MIRVs
were born.
   Now we have MIRVs, but no defense, even against the old
style single warhead missiles. Is this history lesson germane
to the current debate. I believe it is. Even if we can build
a space based system which is 100% effective against ICBMs,
there are still submarine based missiles. I suspect that
any attempt to build a space based defense will result in
a shift to weapons which can be launched from the sea. These
weapons are harder to stop, and give much less warning. In
the case of ballistic missiles, flight times are around 10
minutes, instead of 30 minutes for ICBMs. The cruise missiles
don't even show up on radar. They can be shot down if you can
find them soon enough., But finding them, intercepting them,
and shooting them is a real trick. But I digress.
   My point is, there is an easy counter measure to any
space based defense we could build. Building such a system,
or even trying to build it, will only shift the arms race
into another direction. Indeed, current trends in the arms
race are away from ICBMs anyway. Building a defense against
them will only hasten this trend. Any defense plan must
be complete to be effective. As long as there is anyway around
it, it is a waste. I think the ABM lesson shows us this.
So, I am afraid any space based defense will be just another
Maginot Line.
					Rich Piner
					Purdue Physics Dept.
P.S.
  To make a long article longer, we should define a couple
of terms in this debate.
"High Frontier" refers to system of around 400 platforms in
orbit, each with 100 interceptor missiles to take out 
one warhead each. These are backed up by ground based
"Gatling guns". The chief proponent of this system is
Gen. Daniel Graham (Ret.) It is not a beam weapon, and
the warheads on the missile, use conventional explosives
and flack.
"Star Wars" is the other term. It refers to directed energy
beam weapons. This includes particle beams, and laser beams.