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.