Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdcsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!alex From: alex@sdcsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things Message-ID: <864@sdcsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 14:22:33 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.864 Posted: Mon Jun 4 14:22:33 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 05:38:53 EDT References: <852@sdcsvax.UUCP>, <58@mouton.UUCP> Organization: U.C. San Diego; freelance writer Lines: 42 Even if HF is only 80% effective against a massive attack, I would much rather have it than not. Come on: wouldn't you rather (in the even of a nuke attack of 1000 warheads) have 20% land than 100%? The attitude of the UCS, Carl Sagan, et al, seems to be that one bomb will kill us all (Hiroshima/Nagasaki notwithstanding). {This discussion presupposes that I don't want ANY bombs landing, in case you were wondering.} In re "hostage cities" (smuggled bombs): this is an ooooold argument. Assuming that some terrorist group (say, Libya) really wanted to take out a city, they'd likely do it in a cost-effective manner. Dams are much easier to blow than bombs are to buy. LP gas tanks are even easier, and as kill-effective. OK, let's assume they have a bomb anyway. The US gov. has ways to detect bombs, once it knows they're around--even from space. Back to HF. Having some form of defence moves the U.S. away from a strict launch-on-anything policy, which is almost necessary with 9 minute flight times. It makes our forces more likely to survive, gives the president more breathing room, and gives us a defence against small numbers of incoming RVs. Sure, the arms race may go into space; why not? Better there than on Earth. Any country that starts using nukes in space is going to (a) show the whole world he means war and (b) take out all of his own sats. This means a higher "tripwire" level--and more warning. And let's remember that all of HF's plans are non-nuclear. No nukes in space, no new nukes (three times fast, now) other than MX. And much cheaper than "mobile missiles" a la Midgetman. Those who think HF is destabilizing are invited to tell me why. Please address the question of how the U.S. is likely to run a first strike. Alex P.S. The original nickname of MX (Peacekeeper) was Hallmark. Anyone know why?