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?