Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Some problems with Star Wars (LONG) Message-ID: <2090@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 12:30:23 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2090 Posted: Mon Jun 24 12:30:23 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 02:46:56 EDT References: <1186@utcsri.UUCP> <5705@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 19 . . . > > I would also observe that the dangerously-provocative nature of the > actions needed to ready some types of SDI systems for action is an > argument against those specific types of system, not against all SDI > systems. Including this under "why SDI is a bad thing" is misleading > advertising, to say the least. [This does not invalidate the more general > point that chain-reaction readiness increases are dangerous.] > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry It seems to me that the destabilising component is one of generating a situation where one side believes the other may be able to launch a strike with relative impunity. Any SDI will create this problem unless both sides could simultaneously deploy equally effective systems *and* beleive that "their" system is as good as the other's. Neither of these conditions seems very likely.