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.