Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: ASAT test
Message-ID: <619@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 12:47:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: petrus.619
Posted: Wed Oct  2 12:47:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:35:48 EDT
References: <2258@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 41

> I am completely for the ASAT tests.  Anything that can shoot down nuclear
> missiles before they can kill millions of people is OK by me.  Even if they
> only stop 10%, that's more people that will live.

You are making a common mistake, that of confusing anti-satellite weapons
("ASATs") with the Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI" or "Star Wars"), a
so-called "research program" to develop ways to shoot down nuclear missiles.
While some elements of the technology are the same, the first task is far
easier than the second.

> I am surprised that so many people see the ASAT program as evil.  We are
> talking about a defensive weapon here.  Why don't you anti-ASAT people
> go campaign against machine guns.  They have killed more people than an
> ASAT ever will.

Until now, military satellites have been one of the VERY few technological
innovations that have contributed to (instead of undermining) stability.
They are the "eyes and ears" of each country's military staff. By providing
the means to see what the other side is up to, satellites decrease the
chances of being taken completely by surprise. By relaying communications to
their nuclear forces, they improve the credibility of the "deterrent".
Threatening these satellites can only aggravate an already dangerous
situation. How would you respond if an important "spy" satellite suddenly
stopped transmitting? Assume a technical failure? Assume the worst, namely
that an attack is imminent? Blinding somebody who has a shotgun aimed at you
is not a wise move, nor is stocking up on acid in preparation for such a
move.

The other reason why the ASAT test is such a bad decision is because neither
side currently has the ability to attack satellites much above a few
thousand kilometers. Our most important early-warning and communications
satellites are generally in geostationary orbits, and were safe as long as
the Soviet moratorium held. Now that Reagan has broken the moratorium, I
fully expect a free-for-all to ensue in which ASATs capable of destroying
satellites even in GEO to be developed.  The result could be a disaster.

Again, I'd like to strongly recommend the article on Antisatellite Weapons
in the June 1984 issue of Scientific American. These points and many others
are discussed in excellent detail.

Phil