SDI narrows the range of possible terrorist gambits, and creates an incentive for a draw down from the strategic use of nuclear weapons.
Is this a test of how ridiculous the support of SDI can get? Terrorists using intercontinental and mid-range ballistic missiles!
and creates an incentive for a draw down from the strategic use of nuclear weapons
I think that logic says it has the opposite effect of what you claim. Even the proponents of an SDI system claim that it's to counter rogue state attacks, with very few missiles involved. There is no SDI system conceived that would counter any medium to large scale attack. The only reasonable outcome one could expect: is for major countries to increase the stockpile of strategic weapons to counter any small losses from an SDI system. Return to the MAD policy.
This whole concept of SDI parallels the thought processes on Bolt out of the Blue scenarios. There's nothing that can counter a Bolt out of the Blue attack; so our policy will defined them as not possible.
And yes, I do expect that it [SDI] will be adaptable to use in conventional situations.
In what capacity? Not the satellites, that's a payload issue. Sensor technology; no, the sensor technologies for delivery platforms are unique, not adaptable. That leaves the kill mechanisms. Missile or energy weapons. If it's a missile defense, there are already cheaper solutions that will evolve on their own, independent of SDI. Energy weapons, those are peculiar to minimal shots through the atmosphere, i.e., the atmosphere absorbs to much energy for energy based weapons to be used in a conventional warfare scenario. IF one could develop an energy source that could support conventional warfare scenario, then the SDI system becomes a weapon of mass destruction itself.
There's really nothing there to adapt for conventional warfare.
jttmab |
