> That said, there are still many cases in which having a not-perfect
> defensive shield encourages attacks, and many in which it encourages
> potential attackers to invest in an arms race. I haven't seen anything in
> this discussion to make me think we're much closer than 20 years to
> creating a near perfect interdiction system given the approaches SDI
> considers. If we (the gov't) save the billions of dollars that SDI
> proposes to spend on deploying partially effective systems in the short
> term, we (the people) will have more money to spend developing technologies
> that may make this whole approach obsolete.
Chris, I agree with you that a fairly robust shield could very well be
20 years or more away. Furthermore it may be made obsolete
by some technology, such as a Singularity. But it might not.
Regarding the billions to deploy a partially effective system, most
of that money has already been spent. The research and development
of *current* EKV, THAAD and PAC3 has already been spent.
Building a few thousands of these and parking them somewhere is
the cheap part. I dont see why not go ahead and do it.
John Clark has repeatedly claimed that SDI is chasing rainbows, and
there is some possibility this is true. I think not, but consider that there
is a race going on. If we do not defeat nukes, they will eventually
defeat us. All our pleasant dreams of nanotech, AI, cryonics, etc,
could be nuked back into the stone age, unless we defeat the nukes
first. MAD wont keep us safe forever, we need to press on. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT