Aucbvax.1421
fa.arms-d
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!VaughanW.REFLECS@HI-Multics
Tue May 26 10:36:27 1981
Re: zapsats
I didn't mean to imply that I reject the analysis cited by Caulkins
because of its source. I tried to show my reasons for rejecting it. My
comments about the source weren't really germane. One of the problems
with net communications is that it's too immediate - too easy to react
to incoming mail quickly and with flame.
If you throw out every biased publication that crosses your desk you'll
be left with nothing to read. I just try to compensate for the biases of
those I read, and don't read those (few) that I'm emotionally unequipped
to compensate for.
As far as advocating zapsats is concerned - what I am looking for is a
way out of MAD. MAD smells to me like an unstable equilibrium - tilt it
either way and things go boom. The only way out of MAD is a good defense
- preferably one that can be installed quickly enough to rule out a
preemptive strike.
It's most conducive to peace when each side has a good defense.
Therefore research on truly defensive weapons (if such exist) ought to
be in the open literature and perhaps ought to be worked on by
multinational teams.
National security considerations require that good offenses be kept from
our enemies; but it is not so clear that they should be denied good
defense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
