🚀 go-pugleaf

the analysis fails to take into account x-ray zapsats (see aviation week
some time in february) which cannot be foiled by aluminum (pun intended)
nor by ablative coatings. the analysis also assumes 30% beam switching
and tracking time, which is ridiculous. the assumption that killing the
laser satellites would destroy our defense is faulty; we could adopt a
doctrine of launching our icbm's if the zapsats were attacked en masse.

x-ray zapsats are cheap to build and launch (low mass). they are
one-shot weapons, like icbm's; but the technology is *not* adaptable to
ground-based use.  they are considered defensive in nature, as they can
only destroy small objects (the size of an icbm or a bomber).

were the analysis correct, the conclusion would still fail -- the fact
that a defense is of limited adequacy does not imply that it should not
be used.  it would be foolish to remain defenseless while we searched
for the *perfect* defense.

some magazines should carry warnings, like a pack of cigarettes: "the
spurious arguments contained in this publication may be hazardous to
your mental health." the bulletin of the atomic scientists is one of
these; its editors and authors long ago subjugated their ethics to their
sense of "moral duty".

				Bill