🚀 go-pugleaf

Rand Simberg (simberg@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Do you really believe that a system that would be ninety percent
: effective against a massive strike wouldn't be even more effective
: against a minimal one?  For example, what is ninety percent of one
: missile?  It is nonsense to talk about system effectiveness percentages
: in the absence of the number of missiles to be defended against.  This
: also ignores the confidence level in whatever effectiveness number is
: assigned.  Even if it were only theoretically ninety percent effective,
: there would still be a good chance that none of a salvo of ten would
: get through.  (Of course, there would also be a good chance that one or
: more would.)

The question remains, though, against what threat would an SDI be aimed? 
Rather than looking at this issue as a math problem, it would probably be
more useful to examine it as a policy issue.  First, against an aggressor
with a large number of nukes, it is quite likely that the fact that the
USG would retailiate in kind would remove any incentive for an attack.  
Similary, what nation would launch a single missile when the result would 
be to turn (Insert enemy du jour here) into rubble?  Ultimately, in days 
of shrinking resources, I would rather see my defense dollars go 
elsewhere where they might actually do some good.
 

--
David Birdsey | "Don't rejoice in Victory. For while you've killed the
              |  Beast, the bitch that bore him is in heat again." 
                                                      -Bertholt Brecht
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html