🚀 go-pugleaf

> >Considering that the human involved would have to decide whether to
> >commit the United States to nuclear war, I would hope that by "human
> >control" they mean the President of the United States.
> 
> What kind of imbecilic nonsense is this?  Deciding whether or not to shoot
> down something that looks like a missile has nothing to do with committing the
> United States to a nuclear war...

Take a look at the X-ray laser program, widely credited with infatuating
Ronald Reagan with his strategic defense fantasy. An X-ray laser is
pumped by the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Deciding to shoot down what
appears to be a Soviet missile with an X-ray laser therefore involves
the detonation of a nuclear device in space within line of sight of the
USSR. Considering that many nuclear attack scenarios begin with the
detonation of nuclear weapons in space near the target country to
generate EMP and blind sensors, the already paranoid Soviets could well
believe that a US nuclear attack was underway and respond by launching
their own missiles in a "pre-emptive" strike. Voila, nuclear war started
by the defensive system that was supposed to protect against it.

Even a non-nuclear "defensive" weapon, if accidentally used against a
non-threatening Soviet launch, could create a crisis that could well
trigger a nuclear war. Remember that most Soviet launches involve highly
sensitive military C3I payloads that the Soviets consider important to
their "deterrent". (Perhaps "we" know that we would never attack the
USSR first, but the Soviets don't feel that way. It's their *perception*
of our intent that's important here.) The Soviets might well feel that
the "mistake" was in fact a deliberate precursor to a sneak attack, in
which destroying the opponent's "eyes and ears" is the natural first
step. Again, the temptation to "pre-empt" might become irresistable.

So I suggest that next time you do a little research before you use
phrases like "imbecilic nonsense".

Phil