Star Wars: Is it technically feasible?

By Jim W. Lai

On the night of March 11, Prof. H.M. vanDriel of the University of Toronto gave a public lecture at the Duffy Amphitheatre on the “Star Wars’? defence program and its technical feasibility. From his illustrated and sometimes technical discussion, he came to the conclusion that the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) is not feasible and that it will have ‘‘no friends, no funds, and no func- tion.” The arguments below follow excerpts from his talk.

A misconception that must be dispelled is that scientist can do anything given enough money. In real life, there are many physical limitations that must be faced when developing a space-based defence system.

Firstly, the earth is round and rotates on its axis. Defence sys- tems, if launched from sub- marines or ground bases, will have to climb hundreds of kilometers before they can be used. Satellites will have to be placed thousands of kilometers up.

Secondly, x-rays, infrared light, and visible light are absorbed by the atmosphere. Consequently, lasers are effective only outside the atmosphere. All light beams spread; lasers become less and less effective with increasing distance. Lasers are also inefficient sources of energy. Typical laser efficiencies aronly on the order of 1%.

Ideally, a ‘Star Wars’’ defence system must be able to provide rapid and reliable warning of att- tack and initiate an appropriate defence. It must rapidly distin- guish between friendly and hostile missiles. It must be able to per-

Letter(s)

Let’s Hope Dear Editor:

I think Litton wrong, wrong, wrong. We as Islanders shouldn’t allow such things to spoil our Island’s peace and beauty.

Litton is unwelcome and un- needed here and Is ay out it goes!

I have spent much thought on the matter and I think the Summer- side Airbase should go too. We must keep *e Island weapon and nuclear free.

Industries is

+ March 20, 1986

from at a moment’s notice and perform near perfection. It must be able to anticipate an deal with every conceivable problem as well as problems that even the de- signers can’t conceive of. If the system breaks down and requires repair technicians to be sent up, the system will be vulnerable.

Such a system must be able to eliminate over 99% of the in- coming missiles. If the system lets even 1% of the incoming war- heads through, the launch of 10,000 warheads would result in 100 warheads striking targets. A handful of well-placed warheads could devastate a nation.

Finally,, the system must be cheaper than and relatively invul- nerable to any countermeasure taken. For example, if a multi- billion dollar laser system-is easily destroyed by a space mine costing only millions — the technological equivalent of stone-throwing — the system would be very vulner- able.

There is a premium for being able to respond soon after a hostile missile launch, while they are still in the atmosphere or shortly afterward. During this boost phase, missile systems are large and fragile and make rela- tively easy targets while their exhaust flames are visible. Sys- tems which begin to respond during later phases are much more complex to develop and deploy since the warheads will have separated from their boosters and no longer have telltale exhaust flames. In addition, thousands of decoys may be deployed in large numbers.

Of the systems currently being

IT say out goes the Airbase, out goes the Charlottetown Armory, and out goes the Veterans Depart- ment because they’re part of it too. Then we can pave the way for world peace.

Let’s hope these poor mis- guided pro-Litton lunatics don’t build their plant here and ruin our international reputation.

an Island Way supporter

considered for the crucial boost phase, the laser-based systems are the most promising, However, all proposed SDI systems, for all phases, present formidable techni- cal obstacles.

Space-based lasers in low orbit, 1000 km above the earth, would have to be deployed in large numbers. Assuming it takes 3 second to accomplish and verify a missile kill and the boost phase lasts 3 minutes, a satellite can kil! 60 ICBMs at most. If the Soviets were to launch 1400 multiple war- heard ICBMs, at least 24 satellites must be constantly on station. Since the earth is 40,000 km around and such satellites would have an attack range of 1000 km, a give satellite would be on station at most 5% of the time. Thus, at least 480 satellites will be required. In the event of an attack, most of the satellites up to 95%, would not be used.

If the system used satellites in geostationary orbit, thereby al- lowing satellites to “‘hover”” over a target, the satellites would be about 40,000 km above the earth. At the distance, aiming at a mis- sile only few meters wide would be difficult. as aiming from Char- lottetown to Vancouver at a moving pencil. X-ray lasers, which are far from being deve- loped, might be capable of pump- ing enough energy to destroy ICBMs at such distances, but research indicates that focusing problems would be more severe

” for x-ray lasers than other types of lasers. A major drawback is that, being triggered by a small nuclear bomb, an x-ray laser could only be used once.

GEM WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: MONDAY: 9 a.m.-11-a.m. 3:30 p.m.-5 p.m. TUESDAY: 9 a.m.-11 a.m. 1:30 p.m.-5 p.m.

I shall be in and out of my office throughout the rest of the week. If I am not in, submissions for the paper, or any messages, may be put through the slot on the door.

Submissions for The Netted Gem should be in no later than the Monday morning of the week in which you want your material published. All submissions are to be typewritten

Simple countermeasures could greatly reduce the effectiveness of space-based defence systems, such as increasing the number of missiles launched, increasing the number of decoys released, or shortening the boost phase. The latter could greatly reduce the boost phase attack window, making lasers unreliable. In addi- tion, the proposed defence sys- tems would not protect against low-flying cruise missiles or sub- marine-launched ICBMs.

It is estimated that if a system were actually deployed, it might cost from $00 billion to one trillion dollars. If electrical power were used, the amount consumed would be equal to the output of three hundred _1000-megawatt power plants, about 60% of pre-

sent U.S. capacity. The power stations alone would cost over 100 billion dollars to build.

It is interesting to note that the leading laser physicists are generally against the SDI program many of them actively protesting SDI.

work, are the Soviets so concerned about SDI, Dr. vanDriel replied, “Maybe by complaining so heavily the Russians are encouraging the Americans to spend their money foolishly.’’ He noted that there could also be benefits in spinoff technologies.

He further proposed that SDI may be a form of economic war- fare. The Soviets cannot allow the Americans to get ahead, so they will have to spend billions to keep up. This concluded his discussion.

Although Dr. vanDriel clearly

Office hours

OFFICE HOURS FOR THE EDITOR OF THE NETTED

WEDNESDAY 0 a.m.-11 a.m.

and double spaced.

i If you cannot have your material in by Monday morning, the editor ‘will not guarantee the material’s publication in that week’s issue.

THE 3EM

When asked why, if SDI won't

showed that SDI is practically infeasible from a technical point of view and practically unafford- able from an economic’ point of view, he did not explain why the Americans "are still willing to spend $26 billion on SDI research over the next 5 years, or why the Soviets are so vehemently opposed to SDI research. It would appear that both governments are be- having senselessly.. We should in- stead assume that both the Ameri- can and Russian governments are clever and even insidious in. this regard.

In my opinion, the intention of the American SDI research pro- gram is to develop laser techno- logy in hopes of finding signifi- cant military and industrial appli- cations. Using a defensive system with the name Strategic Defence Initiative as a cover, the U.S. government would like to disarm anti-nuclear activists while simul- taneously developing laser techno- logy to such an extent that the Soviets would have'no. chance of pohing up, s

‘Fhe-Russians.are in a dilemma.\' If they. spend. a comparable amount of money to develop their laser technology, it will drain funds from other sectors of their economy, adversely affecting their standard of living. Knowing that the Americans will not halt SDI research, they turn to criticize SDI research so they can lay the blame for the failture of future arms. talks totally on the Americans, thus scoring a propaganda victory as a peace-loving country.

In this manner, the power play between two superpowers will drag on.

pcan nee note tereewneetweeeens. ORE!

=~