ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/25/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, February 24, 1986 7:55PM
Volume 6, Issue 53
Today's Topics:
Friedman on carrier vulnerability
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #51
Galileo plutonium
depressed-trajectory weapons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986 16:40 EST
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Friedman on carrier vulnerability
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry at seismo.CSS.GOV
- Ordinary carrier operations (as opposed to "Harrier carrier" operations)
currently require use of unusual and distinctive radars, which potentially
offer an opponent an easy way to locate the carrier.
Why should a carrier radar be so distinctive at long range? The only
thing it needs it for is to support carrier landings, and that could
in principle be done at very low power. If you are talking about the
long-range air defense for the carrier (e.g., AEGIS), I can understand
that, but that's a different question unrelated to carrier operations
per se.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 1986 19:02:40 PST
From: Jerry Mungle <JMUNGLE@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #51
Regarding the message from ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu on the
McNeil-Lehrer interview -- I found the use of a pseudo-southern dialect
in the text completely unnecessary and highly offensive. The point was clear from
the text of the message, it was clear the use of alternate spelling was an
attempt to ridicule based on regional bias (perhaps unintention, but still
offensive).
Let's stick to the facts, please, and leave the 'cute' displays out. It
reflects poorly upon your position to resort to such devices.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 18:34:50 EST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: Galileo plutonium
Timothy Wright writes, in part:
> I read in the latest issue of The Nation that one of the shuttle's
> planned missions included the Galileo-Jupiter probe, which would have had on
> board about 46 pounds of Plutonium. A Challenger-type explosion would have
> either vaporized or finely distributed the stuff all over the greater Cape
> Canaveral area...
Why? It didn't vaporize or pulverize the rest of the Challenger, just broke
it into small pieces for the most part. The interior of the cargo bay is
probably the best-protected area on the shuttle, too.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 18:34:35 EST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: depressed-trajectory weapons
Timothy Wright writes, in part:
> ...[a] depressed-trajectory missile (e.g., Pershing II, Trident D-5,
> Midgetman, Cruise) will probably not leave the atmosphere, thus making
> directed energy technology wasteful at best...
Depressed-trajectory ballistic missiles still leave the atmosphere, they
just don't get as high. One cannot get ballistic-missile speeds within
the atmosphere for more than a very brief period with current technology!
Pershing II, Trident D5, Midgetman will all spend most of their trajectory
in space. Cruise missiles don't, but they don't have the speed and
altitude characteristics that make ballistic-missile interception such
a difficult problem.
> ...Then there are the problems of ASATs,
> gravity bombs, nuclear artillery and land mines, and the chance of a
> suitcase-style bomb. These weapons will compromise any space-based system.
Different weapons need different defenses. Survivability of an anti-ICBM
system against ASATs is definitely an issue. Gravity bombs and nuclear
artillery can be handled with existing defence technology (although said
technology sometimes is not embodied in operational systems, partly because
the overwhelming presence of un-interceptable ballistic missiles reduces
the incentive). Land mines are not an offensive weapon. Suitcase bombs
are an issue but not necessarily an unsolvable problem. Nobody said that
space-based systems would solve all the problems, just that they would
solve the big one that other systems can't.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************