ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (12/03/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, December 3, 1985 9:39AM
Volume 5, Issue 34
Today's Topics:
C-5s full of drugs
A High Tech Maginot Line
A High Tech Maginot Line
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 17:47:56 pst
From: amdcad!phil@decwrl.DEC.COM (Phil Ngai)
Subject: C-5s full of drugs
>From: delftcc!sam at nyu.arpa
>
> since C-5 cargo planes full of drugs come in regularly over the
>southern border.)
I find this hard to believe since C-5s are military planes still in
active service. I doubt the drug smugglers have gotten hold of any.
What is your source for this assertion?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 23:16:21 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: A High Tech Maginot Line
Another example
would be a supersonic cruise missile with a nuclear-reactor powered
jet engine (since it would only fly once, and has no crew, nuclear
propulsion seems feasible). Nuclear propulsion might permit the
cruise missile to fly fast enough to avoid most defenses yet still
be able to fly intercontinental distances.
Why would you need nuclear power? Ram jets wold probably suffice, at
least according to DARPA.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 3 Dec 1985 07:59:06 EST
From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: A High Tech Maginot Line
You'd want nuclear power for several reasons:
(1) Range. Currently, cruise missiles must be launched fairly near
to the target, because of fuel limitations. A nuclear powered
cruise missile could be launched from anywhere.
(2) Speed. Current cruise missiles are subsonic; at high
speed the fuel consumption is unacceptably high. A nuclear
powered cruise missile could go much faster, making it harder
to shoot down.
(3) Size. Ignoring shielding, one might hope to make a reactor
smaller than a chemical engine & tanks of similar performance.
A smaller target is harder to shoot down, and has lower drag.
(4) Power. With a more powerful engine one can add armor to the
missile, reducing the effectiveness of antimissile weapons.
Also, current cruise missiles must attack their targets on
flat terminal trajectories, because they have insufficient
power to climb & dive at steep angles. A nuclear powered missile
would avoid this problem (although adding a short burning chemical
rocket to normal cruise missiles might also solve the problem).
Obvious objections include: (1) maybe high power nuclear engines are
hard to build, (2) the electronics will have to be shielded to some
extent, (3) testing the missile will be more difficult, (4) the
radiation emitted by the engine may make detection easier.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************