ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/09/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Friday, November 8, 1985 6:57PM
Volume 5, Issue 15
Today's Topics:
Scientific American and citing it..
Gwynn Dyer on "War"
Criticism &Scientific American
Diversity in Deterrence and ALCMs
Re: ALCM, Invasion of Japan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 19:07:44 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Scientific American and citing it..
I am getting tired of this debate. My request as an individual reader
is that interested parties continue on their own without including the
general readership.
Please??
thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 11:24 EST
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Gwynn Dyer on "War"
I too am watching this PBS series of commentaries. The most
recent episode gave us these opinions (MY INTERPRETATION):
The arms race is basically between the U.S. Air Force, the
U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy. The Soviets are not really the
prime antagonist.
The Triad was born of interservice rivalry, not the
strategic merits of the concept. Had the U.S. Marine Corps
possessed the Bomb in 1950, we'd have the Quadrangle.
The concept of war-fighting was enthusiastically embraced by
the Air Force as a justification for their admittedly vulnerable
ICBMs. This has led to the absurd premise that the U.S. doesn't
target civilians, yet has 60 warheads allotted to Moscow. Once
you admit the need for war-fighting, there's no limit to the
number of warheads and delivery systems you "need." Everyone's
happy!
I hope this accurately conveys the views and tone of this series.
The program is very pessimistic about the future of warfare; I
think his point will be that nukes render global war obsolete.
It's hard to argue with that.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Nov 85 20:36 EST (Thu)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Criticism &Scientific American
From: Richard Foy <foy at AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Slander and libel laws cover the subject of criticising SA on this
net. I suspect that SA could make a reasonably good case of libel
concerning some of the postings.
You are almost certainly wrong. Under the applicable standards, SA
(or, rather, the editor of SA) would have to prove either knowledge
that the defamatory statement was false, or reckless disregard of
truth or falsehood.
Perhaps a third point: unless one discusses a criticism with the
party concerned, one has no opportunity of learning.
So, perhaps one can't learn by criticizing Aristotle or Plato?
_B
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 11:01 CDT
From: Fred_Mccall <mccall%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Diversity in Deterrence and ALCMs
Henry Spencer writes:
> During the furious debate over MX basing modes, there was some
> discussion of long-endurance aircraft as launchers.
>
> Consider the late-model B-52 . . .
Tests were actually performed on launching ICBMs from aircraft as early as
1974. The aircraft was a C-5A and the missile used was a Minuteman I. The
weight of this missile (65,000 lbs) is almost exactly the same as that of
the Trident (C4) missile. Rather than a relatively expensive bomber-style
aircraft, why not build a fleet of relatively inexpensive heavy lift long
range transports? This would give the added capability of diverting part
of our missile-carriers into regular transports during conventional warfare,
improving our rapid response and logistic support capability.
Michael Edelman responds to Henry Spencer's idea with:
> In fact, we have something close to this already being deployed,
> in the form of B-52 launched ALCMs. . . This gives you 16 independantly
> targeted warheads, although of lower yield (and accuracy) than the
> Titans Spencer suggests.
ALCMs are *less* accurate than *TITAN* missiles? Where did you get that
piece of misinformation? According to the figures I have seen, the CEP
of a Titan missile is 1482 meters, that of a Cruise is 30 meters. In any
case, the missile suggested was a Trident (C4) not a Titan (Trident CEP
is 250 meters).
The warhead on a Cruise is about 200 kt, definitely smaller than the 9 Mt
warhead of the Titan, while the Trident carries 10 x 100 kt. The advantage
of the Trident over Cruise is that you don't have to get as close to the
target (4600 km for Trident vs 2400 km for Cruise) which would further
complicate the other guy's air defense problems. The aircraft can also
be cheaper, since no hardpoints or missile bay are necessary; all that
is reguired is a cargo bay large enough to hold the missile and preflight
equipment, with a big door at the back.
Titan motors were suggested as RATO boosters for the missile-carriers. A
Titan would be a very poor choice for an air launched missile as it is liquid
fueled, the fuel is both corrosive and poisonous, and the Titan is not noted
for being either leak-free or especially stable.
While the 16 Cruise missiles carried on a B-52 are a more effective weapons
system than that proposed by Henry Spencer, I agree with him that this would
give an added dimension to the airborne leg of our deterrent structure, as
well as being significantly cheaper if transport style aircraft are used.
Regards,
- Fred McCall (TI/DSEG/NBBE/CETD/ACSL)
CSNET: mccall@ti-eg
ARPA: mccall%ti-eg@csnet-relay
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 85 15:29:56 EST (Friday)
From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: ALCM, Invasion of Japan
In response to my:
"Presumably because of this vaunted accuracy, the cruise has been
attacked by some groups as a "first-strike" weapon. This has
never made much sense to me, as it would appear that the long
flight time to most Soviet military targets, even from launch
points near the border, would enable verification of the attack
and launch-on-warning retaliation. True or false?"
Phil Lapsley replys:
"My understanding is that this is false; the big win of the ALCM is
that it is supposed to come in at a "sub-radar" alititude, so the
Soviets don't see the missile until it explodes. Terrain following
guidance systems allow this low alititude."
Yes, ALCMs have much better penetration (than the B52s from which they
are launched) because of this. The probability of any given ALCM being
intercepted may even be quite low. But is it really true that a large
number of ALCMs could intrude into Soviet airspace so as to strike their
targets within minutes of each other, without significant risk of the
Soviets detecting, in general but sufficiently unambiguous terms, what
was going on? And if not, how could a strategic planner count it a
first-strike weapon?
Mark
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************