pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) (10/01/90)
From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) Didn't see this appear in the group last time I posted it (xrn crashed just as I was posting, must be the reason), so here it is again: prompted by the events in the middle east and the time it's taking to get troops and materiel over there, I found myself wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? After all, it's an alternative to destroying the launchers (which happens when arms reduction treaties are signed), there's no 'N'-word stigma, and they are accurate enough by now to take out a chem factory, right? If we'd been attacked in Saudi Arabia in the early days after the invasion of Kuwait, could we have read off lat/long of targets from satellite recon and taken them out? -- This is news. This is your | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech brain on news. Any questions? | (pjs@aristotle.jpl.nasa.gov)
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (10/03/90)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) >time it's taking to get troops and materiel over there, I found >myself wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional >warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? After all, >it's an alternative to destroying the launchers (which happens >when arms reduction treaties are signed), there's no 'N'-word >stigma, and they are accurate enough by now to take out a >chem factory, right? If we'd been attacked in Saudi Arabia in >the early days after the invasion of Kuwait, could we have >read off lat/long of targets from satellite recon and taken >them out? > BAD idea! Sure, our ICBMs have a CEP of a couple hundred yards -- plenty sufficient if you have a big enough warhead on the thing. Of course, you incur a number of other problems: 1: Targeting -- ICBMs are specified for a certain RV design; to make a conventional warhead of the same dimensional properties of a nuke would make a very small yield warhead. Besides, you could be sacrificing some accuracy in changing the parameters of the PBV load. 2: Cost -- Why use a $10 million-plus weapon to do a job that can be accomplished just as easily with a $3 million cruise missile? 3: (and most important of all) Destabilization -- Don't forget that Iraq is awful close to the Soviet Union.... In fact, RVs on a great circle trajectory would go right over the pole (AND Soviet airspace) en route to Iraq. Now, Glasnost and Perestroika are neat things, but try convincing Moiseyev and his cronies in the Strategic Rocket Forces that the Imperialistic Capatalist Dogs aren't launching a preemptive strike against the Fatherland while the missiles are in the air. You'd have SS-18s on their way to the Big Apple before you could say Armageddon! |\/\/\/\/| | | | | | (o)(o) c _) | ,____/ | / /______\ "Don't have a cow, man!" -shane d deichman
eesnyder@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) (10/03/90)
From: boulder!boulder!eesnyder@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Eric E. Snyder) In article <1990Oct1.022048.3082@cbnews.att.com> pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) writes: > > >From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) >...I found >myself wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional >warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? After all, >it's an alternative to destroying the launchers (which happens >when arms reduction treaties are signed), >and they are accurate enough by now to take out a >chem factory, right? That would be just like the US military, use a $100,000,000 missile to deliver a $10,000 bomb! :-) While it is an appealing idea (one that crossed my mind), it certainly is not cost effective. Cruise missiles are arguably much more accurate and certainly less expensive. Regarding treaty mandated destruction of missiles: I would like to see ICBMs refitted to launch satellites.... they are more expendable than space shuttles. more line noise from... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TTGATTGCTAAACACTGGGCGGCGAATCAGGGTTGGGATCTGAACAAAGACGGTCAGATTCAGTTCGTACTGCTG Eric E. Snyder Department of MCD Biology We are not suspicious enough University of Colorado, Boulder of words, and calamity strikes. Boulder, Colorado 80309-0347 LeuIleAlaLysHisTrpAlaAlaAsnGlnGlyTrpAspLeuAsnLysAspGlyGlnIleGlnPheValLeuLeu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/03/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> I find it highly unlikely that conventional warheads exist for ICBM's/SLBM's. Besides, if we want pinpoint accuracy on strategic targets, why not use a submarine, surface, or air launched Tomahawk cruise missile with TERCOM guidance. They have a range exceeding 1,000 nm and their accuracies (as I've read in AW&ST) are usually measured in inches, not feet. The TERCOM Tomahawks are usually armed with nuclear warheads, but the anti-ship warhead or the cluster munition warhead would be devestating to any kind of fixed position. Launching ballistic missiles would be pretty dangerous. I think we'd have to clear that with the Soviets, especially since any missiles launched from the Continental US would have to overfly Soviet airspace. Nobody really wants to ever fire a ballistic missile from land or sub unless it's in a declared test range. The consequence of an accidental nuclear exchange is just too great. --Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/03/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) >... wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional >warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? ... Based on unclassified reports, the average error is still high by the standards of non-nuclear bombing. It would be an exceedingly expensive and haphazard way of delivering conventional explosives. Aircraft are a better choice. There might also be a practical problem in that the necessary targeting information may not be available. Aiming ICBMs requires great precision, including very precise mapping and detailed knowledge of the Earth's gravitational field. (I seem to recall hearing that one of the less conspicuous but more important parts of the early US ICBM program was the first real attempt to do intercontinental geodetic surveys, so that the distance to, say, Moscow could be determined precisely enough to aim an ICBM at it!) It would not surprise me if this information was not available for the entire world, but had been gathered only for areas thought likely to be of interest for ICBM attack. A last problem, not entirely technical, is that people have a tendency to get upset when they see incoming ICBMs. :-) That would certainly be an effective way of finding out how well those Scuds really work, but Israel and Saudi Arabia might not appreciate being used as test cases. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/03/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott) >... wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional >warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? ... >... If we'd been attacked in Saudi Arabia in >the early days after the invasion of Kuwait, could we have >read off lat/long of targets from satellite recon and taken >them out? My technical objections to this, in my previous contribution on the subject, occupied me to the point where I overlooked the more fundamental flaw that I've orated about before: this is *yet another* proposal to Win The War With Strategic Bombing, an idea that didn't work in WWII and won't work in the Persian Gulf. Attacks on strategic targets in Iraq wouldn't even slow down an attack on Saudi Arabia. The supplies and equipment needed for the attack would already be at the front. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry