quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) (08/06/90)
From: convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani)
In all the press coverage about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and on
options for the US in any Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, two important
points seem to be studiously avoided.
First off, with the B52s based at Diego Garcia, isn't it possible to
launch significant, conventionally armed cruise missile attacks
against Iraqi oil, military, and power facilities sufficient to
seriously cripple Iraq, or at least send them a powerful message? My
understanding of our cruise missile accuracy was that they are capable
of causing damage with conventional warheads to large targets such as
oil refineries, holding tanks, power plants, and what not.
Second, in the face of a huge Iraqi land army, is it possible to build
up a US troop presence in Saudi Arabia while it is under a
hypothetical Iraqi attack, without acknowleding the fact that it may
be necessary to use tactical nuclear weapons to forestall serious
Iraqi advances?
There are all sorts of scenarios were US military action could be tied
in with Soviet, Iranian and/or Egyptian forces, but in such a volatile
situation, it seems highly likely that small US elements may be forced
to face overwhelming Iraqi forces. We should be prepared to support
our troops to the full or we should not send them in.
[To the ed- I know the nuclear question borders heavily on political
issues but it is just as much a military issue as well.]
[mod.note: In fact, the entire question of the Iraq-Kuwait war
and related possibilities is beyond the scope of sci.military; the
group exists only to discuss technical aspects of the military.
I consider this post acceptable, though, because it focusses on
technical issues such as the capabilities of cruise missiles in
this environment. I urge readers to keep their articles likewise
relevant to the group.
I would also propose that a home for this topic be quickly found
to allow wider discussion of the issues. Both misc.misc and
misc.headlines would be appropriate, but those two groups tend to be
very cluttered and I doubt much productive discussion can be achieved
there; talk.politics.mideast, ditto. If anyone has any suggestions,
let's hear them ! - Bill ]
--
Marc Quattromani Convex Computer Corporation
Richardson, Texas
{uiucdcs,sun,uunet,harvard,killer,usenix}!convex!quattro -or-
convex!quattro@a.cs.uiuc.EDUrichk@tera.com (Richard Korry) (08/08/90)
From: richk@tera.com (Richard Korry) In article <1990Aug6.031122.1992@cbnews.att.com> convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) writes: > >First off, with the B52s based at Diego Garcia, isn't it possible to >launch significant, conventionally armed cruise missile attacks >against Iraqi oil, military, and power facilities sufficient to >seriously cripple Iraq, or at least send them a powerful message? My >understanding of our cruise missile accuracy was that they are capable >of causing damage with conventional warheads to large targets such as >oil refineries, holding tanks, power plants, and what not. Since cruise missiles use computerized maps I wonder if the information to retarget to Iraqi installations is already available. Secondly, if they have to fly over sandy deserts (presumably without large features) would this make it difficult to achieve accurate delivery? That is, since the the guidance system supposedly checks what it sees with its internal idea of where it should be in order to stay on course, isn't there a problem when there aren't any features to reference? (I suppose they have the same problem a sea launched cruise missile has and use the same solution). rich
root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) (08/08/90)
From: edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) In article <1990Aug6.031122.1992@cbnews.att.com> convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) writes: > > >From: convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) >My understanding of our cruise missile accuracy was that they are >capable of causing damage with conventional warheads to large targets >such as oil refineries, holding tanks, power plants, and what not. A cruise missle, given accurate maps ahead of time, can quite litterally fly through the kitchen window. It is exceptionally good at hitting stationary, fixed sites, like refineries, air bases, bunkers and such. Not so good against tanks. Nuclear weapons might be a little hard on the oil fields. -- Brian Douglass Voice: 702-361-1510 X311 Electronic Data Technologies FAX #: 702-361-2545 1085 Palms Airport Drive uunet!edat!brian Las Vegas, NV 89119-3715
hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET (08/08/90)
From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET> I know that there are other considerations which inhibit one nation from making a military assualt with the object of killing the leader of another country, but as a technical question, could a cruse missile hit a specified part of a building? Particulary, say, a bedroom? K. Henson
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (08/14/90)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) In article <1990Aug8.030215.25088@cbnews.att.com>, richk@tera.com (Richard Korry) writes: > Since cruise missiles use computerized maps I wonder if the information to > retarget to Iraqi installations is already available. The AP reported that such information has in fact already been delivered to the appropriate units in the Gulf. I'm curious what technology is used to store the maps on board? PROMs? > Secondly, if they > have to fly over sandy deserts (presumably without large features) would > this make it difficult to achieve accurate delivery? This is also a problem in the environment cruise missles were designed for: the Russian tundra is also pretty featureless. In fact, that's the reason why the U.S. pushed Canada pretty hard to get rights to fly some test runs in Alberta (I believe it was Alberta). There was substantial (or at least loud) Canadian opposition to such flights.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (08/14/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Aug8.030228.25162@cbnews.att.com>, edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) writes: >Nuclear weapons might be a little hard on the oil fields. Neutron bomb. Great for killing tanks (well, the people inside of them) but not harming existing structures.
hall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) (08/15/90)
From: hall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) In article <1990Aug8.030239.25217@cbnews.att.com>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET writes: | | |From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET> |I know that there are other considerations which inhibit one nation |from making a military assualt with the object of killing the leader of |another country, but as a technical question, could a cruse missile hit |a specified part of a building? Particulary, say, a bedroom? K. Henson To answer your question about cruise missiles hitting a specific building, maybe even a particular room...... The answer is YES. Scott Hallmark
cashman@acsu.buffalo.edu (geoffrey a cashman) (08/17/90)
From: cashman@acsu.buffalo.edu (geoffrey a cashman) In article <1990Aug8.030239.25217@cbnews.att.com> ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET writes: > > >From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.UU.NET> >I know that there are other considerations which inhibit one nation >from making a military assualt with the object of killing the leader of >another country, but as a technical question, could a cruse missile hit >a specified part of a building? Particulary, say, a bedroom? K. Henson There is no doubt that a cruise missile could accomplish such a task. Cruise missiles are EXCEEDINGLY accurate. To quote one article I read, (no I don't remember where and it's paraphrased anyway :-)) "You could launch one in Dallas and have it go through the goalposts at RFK stadium in Washington." The difficult part of this is that you need VERY accurate maps of the area you intend to fire the missile in. However the good news that I've heard is that these maps were already developed during the time period of the Iraq-Iran war. -- - Geoff Cashman cashman@acsu.buffalo.edu
wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) (08/21/90)
From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) >From article <1990Aug14.033616.8464@cbnews.att.com>, by smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin): > In article <1990Aug8.030215.25088@cbnews.att.com>, richk@tera.com (Richard Korry) writes: >> Since cruise missiles use computerized maps I wonder if the information to >> retarget to Iraqi installations is already available. > > The AP reported that such information has in fact already been delivered > to the appropriate units in the Gulf. I'm curious what technology is > used to store the maps on board? PROMs? I don't know if it is operational, but a number of aircraft manufacturers have been very interested in rewritable magneto-optical technology in the last year or so. >> Secondly, if they >> have to fly over sandy deserts (presumably without large features) would >> this make it difficult to achieve accurate delivery? It was my impression that these missiles used inertial navigation to plot current position and used the digitized maps to determine when to change altitude/course to maintain terrain-following. I would think that using recognition of geographical features as a guidance mechanism would be a rather complex task to install in the nose of a missile, even one as large as a cruise missile. William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (08/23/90)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) >In article <1990Aug8.030228.25162@cbnews.att.com>, edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser) writes: >>Nuclear weapons might be a little hard on the oil fields. Er, in a blockade situation the worst one has to do is cut the pipelines which might be used to avoid the blocaded ports. Cutting pipelines has a low chance of causing loss of life, involves a very large area to defend/attack and the pipelines are moderately difficult to repair, moderatly difficult and quite slow to get repair material to the site: a very advantageous situation for an attacker. There was a newspaper report of oil being trucked across the same border crossing that the refugees were exiting by. This may mean that some damage has already ocurred... --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | "And the next 8 man-months came up like CANADA. 416-223-8968 | thunder across the bay" --david kipling