bewing@KEAN.UCS.MUN.CA (02/04/90)
What is a legitimate target for a nuclear attack? Military ? Industry? Government? Urban centres? Agricultural areas? Hydro installations? Nuclear power plants? Given the destructive power that would be unleashed even if only 3-5% of the missles made contact with the target IMO there are an excess of missles already in existence and any and all of the nuke powers could begin to reduce without the fear of being invaded/attacked by another nuke power. Bob
KWILCOX@AUVM.BITNET (ken wilcox) (02/08/90)
On Sat, 3 Feb 90 23:36:00 -0330 <bewing@KEAN.UCS.MUN.CA> said: >What is a legitimate target for a nuclear attack? > >Military ? yes > >Industry? Those industries which sustain the war effort.... > >Government? yes... > >Urban centres? if the government and industry is in a urban center, well... yes > >Agricultural areas? if it is nearby a urban, government, industrial center.... > >Hydro installations? if it is nearby an agricultural, urban, governmental, industrial center... > >Nuclear power plants? if it is neaby an agricultural, urban, governmental, industrial center... > >Given the destructive power that would be unleashed even if >only 3-5% of the missles made contact with the target IMO >there are an excess of missles already in existence and any >and all of the nuke powers could begin to reduce without the >fear of being invaded/attacked by another nuke power. > the colorful term given is that now we can bounce rubble. As you can see by my above answers there are no safe places when it comes to nuclear attack stragety. There are no non-combatants. Ken Wilcox Dr. Strangelove lives..... >Bob