home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!cadlab.eng.umd.edu!SYSMGR
- From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
- Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 20:35:33 GMT
- Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
- References: <1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec14.221347.3359@iti.org> <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> <1992Dec17.110426.8596@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec17.1 <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.u <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu>
- Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
- Lines: 60
-
- In article <ewright.726433353@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
- >In <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
- >
- >>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
- >>>a bit anyway, don't you think?
- >
- >>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
- >>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.
- >
- >Oh? Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.
- >
- >One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."
- >
- >The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."
- >
- >Which would set your blood to boiling more?
-
- "Well, if they're crazy enough to use them in orbit, when will the get around
- to using them on us?"
-
- You're being silly. If you're going to treat the nuke as "just another
- weapon" you don't need the Clancyesque plot. Just nuke the friggin' carrier
- and be done with it. It's only full-scale war, after all, right Ed?
-
- >>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through
- >>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic
- >>missile capability, on land and at sea.
- >
- >The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
- >submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
- >out. (Unless it was done in secret.) However, no US SLBM or ICBM
- >has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
- >reconnaissance satelite.
-
- Of course not, but attacking com-sats is a different problem than attacking a
- low-orbit KH-11.
-
- It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
- quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine.
-
- >>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
- >>force and thereby did so accordingly.
- >
- >No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
- >accordingly. (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
- >observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)
-
- Of course. So why did we get the UN to rubber stamp it first? C'mon Ed, stop
- helping me out here. We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, did we? So
- why did George Bush spend all that time on the phone calling up his world
- leader buddies soliciting support ?
-
- >Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
- >*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.
-
- Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
- against allied forces in Desert Storm?
-
- I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
- -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
-