home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / sci / military / 12843 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-25  |  1.1 KB  |  30 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.military
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
  3. From: gawne@stsci.edu
  4. Subject: Gravity Bombs (was Re: Is this true?)
  5. Message-ID: <C1F6to.KJG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  6. Followup-To: sci.military
  7. Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
  8. Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
  9. References: <C14405.3pn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C19o3I.3q4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
  10. Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:12 GMT
  11. Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
  12. Lines: 16
  13.  
  14.  
  15. From gawne@stsci.edu
  16.  
  17. In all the discussion of high yield warheads, several folks have used the
  18. term "gravity bomb".  Would somebody please elaborate on the difference
  19. between a gravity bomb and a more conventional nuclear weapon?
  20.  
  21. [mod note -- from what I've read, a "gravity bomb" is a free-fall weapon
  22. (possibly retarded by parachute), where as other "conventional" nuclear
  23. weapons include the SRAM, warhead on a ALCM, or a MIRV from a SLBM or ICBM.
  24.  
  25. Steve]
  26.  
  27. -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
  28.  MSgt USMCR
  29.  
  30.