Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military
From: unocss!mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Thirty Seconds over Tripoli
Message-ID: <8754@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Aug 89 13:03:33 GMT
References: <8691@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U. of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: unocss!mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis)

>From article <8691@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker):
> 
> Also, blind-firing a SAM is a complete waste of a missile; unless
> you have at least SOME hope of getting target information after launch (as with
> some Viet Namese SA-2 launch procedures against the USAF), your chance of
> getting a hit is just about 0%.

Here's a "yeah, but...". I'm not sure I can back this up, but isn't the
Soviet SA-5 nuclear-capable?  I am not sure of my sources here at all,
but even a small nuke can blow the #$$%^^&* out of the B-2's electronics.

Seems to me given ANY indication of a "probable" B-2 sortie over the Soviet
landmass,  a single nuke in the general area of the suspected intruder
might make it a wee bit uncomfortable, if not for the pilot the EWO?

My suspicion is that the Soviet Air Defense Ministry would not hesitate to 
fire a nuke over Soviet water, at the very least, and might not worry too 
hard about a high-altitude (say 55,000 - B-2 cruising altitude?) air-burst
over the landmass itself.

Marc


-- 
Na khuya mne podpis'?                 |  Internet: cs057@zeus.unl.edu      
                                      |  UUCP:     uunet!btni!unocss!mlewis
Go for it!                            |  Bitnet:   CS057@UNOMA1            
---------------------------------------------------------------------------