Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: genie
Message-ID: <13131@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 90 07:41:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: att!utzoo!henry
>From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
>Is there a real difference between a 'rocket' and a missile?  It was my
>impression that a rocket was unguided, while a missile had some sort
>of guidance system...

That's the usual usage.  Unguided rockets actually work tolerably well,
*if* you don't insist on direct hits on small targets.  They're still in
fairly extensive use for ground attack.

>... Wasn't the
>Genie an >unguided< nuclear air-to-air rocket?  (GAWD! The thought of
>a free-flight nuclear air-to-air weapon chills me right through!).

That's right, Genie was unguided.  This wasn't quite as creepy as it sounds,
because the range was relatively short and warhead detonation was by command
from the launch aircraft rather than by proximity fuze.  Command detonation
was considered mandatory (as for nuclear torpedos) because of the positive-
control policies for nuclear weapons.  The short range didn't make pilots
very happy, and there was much holding of breath when Genie was tested
with a live warhead for the first time, although in fact it worked fine
and the launch aircraft had no problems.  (The original nuclear torpedo
was similarly unpopular, with the submariners crediting it with a kill
rate of 200% -- target plus attacker.)  Genie was the definitive response
to bomber-formation tactics, since a Genie burst in the middle of a bomber
box could be expected to wipe out the entire formation.  Its operational
deployment therefore was the definitive end of such tactics.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu