Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: posting to sci.military
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.031912.22706@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 17 Jul 90 03:19:12 GMT
References: <1990Jul16.030942.5637@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1990Jul16.030942.5637@cbnews.att.com>, stefan@taupe.stanford.edu (Stefan Michalowski) writes:

>Can anyone point me in the direction of a reference or information
>relating to the systems aspects of delivering and dispersing chemical
>weapons via short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. Lance, Soviet SS-21 or
>Scud).  The principal focus is to try to understand the incentives for
>using missiles to deliver CW reagents vis. advanced strike aircraft.  Our
>guess is that aircraft make more sense for CW delivery against troops
>or, as instruments of terror, against population centers because of the
>difficulty of effective dispersal of CW from high-speed reentry vehicles.

It depends on how sophisticated your warhead technology is (oops, this
should be informational; no indexed references here, but I'm going on...).
If you had something suitably sophisticated to burst at 500 feet above ground
level, you could probably get a decent dispersal. Efficient, no, decent
to cause harm, yes. 

Besides, early warning time and defense against RVs is minimal when you
compare it to a modern aircraft. Maybe 20 minutes from the time you turn the
key, and you have to fly your cargo into the target area without getting
shot down.