Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnews!military
From: richk@tera.com (Richard Korry)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US military options against Iraq
Message-ID: <1990Aug8.030215.25088@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Aug 90 03:02:15 GMT
References: <1990Aug6.031122.1992@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Tera Computer Company
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: richk@tera.com (Richard Korry)
In article <1990Aug6.031122.1992@cbnews.att.com> convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) writes:
>
>First off, with the B52s based at Diego Garcia, isn't it possible to
>launch significant, conventionally armed cruise missile attacks
>against Iraqi oil, military, and power facilities sufficient to
>seriously cripple Iraq, or at least send them a powerful message? My
>understanding of our cruise missile accuracy was that they are capable
>of causing damage with conventional warheads to large targets such as
>oil refineries, holding tanks, power plants, and what not.

Since cruise missiles use computerized maps I wonder if the information to
retarget to Iraqi installations is already available. Secondly, if they
have to fly over sandy deserts (presumably without large features) would
this make it difficult to achieve accurate delivery? That is, since the 
the guidance system supposedly checks what it sees with its internal idea of
where it should be in order to stay on course, isn't there a problem when there
aren't any features to reference? (I suppose they have the same problem a
sea launched cruise missile has and use the same solution).
	rich