Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnews!military
From: edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: U.S. military options against Iraq
Message-ID: <1990Aug8.030228.25162@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Aug 90 03:02:28 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: edat!root@uunet.UU.NET (Superuser)
In article <1990Aug6.031122.1992@cbnews.att.com> convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani) writes:
>
>
>From: convex!quattro@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc Quattromani)
>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.

A cruise missle, given accurate maps ahead of time, can quite litterally
fly through the kitchen window.  It is exceptionally good at hitting
stationary, fixed sites, like refineries, air bases, bunkers and
such.  Not so good against tanks.

Nuclear weapons might be a little hard on the oil fields.

-- 
Brian Douglass			Voice: 702-361-1510 X311
Electronic Data Technologies	FAX #: 702-361-2545
1085 Palms Airport Drive	uunet!edat!brian
Las Vegas, NV 89119-3715