Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Conventional warheads on ICBMs? Message-ID: <1990Oct2.235141.23478@cbnews.att.com> Date: 2 Oct 90 23:51:41 GMT References: <1990Oct1.022048.3082@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military-request@att.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Allan Bourdius I find it highly unlikely that conventional warheads exist for ICBM's/SLBM's. Besides, if we want pinpoint accuracy on strategic targets, why not use a submarine, surface, or air launched Tomahawk cruise missile with TERCOM guidance. They have a range exceeding 1,000 nm and their accuracies (as I've read in AW&ST) are usually measured in inches, not feet. The TERCOM Tomahawks are usually armed with nuclear warheads, but the anti-ship warhead or the cluster munition warhead would be devestating to any kind of fixed position. Launching ballistic missiles would be pretty dangerous. I think we'd have to clear that with the Soviets, especially since any missiles launched from the Continental US would have to overfly Soviet airspace. Nobody really wants to ever fire a ballistic missile from land or sub unless it's in a declared test range. The consequence of an accidental nuclear exchange is just too great. --Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!