Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Conventional warheads on ICBMs?
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.235157.23537@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Oct 90 23:51:57 GMT
References: <1990Oct1.022048.3082@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: pjs@aristotle.JPL.NASA.gov (Peter Scott)
>... wondering whether ICBMs could be rearmed with conventional
>warheads and used against strategic targets in Iraq? ...

Based on unclassified reports, the average error is still high by the
standards of non-nuclear bombing.  It would be an exceedingly expensive
and haphazard way of delivering conventional explosives.  Aircraft are
a better choice.

There might also be a practical problem in that the necessary targeting
information may not be available.  Aiming ICBMs requires great precision,
including very precise mapping and detailed knowledge of the Earth's
gravitational field.  (I seem to recall hearing that one of the less
conspicuous but more important parts of the early US ICBM program was
the first real attempt to do intercontinental geodetic surveys, so
that the distance to, say, Moscow could be determined precisely enough
to aim an ICBM at it!)  It would not surprise me if this information was
not available for the entire world, but had been gathered only for areas
thought likely to be of interest for ICBM attack.

A last problem, not entirely technical, is that people have a tendency
to get upset when they see incoming ICBMs. :-)  That would certainly be
an effective way of finding out how well those Scuds really work, but
Israel and Saudi Arabia might not appreciate being used as test cases.
-- 
Imagine life with OS/360 the standard  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
operating system.  Now think about X.  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry