Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SCUD Intercepted!
Message-ID: <1991Jan23.041452.5888@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 23 Jan 91 04:14:52 GMT
References: <1991Jan18.182446.1944@cbnewsc.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Nick Szabo <szabo%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET>

In article <1991Jan18.182446.1944@cbnewsc.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>...
>This is a historic moment: the very first time a ballistic missile
>has been destroyed in battle by an air defense system!
>..

This raises a few questions:

(1) Can the Patriot be used against ICBMs?  How close is the Patriot 
    to violating the ABM Treaty?

(2) The Patriot has so far proven effective (9 out of 9 ballistic
    missiles destroyed with 1 "friendly fire" misfire), but it must 
    hit its targets at the last moment.  Couldn't we build a more 
    effective system without the ABM Treaty?

(3) Given the proliferation of ballistic missile, chemical, and nuclear 
    capability around the globe, and the growing instability in the Soviet 
    Union, should the U.S. reevaluate the use of ABMs for protecting 
    U.S. cities and military assets from missile attacks?


-- 
Nick Szabo			szabo@sequent.com
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...