Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: SCUD Intercepted! Message-ID: <1991Feb4.062022.19173@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 06:20:22 GMT References: <1991Jan18.182446.1944@cbnewsc.att.com> <1991Jan23.041452.5888@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 44 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Nick Szabo >(1) Can the Patriot be used against ICBMs? How close is the Patriot > to violating the ABM Treaty? It should be possible to intercept an ICBM with a Patriot, if the Patriot is in *precisely* the right place. As for the treaty, I believe systems like the Patriot -- a heavy antiaircraft system with an "incidental" antimissile capability -- are exempt. > hit its targets at the last moment. Couldn't we build a more > effective system without the ABM Treaty? Perhaps. Patriot is also just about at the limits of what can be moved by air in a reasonable way, an important consideration when a war brews up in an inconvenient place. Bigger radars and heavier missiles could compromise its portability. More generally, I don't think there is much doubt that we could build more effective antimissile systems if we tried hard. Just where the upper limit is located is a debatable point. >(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? This is policy rather than a technological question, and probably does not belong in sci.military. I think it is proper to observe that a lot of people are going to be asking that question much more seriously than in the past, given recent demonstrations that missile defenses are possible and useful. (Side observation: it occurred to me a few days ago that Patriot, meant to be the US Army's definitive heavy antiaircraft system, may never be allowed to shoot at an aircraft! There are lots of systems that can shoot down aircraft; Patriots are too valuable for missile defence to be wasted on planes.) -- If the Space Shuttle was the answer, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology what was the question? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry