Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Hi-Tech Scorecard
Message-ID: <1991Apr6.020949.14323@amd.com>
Date: 5 Apr 91 20:52:25 GMT
References: <1991Apr5.091907.7913@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 18
Approved: military@amd.com


From: joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum)

>From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
>Patriot.  Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted
>45.  "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the
>key systems which influenced the outcome."

Before touting the effieciency of the patriot missiles, could somebody give
a rough estimate regarding the cost of NOT intercepting them?  I seem to recall
that, except for one scud, those that actually came down whn an intercept was
attempted (or would have been attempted but the patriots were not yet available)did damage on the order of cuts, bruises, and minor structural damage--not the
million or so that each patriot intercept cost.  Further, it would also seem   
that the best solution to a missile defence system would be to saturate it--
and the patriots are far more expensive than the missiles they were shooting
down.  So, my question is: are the patriots an effective weapon system, or
merely a shield against political fallout?
		  Joshua Landrum