Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Patriot
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.070847.13901@amd.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 14:54:01 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.033353.4075@amd.com> <1991Apr17.055525.13701@amd.com> <1991Apr18.032836.22513@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 23
Approved: military@amd.com


From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman)


PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes:
>Many more anecdotal stories about the Patriots and Scuds in the article.
>How about the idea of a missile that releases several decoys
>to distract anti-missile defence on purpose?

Yeah, just what we need -- MIRVed SCUDs!  If you're going to add the weight
and space of decoys, why not just add more explosives?  My not fragment them,
making multiple targets -- EACH with the capacity to inflict damage.

This line of logic is what led to the development of MIRVs (back in the
days of good ol' fashioned exoatmospheric nuclear-tipped interceptors like
the SPRINT and SPARTAN); except with ICBMs the decoys had a tendency to 
fall behind the more massive warhead during reentry due to air resistance.
To counter this, the decoys became more and more similar to the warheads
themselves, leading to what is regarded as the single most destabilizing
technological development of the nuclear age.

-shane
	[ 10 lines of ascii cartoon signature deleted. --CDR ]