Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd70!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles
From: giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs
Message-ID: <1345@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-84 20:17:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1345
Posted: Sun Jun 24 20:17:30 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 04:44:06 EDT
References: <1328@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 39

<I will be posting all subsequent articles to net.politics (yech), 
 perhaps USENET needs a net.arms)

When I posted my previous article, I had not had the opportunity to
research the actual number and strength of the various warheads.  I 
appreciate the mail I received concerning various technical errors, 
and they will affect this proposal in the long run.

However, it appeared several individuals mis-understood what I was
suggesting.  Specifically, I was proposing to ban outright all
land-based missile systems.  If necessary, this ban would be enforced
by a space-based ASAT system.

Submarine based ICBMs would be allowed, but once again, they would
be subject to interception by the ASAT system.

The main deterence force would become submarine-based *cruise* missiles.
While we would be forced to pay a stiff price (very little warning),
we would gain several advantages:  (1) limited number of incoming
missiles, (2) limited warhead capacity, and (3) the avionics would
pinpoint the target, permitting use of smallest yield warheads possible.

These missiles could still be used for retailiation/damage control
(destroy enemy military bases near oceans) but would not be powerful
enought to destroy entire cities.  The fact that the US has more targets
within striking distance of its coasts would be offset by the lack
of numerous winter ports in the USSR.

Overall, the effect would be to move *closer* to a knife edge, but
drastically reduce the distance one would fall if the edge was passed.

Finally, I think that such a treaty could be made workable without 
requiring explicit and complete mutual verification.  As I pointed 
out in the previous article, a warehouse of warheads doesn't do you
a bit of good if you can't transport them to the target.

Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay