Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp
From: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Experts:Are they all Milos?
Message-ID: <6040@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 00:31:02 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6040
Posted: Sun Nov 25 00:31:02 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Nov-84 02:13:38 EST
References: <1133@drusd.UUCP> <2082@randvax.UUCP> <328@whuxl.UUCP> <2092@randvax.UUCP> <344@whuxl.UUCP> <3361@ucbvax.ARPA> <114@talcott.UU
Reply-To: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 26

In article <3435@ucbvax.ARPA> medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) writes:
>I admit my figures dont take into account a Nuclear Winter, but
>thats an unproven theory.  You say casualties would range from
>50-95%.  Where is your source for that?  And I dispute your
>claim that more warheads are better for countervalue as opposed
>to higher megatonnage.  It all depends on the characteristics
>of the attack, such as terrain, weather, etc...  And most 
>importantly the characteristics of the target.
>
>
>					Milo

	The assumption of greater damage with more smaller warheads
is based on the relatively simple case of calculating the area over
which a specific level of overpressure will be created.  Note that
this analysis works best on targets of low to medium hardness, and
when the terrain is relatively flat.  It also depends on the ability
to do a Time On Target burst with a large number of small warheads,
(to best simulate the effect of one large burst).

	Its not a terrible assumption to make, (and in fact the US
has made it, as you can see by looking at the 'new' weapons we
are deploying versus the older heavier missiles), but it does have
its limitations.

					-JCP-