Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!psc70!tos@psc70
From: tos%psc70@psc70.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <206@psc70>
Date: Sat, 26-Apr-86 18:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: psc70.206
Posted: Sat Apr 26 18:31:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 17:08:36 EDT
References: <720@ark>
Lines: 19


   The thesis that collateral damage in Tripoli may have been caused
by Libyan missiles falling back after failing to reach their targets
has been exposed as totally implausible... to persons acquainted with
munitions it was absurd from the start.  The damage to those
buildings in Tripoli was clearly caused by bombs, and fairly heavy
ones at that, which are designed to burst their way into a structure
in good part by their weight before the fuse detonates the payload of
explosives.  The missiles fired at aircraft are relatively light and
have fuses and explosive charges designed to attack the extremely
vulnerable thin skins of aircraft. Thus even if they did fall back to
earth (which in terms of trajectories would still make them unlikely
to land in Tripoli) they would not cause the kind of building damage
which was shown.

Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos