Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!nak@cbnews.ATT.COM
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Lance Missile
Message-ID: <6032@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Apr 89 03:24:13 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 16
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
	Right now NATO/W.Germany/USA are trying to figure out what to do
    about short range nuclear missiles.  The politics aside, my question is
    simple:
		What is wrong with the Lance?

	I know that they are old, but hey, so is the Iowa.  Old doesn't
    always mean that a system is no longer worth having.  Are they slow?
    Poorly guided due to old technology?  Vulnerable to some threat that
    newer missiles are not?  Or are they simlply paid for and some defense
    contractor needs a new pair of shoes :-)

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak