Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: ABM
Keywords: X-ray lasers
Message-ID: <6183@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 May 89 03:12:21 GMT
References: <5553@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5739@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5881@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U of Denver
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN)

In article <5881@cbnews.ATT.COM> mchamp@wpi.wpi.edu (Marc J. Champagne) writes:
>
>The Moscow ABM system DOES NOT contain any X-ray laser weapons.  It
>   consists of a series of Galosh interceptor missiles housed in
>   above-ground canister launchers and a smaller high acceleration
>   missile housed in an underground concrete lined launcher.  There
>   are a total of 100 launchers, although the high-acceleration
>   missile bunkers may have several missiles in a "ready magazine" (a
>   violation of the '72 ABM treaty, but that's another story).
>
As I recall the ABM treaty allowed each side to have one ABM site however
development of new ABM systens was banned. The Sovs as mentioned put their
system around Moscow. The US for reasons best known chose not to put such a
system up. I imagine it might have been hard to sell that Washington really
needed to be saved :-) But I think they were considering utilising this 
option when the MX were all going to be put into silos in a very small specific
area. I think it was a while back and the deployment had a catchy name 
associated with it. Obviously not very memorable.

		
	Ameer Z. Sulaiman.



[mod.note:  I know this has been covered fairly recently, but as I 
couldn't remember the names and sites involved, I figured many others
didn't, either.  Someone care to set the record straight ? - Bill ]