Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!rutgers!att!cbnews!esco@tank.uchicago.edu From: esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Shipboard Silver Bullets Message-ID: <6317@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 May 89 03:37:10 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of Chicago Computation Center Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "ross paul weiner" In article <6273@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: >From: john ralls >The deck plate view of Subrocs and Asrocs has always been that they >are far more trouble than they are worth. None of the officers I know >is enthusiastic about detonating a nuclear weapon within five miles fo >himself. (And then there was the old Mk-45 torpedo, much shorter >range: the submarine force celebrated its demise!) The administrative >headaches are enormous: Special training, special security, personal >reliability program, NTPI's annually, additional watches, two man >control... I suspect no-one at sea will miss for a minute these >weapons. Their jobs can be done much more easily by conventional >weapons and modern guidance. >John Basicly I agree with one exception and a caveat. (Exceptions and Caveats are not Black Weapons programs 8-)). The nuc SAM serves a valid function by detering certain enemy mass attack formations. I do wish it had a little more range though. ASW is a pain but until we can ban the sewer pipes we must improve shipboard point defense with better over the side torpedoes and improved torpedo counter measures. ZZ -- Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!"