Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Reliability of Ballistic Missiles
Message-ID: <6904@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 May 89 02:52:18 GMT
References: <6747@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6799@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com


From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin)

In article <6799@cbnews.ATT.COM>, ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:

> Now I have a question about accuracy.  In the 'real' world of nuclear
> conflict, how useful is a nuclear weapon that has 50-yard accuracy
> outside of a few, specific missions (taking out a silo or underground
> bunker)?  I guess the deeper question is:  Given a confligration
> where multi-megaton devices are being lobbed about, does precise
> accuracy buy you anything?

``Both'' sides have been moving away from a strategy of lobbing big
multi-megaton jobs around; they have little or no military value.
The strategy today is indeed to take out silos, bunkers, command
posts, etc.; cities and the like are not targeted.  It's possible,
I suppose, that there are backup missles aimed at enemy means of
production, in event of a long war, but for the initial nuclear
exchange the targets are strictly military.

I recall hearing of an interchange during the Carter administration,
when someone asked if it was true that that was how our missles were
targeted.  The response was something like ``since one MIRV'ed Trident
submarine has enough bombs to take out every large and medium city
in the U.S.S.R. (note:  I haven't checked that number), I would certainly
hope so.''

If I recall correctly, the last U.S. missles equipped with megaton
warheads were the Titans, and they've all been decommissioned now.

		--Steve Bellovin
		ulysses!smb
		smb@ulysses.att.com