Article View: sci.space
Article #7080Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
From: Doug Mohney
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:24
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:24
47 lines
2765 bytes
2765 bytes
In article <ewright.726191472@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan04.205508.23361@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly)
>>electronics on the ground.... It would be bad.
>Not necessarily. At least, not if you plan for it.
>
>Consider this scenario.
[Cold War scenario of two fleets closing together to do battle on the high seas]
>Shortly before the satellite gets within detection range of
>your fleet, you launch an SLBM, taking out your enemy's nice,
>new, expensive satellite.
> Both fleets get hit by EMP, but you
>are prepared because you know it's coming. Your enemy isn't
>expecting it. Worse, he has all his planes sitting out, exposed,
>on the flight deck, waiting to launch when the satellite gives
>him targeting information. If you're lucky, you've taken out
>all his AEW. This puts you in a very good position....
While it's nice to think of nuclear weapons as just a bigger bomb, it ain't so.
Launch of a SLBM would automatically cause panic buttons to be hit all over the
place and would result in a MUCH higher alert status of strategic nuclear
forces. Which thereby puts the Other Side into a higher alert status and
pretty soon everyone is sweating more profusely than either first imagined...
Secondly, U.S. forces are EMP hardened, so all you've done is:
A) Raised the level of tension
B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
NOT a good thing.
Tomorrow's battlegrounds are as much as hearts and minds as they are of men and
machines.
Thirdly, you don't need a nuke for EMP kills; there are various dark projects
which perform tricks with conventional explosives and electronics which will
fit inside of a Tomahawk or their Russian counterpart.
I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
-- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!mojo.eng.umd.edu!cadlab.eng.umd.edu!SYSMGRReferences:
<1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec14.221347.3359@iti.org> <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> <1992Dec17.110426.8596@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec17.1 <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.uShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!mojo.eng.umd.edu!cadlab.eng.umd.edu!SYSMGR From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Message-ID: <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:40 GMT References: <1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec14.221347.3359@iti.org> <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> <1992Dec17.110426.8596@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec17.1 <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.u Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park Lines: 47