🚀 go-pugleaf

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>>	B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
>>
>>So, how many nations have more space assets to lose (and
>>less ability to quickly replace them) than the United States?

>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic missile
>capability, on land and at sea. 

Could you please cite a shread of evidence that such a system is operational?
Stipulating for a moment that the capability exists, please explain how many
ground based backups there are for KH-12s or how long it takes to replace them.
Quick launch capability is after all quite useless without something to launch.


>It is unlikely the attacking third-world country would have an equalivent 
>replacement capability for whatever assets it has. 

If you're assuming the attacker is a third world country than you seem to be
ignoring the possibility that it doesn't have significant assests worth worrying
about.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't love knocking ours out.

>>
>>>	C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
>>>	   NOT a good thing. 
>>
>>That didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. 

>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>force and thereby did so accordingly. Had Iraqi troops seized anything less
>than Kuwait City, or removed themselves from Kuwait City without committing
>anything more than token atrocities, Iraq would not be divided into three parts
>today. 

And the threat of that didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading either.  Keep
in mind that attackers frequently think along different lines than their
enemies expect them to.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Q:  How do you tell a novice from an expert.
A:  A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.