🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0GJFB.5IL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>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.

Josh, Aviation Week has published material on the possible existing
air-breathing quick-launch capability. It is also known some Minuteman
missiles are not loaded with nuclear weapons, but comm relays and such.

As for the exact number of ready-launch backups, what their capabilities
are, and so forth, it falls under "black" programs and you won't find it
published on the front page of the Washington Post. 

Since the ex-Sovs demonstrated a capability to hit targets in orbit, it HAS
been a worry of warplanners and certain contingencies have been planned for.

>>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.

Satellite-based communications and imaging are both within in the grasp of any
third world country which can put up an ASAT to successfully attack orbital
assets.

>>>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.

What threat? Hussein was not THREATENED with anything until after he took over
Kuwait and the stories of atrocities came out. 

Had Mr. Hussein limited himself to redrawing the borders of Kuwait and not
invaded Kuwait City; he wouldn't be in the trouble he (still) is in today. 

The original point is "World Opinion DOES count." Iraq would not be abused if
it behaved. 

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --