🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ewright.726433353@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>>a bit anyway, don't you think?
>
>>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.
>
>Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.
>
>One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."
>
>The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."
>
>Which would set your blood to boiling more?

"Well, if they're crazy enough to use them in orbit, when will the get around
to using them on us?"

You're being silly. If you're going to treat the nuke as "just another
weapon" you don't need the Clancyesque plot. Just nuke the friggin' carrier
and be done with it. It's only full-scale war, after all, right Ed? 

>>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. 
>
>The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
>submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
>out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
>has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
>reconnaissance satelite.

Of course not, but attacking com-sats is a different problem than attacking a
low-orbit KH-11. 

It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. 

>>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>>force and thereby did so accordingly. 
>
>No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
>accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
>observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Of course. So why did we get the UN to rubber stamp it first? C'mon Ed, stop
helping me out here. We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, did we? So
why did George Bush spend all that time on the phone calling up his world
leader buddies soliciting support ? 

>Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
>*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.

Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
against allied forces in Desert Storm? 

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