Re: warheads

["Walter M. Rauch" <walt@digital.net>]

At 01:03 AM 04/14/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>Walt-
>
>   The Office of Technology Assesment agrees.  I have a publication from them
>concerning Nuclear War.  It compares Leningrad and Detroit and shows hits on
>each that are thought likely.  We're more accurate, so less actual loss of
>life.  In both cases, AIRBURST.  Obviously, silos & Command centers must be
>dug up by subsurface hits.
>
>Scott Hann

	Nahhhh, its messier than that.  First, the Soviets use low air bursts to
destroy the surface facilities of a missile field, and create an
environment hostile to the initial boost phase of a missile, dump rubble on
the blast door runways, etc.  Then they use penetraing re-entry vehicles to
dig out the silos and destroy any other underground facilities.  This
throws huge quantities of debris into the air, converting it to fallout,
and giving it tremendous "loft". The only thing messier would be "enhanced"
weapons, such as the cobalt bomb.

	This is why it is best to avoid being on the receiving end of
"counterforce" targeting.  The Ohio class SSBN / Trident D-5 missile combo
gave us highly accurate targeting in a difficult to hit package.  If we
were wrong about detection and destruction of the subs, at least the bombs
would fall well away from inhabited areas. By the time the Soviets had the
capability to think about hunting our "boomers" by sub, they didn't have
the money to operate their fleet.  Nice!

	WWIII was fought with checkbooks.  The Russians were the first to bounce.
I think it turned out much nicer than an extended game of "Bounce the Rubble".


				Walter M. Rauch

			    Student of  Many Things

				walt@digital.net