From: judd@wilkinson.cs.colorado.edu (Stephen Judd)
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:15:42 GMT

This discussion does not interest me.  I am not trying to criticize the
opinions of anyone, but I would like to clarify a few things.

In article <3560@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>
>  Better spent?  On what, another Bradley?  Both sides have pushed for ill-
>conceived programs, not just Congress.  

It is important to keep in mind that the reason the US is the technological
leader of the world is due directly to DoD and DoE money.  They are the only
groups in the country that are willing to invest in technology that might
take ten or twenty years before they pay off.  Many people do not understand
what "state of the art" or "technological edge" means.  HDTV, more efficient
cars, 1024x1024 graphics, etc., are okay.  But a diamond transistor, a gyro
the size of your fingernail, and a CRAY-1 about the size of a deck of cards 
are getting more exciting.  Other programs do stuff that you would not even
have dreamed about - you would think it was science fiction.

Incidentally, the three examples above were things done by SDI several years
ago.  The point is that many programs which may seem like utter failures may
generate technologies that will mature and become very important in the
years to come.  Eventually these technologies, which were once very expensive
and whose value seemed somewhat dubious, become commonplace.  One example is
the computer.  The computer was developed to do nuclear science, i.e. to build
a better bomb.  Not to do spreadsheets.

>
>>Sure it could.  The role a nuclear bomber plays is for hitting target after
>>the initial ICBM/sub waves, after which point the ONLY radar capable of
>>detecting the B-2 would be presumably destroyed.

This is one of the Air Force's arguments.  I feel that it is flawed.  The B2
is alive today because of a RAND study that has given it another (perhaps
dubious) role, that of global coverage.  The claim is made that a squadron of
B2s could have done the job of what hundreds of planes did in Iraq.

>
>  After a few air blasts there are going to be precious few operational targets
>left to go after.  The EMF pulse from a modern warhead would render most 
>everything useless due to the electronics involved.

Maybe, but probably not.  I would wager that your understanding of nuclear
weapons effects is a vague conceptualization.  I also doubt that you
understand what is targeted by a nuclear weapon, and why you would use a
nuclear weapon to target it.

I believe you meant "EMP" pulse (which is technically a redundancy).

>
>  Besides, even if there were a few remaining targets, what good would it do?
>They'd have already lauched a response to the initial attack (us or them, it
>doesn't matter who started it), and it would be over, completely.

Some people make this argument.  The Air Force makes the argument that we,
and hence the Soviets, would hold a portion of the force in reserve, to hit
targets that might have been missed in the first attack.  I will leave it to
you to read a military planner's mind and decide for yourself what the
correct answer is.
					-Steve
>
>  -jack-

--
judd@sgt-york.lanl.gov
judd@colorado.edu