From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: SCUDs and All that
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:00:30 GMT

eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:

>daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
>: The only thing SCUDs or any other ballistic missile is good for is offensive
>: operations.  Usually very inaccurate as well, although one could hit any city

            [Deleted stuff about missile accuracy]
>power is much less. My estimate is that the destructive power is 20 meters,
>wide. The scud missile has destructive power of 50 meters(1 ton explosive(?)).
>My observation is based on films that I saw, documentary and news.

I yield in your favor.  What I was thinking of was the Iran-Iraq war and
during the Gulf War.  During the Gulf War, the Iraqi Scuds toward Israel
probably looked inaccurate because they were just aiming for cities in Israel.
I don't think they had specific targets in mind, just sending a message to
the Israeli's telling them that they were not forgotten.  During the Gulf
War, they might of been inaccurate because of poor intelligence at least
during the War of the Cities.  However, 50m with 1 ton of explosives is
accurate enough.

>	Scud is designed to be tactical missiles similar to Jericho. Jericho
>is more accurate and can be armed with tactical nuclear missiles. The
>accuracy of Jericho, if I remember correctly, is 10m at 1000 km. It must
>be using satellite navigation system. Old scuds uses only gyro-based 
>control. However satellite navigation system gets more and more accurate,
>and cheaper.  REmember that Indonesia has its own satellite.
                [Deleted]
>	If you think 50m is not accurate, how accurate is a bomb released
>by an aircraft. You are lucky to get 50m, but you can visualise how
>destructive they can be. A missile is much cheaper.

>: Cooperation in getting nuclear warheads would require the help of Pakistan, 
>: Iran or the ex-soviet republics.  Supposedly Iran has gotten hold of a few
>: tactical nuclear weapons (hiroshima sized) from one of the Islamic Republics
>: in Central Asia.

>Christians and other people exposed to Western media tend to be afraid of
>a Muslim nuclear weapon. However this fear may make people lapse into
>ignoring other non-muslim but violent nations like greece, armenia,
>argentina, peru etc. The majority of people in those countries are very
>nice but remember that the Nazis are not the majority in Germany. The same
>also true to  those responsible to atrocities by Japan, namely the army.

Don't get me wrong, Indonesia could get nukes for any country willing to sell
or give them away.  This includes a lot of Western countries as well as
India and China.  However, Indonesia having nukes may not go with India's nor
China's long-range plans for the region.  It seems that Pakistan, Iran, or
the Central Asian republics would have a lot less at risk than China or India
in selling/giving the technology.  I didn't mean to come across as a "Islamic
Bomb" paranoid.  In fact, as long as Israel has nuclear weapons, I believe that 
Arab/Islamic nations in the Middle East have the right to "defend" themselves
by having a deterrent.  Some people believe that this might lead to a more
stable area. 

>	The only protection is deterrent at the moment. True or not is
>something else. We are almost sure that Israel has atomic weapons. Maybe
>that is the reason why Iraq has not released it Mass-destructive weapons,
>not even Chemical weapons against Israel. Since Iraq has not released its
>chemical, and biological weapons, what makes you think that Iraq has not
>got nuclear bombs already, even now. Why do you think that Iraq is still
>confident despite being intimidated by U.S.A.?

Iraq very well could have nuclear bombs right now.  So might Iran.  Of
course, as weapons go they are relatively useless.  Can you imagine the
international response if a country actually used nuclear weapons?  They
would be signing their own death certificate.

>	The best solution is actually the Star-Wars program. Russia and USA
>must co-operate to develop those weapons. It may not be 100% accurate, but
>at least there is a finite chance that it can stop something. Those Patriot
>missiles are actually obsolete. We can do better now. Just look at those
>486 in just 5 years. At least some engineers can be employed doing those
>high-tech work.

I'm not so sure on the Star Wars program.  One part of it, the X-ray laser I
think has or is going to be axed.  It violates an international treaty in
any event because it called for a beam to be generated by a satellite using
a nuclear explosion to create the x-ray (or whatever) beam.  Patriots didn't
really work as we now know, but they were designed to be SAM's at which
they reportedly excel.  Supposedly, the US is going to start work on a ground
based interceptor network to protect the United States from small-scale
attacks and accidental launchings.

P.S. I know they are a lot of things involved in StarWars other than x-ray
lasers, I just singled them out.
>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.

Daniel Sawyer at University of Illinois, USA
-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--