From: O'Regan, Emlyn (Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au)
Date: Thu Oct 14 1999 - 21:47:04 MDT
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Spike Jones wrote:
>
> Commenting on my comment that defensively one cannot compete against
> someone of similar economic capacity who puts the funds into offsense.
>
> > Oh ye of little faith Robert. Looks to me like we
> > could defend ourselves against a hellishly determined
> > nuclear attack, given enough THAAD missiles and support radar.
>
What I don't understand is why anyone bothers with delivery systems for
nukes anymore.
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just assemble massive arsenals of bombs
which are exploded in-situ? After all, once you blow up enough of them, the
whole world is stuffed, including your would-be agressor. In a decent sized
nuclear war, the effect would be exactly as devestating to all parties as if
you had dropped the bombs on your opponent.
How about this: What happens if your nuclear-armed ICBMs are designed to
blow up if they are about to be hit by a THAAD? So, even if your 5000 THAADs
do effectively take out 1000 nuclear missiles, the lot of them explode in
the atmosphere. That can't be good.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:31 MST