SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (1509)4/4/2006 8:24:41 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14758
 
We can accurately target their "facilities", if by that you mean their launch facilities. Whether they could accurately target ours are a whole 'nuther question. Not an easy problem.

But you NEED accurate targeting to take out cities. If you're hundreds or thousands of yards off aiming at a launch silo, it will survive and fire its missile. The inaccuracy will still destroy a city though.

During the Cold War, the theory was that both sides would first try to destroy the other's missiles. No missiles. you didn't have to worry about them taking out your civilian population. (Barring nuclear winter and radioactive fallout, of course.) We had small warheads but accurate delivery. The Soviets had large warheads but inaccurate delivery. Whoever still had missiles left after the first exchange on the launch sites would win- -the other side would then surrender to save its population. If ether side went for the others cities first, it allowed the other to do the same and also to possibly take out a large portion of its missile force, ending up in a position where it had no missiles but the other side did and forced surrender.

In the case of Iran, we would have to assume they would launch on our cities; it is unlikely they would have enough missiles to destroy our missile force. We would then destroy their remaining missiles and force surrender- -but at a cost of millions of American lives.