Spike Jones wrote:
> Billy Brown wrote:
> > At that point the problem collapses to a contest of agility
> between reentry
> > vehicles and missile-killing devices.
>
> Im betting on the kill vehicles.
Me too. The dual threat of anti-missiles and directed energy weapons gives agressors conflicting design goals: you need a light, maneuverable reentry vehicle with significant fuel tankage to dodge anti-missiles; and a heavy, armored hulk to surive laser fire. Trying to meet both goals at once isn't going to work very well.
> > The days of MAD are numbered...
>
> Hope so. I think you are a few years younger than me, so you may
> not know what Im talking about when I mention duck-and-cover drills.
> But be sure it did untold psychological damage to our young people.
I wasn't around back then, but I know.
However, I didn't say that the end of MAD was an entirely good thing. If agressive regimes can actually survive using their nukes, some of them will try it.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@transcient.com