From: "Tony Lea" <tonylea-AT-look.ca>
Subject: Re: The ultimate weapon
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:35:55 -0500


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


  >I had always assumed that the counter-force weapons you mention were part >of the fictional seperation between the strategic and tactical ,

  I'm not really sure what point you're making, but counter-force weapons are nuclear weapons designed to eliminate the opposition's strategic forces (Minuteman, MX, Cruise, etc.)

  >that each tactical nuclear weapon is not that much less dangerous than the >nagasaki bomb does rather suggest that this is just another military-science >complex semantics issue...

  Again, I'm not sure of the point, but tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield rather than as an intercontinental weapon. The mode of use is more important, from a military point of view, than the strength of the weapon.

  Tony

HTML VERSION:

>I had always assumed that the counter-force weapons you mention were part >of the fictional seperation between the strategic and tactical ,

 

I'm not really sure what point you're making, but counter-force weapons are nuclear weapons designed to eliminate the opposition's strategic forces (Minuteman, MX, Cruise, etc.)

 

>that each tactical nuclear weapon is not that much less dangerous than the >nagasaki bomb does rather suggest that this is just another military-science >complex semantics issue...

Again, I'm not sure of the point, but tactical nukes are meant to be used on the battlefield rather than as an intercontinental weapon. The mode of use is more important, from a military point of view, than the strength of the weapon.

Tony