ess (phil hunt) wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:12:47 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities,

Launch facility = a land rover and trailer

Which need gas and maintenance.

storage facility = any building will do

*goggles* Not even remotely Clyde. Storing fueled & armed cruise
missiles is a dangerous task. Putting them in 'any old building' is a
damn good way to kill half a city... your own.

for potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

It's not the method of communication that's the hard part. It's
actually gathering all the data (hard), synthesizing it and generating
launch orders (very hard), and then transmitting it to hundreds of
launch locations (hard). All these things you handwave away have
hidden complexities.

Did the USA knock out all Iraqu tanks at the start of the 2003 or
1991 wars? No, it did not, unlike in your worthless comtemptable
idiot strawman scenario. Did the USA knock out all Serbian tanks in
the Kosovo war? they didn't in the whole war, let alone the first
ten minutes.

They didn't have to kill all the tanks. Instead they went after the
command and control structure, which renders the tanks almost as
useless as if they were scattered across the terrain.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.