"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
Can the US justify using nuclear weapons in what
amounts to a like in kind response, the conventional ICBM?

Yes. Precisely because conventional weapons on ICBMs would be a
momumentally
stupid and expensive idea, it's far more reasonable to assume that they
are
equipped with a payload worthy of an ICBM.

You mean a payload that guarantees you get nuked?

There's no other payload that justifies the effort and expense of an ICBM.
Even chemical and biological weapons aren't cost effective on ICBMs.


A pure EMP weapon is probably more effective in many ways. A decent EMP
pulse over the Eastern Seaboard would probably do more economic damage than
any number of nukes a nation like Iran could launch.




--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com