In article ,
"Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote:

In case of nuclear attack, I can imagine the knee-jerk liberals complaining
if we used a nuclear-tipped ABM to prevent one of our cities getting nuked.
They'd probably prefer we let the enemy warhead do it's job rather than us
use a nuclear detonation to stop it!
Either way, the ABM's being developed now do not have nuclear warheads -
it's too bad, really - in the early 70's we had the amazing Sprint and
Spartan ABM's, and although there weren't enough of them to stop a full-on
Soviet nuclear assault, they were still far more effective than the ABM's
we're developing now.
Of course, if a nuclear-tipped ABM intercepted a North Korean or Iranian
warhead, there would be problems with EMP in the area below the detonation.
Not so much of a problem in the early 70's, as their electronics were more
primitive (and people really didn't have computers, etc), but now.....

Not much of a problem because the ABM warhead is so small little EMP
would be generated. The reason to use nuclear is that only nuclear can
destroy the enemy warhead before it can be detonated by the salvage fuse,

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/