From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!watdragon.uwaterloo.ca!watyew!jdnicoll Wed Sep 16 21:23:11 EDT 1992
Article 6893 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:6893 rec.arts.sf.misc:3120 alt.cyberpunk:1633
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!watdragon.uwaterloo.ca!watyew!jdnicoll
>From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <BuH0JM.5E4@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <4SEP199212055495@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep10.172333.4545@oracle.us.oracle.com> <11SEP199212055913@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.230936.14718@cas.org> sdr57@cas.org writes:

	On using small nuclear devices to produce EMP  to destroy
high-tech gadgets:

>Using a cheap tactical nuke against a country which has a lot
>of expensive tactical nukes (not to mention a lot of really
>expensive strategic nukes) is probably not a real good idea.
>Generally, weapons of mass destruction are not used against
>enemies who can retaliate in kind. The use of poison gas in
>WWI came about because it was expected to be a war-winning
>surprise. In WWII, neither the Axis or the Allies used it
>because both sides knew the other had it. Iraq used chemical
>weapons freely against the Iranians and the Kurds, but
>did not use them against the Coalition forces: this was
>certainly not due to any sudden feeling by Mr. Hussein that
>such weapons were immoral. It probably had a lot to do with
>our public and private messages that we would get *really* mad
>if anybody did something like that.
>

	Hmmm. Anyone  know if EMP-enhanced weapons are available?
A  non-nuclear EMP device might be very useful in a near-future war,
as well. Only problem is that producing EMP weapons may require
First World grade industry, in which case the Third World may find
it hard to get their hands on them. 

	It might be difficult to justify a nuclear strike on someone
who EMPed troops if the EMP wasn't associated with a nuclear weapon.

	EMPing them back would be OK, though, and cities are pretty
vulnerable to such attack.  Kinda the opposite of how  the popular
media used to misrepresent neutron bombs: Leaves the people standing
and destroys part of the industrial infrastructure.

							James Nicoll


