> During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
> of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
> There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
> air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.

> An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
> submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
> longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
> of cables to communicate.

> Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

> M.S.

> During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
> of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
> There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
> air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.
> An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
> submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
> longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
> of cables to communicate.
> Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

> Mark Andrew Spence (m1spe...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> > During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
> > of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
> > There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
> > air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.

> > An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
> > submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
> > longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
> > of cables to communicate.

> > Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

>During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
>of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
>There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
>air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.
>An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
>submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
>longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
>of cables to communicate.
>Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

wb8...@panix.com (David Lesher) wrote:
>"Mark Andrew Spence" <m1spe...@pacbell.net> writes:

>>During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
>>of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
>>There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
>>air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.

>>An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
>>submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
>>longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
>>of cables to communicate.

>>Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

>I believe there is a treaty with Canada banning same.  The USS COD
>SS-224/memorial is in Cleveland, and I vaguely recall something
>about the negotiations for same including removing the batteries
>and filling the void with concrete.

>Not to mention the fact the Lakes are rather shallow & small in
>comparison; I'd wonder if a SSBN even at the far end of say Lake
>Erie could survive an underwater burst.

>Putting important targets unnecessarily near high population areas doesn't
>seem to make much sense either.

(Chris Manteuffel) wrote:
>>Putting important targets unnecessarily near high population areas doesn't
>>seem to make much sense either.

>And yet we put boomers in the Med to get at some targets.

pant...@mbox303.swipnet.se (Per Andersson) wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 17:33:29 GMT, cdm7g*REMOVETH...@virginia.edu
>(Chris Manteuffel) wrote:

>>>Putting important targets unnecessarily near high population areas doesn't
>>>seem to make much sense either.

>>And yet we put boomers in the Med to get at some targets.

>That's near the population centers of other people. Much less reason
>to be concerned.

cdm7g*REMOVETH...@virginia.edu (Chris Manteuffel) writes:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:28:31 GMT, skelt...@home.com (Peter Skelton)
> arranged electrons in an arbitrary pattern familiar to all as:
> >Putting important targets unnecessarily near high population areas doesn't
> >seem to make much sense either.
> And yet we put boomers in the Med to get at some targets.

> Perhaps some
> of the experience gained there could have been put to use optimizing
> these small subs for avoiding people in shallow, high traffic
> situations?

David Lesher wrote:

> "Mark Andrew Spence" <m1spe...@pacbell.net> writes:

> >During the Carter Administration in the late 1970s, there was a fair amount
> >of investigation os alternative means of basing the AF's missile force.
> >There were experiments to base the MX on underground railcars, or have them
> >air-dropped from C-5s, among other ideas.

> >An IBM physicist, Richard or Robert Garwin proposed basing the MX on small
> >submarines cruising the Great Lakes.  There would be two missiles carried by
> >longitudinally by each sub. The subs would plug into an underwater network
> >of cables to communicate.

> >Anyone know why this idea was never adopted?

> I believe there is a treaty with Canada banning same.  The USS COD
> SS-224/memorial is in Cleveland, and I vaguely recall something
> about the negotiations for same including removing the batteries
> and filling the void with concrete.

> Not to mention the fact the Lakes are rather shallow & small in
> comparison; I'd wonder if a SSBN even at the far end of say Lake
> Erie could survive an underwater burst.

> --
> A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8...@nrk.com
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433