I notice that the National Defense articles uses that term, too.

Really interesting stuff, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. This is exactly the sort of thing that Tom(?) was suggesting we keep in an archive for future reference.

The Damask sounds like a really good development, in both the technical and cost sense. I was charmed to read that the IR sensor is adapted from the Cadillac DeVille night vision system. Funny to see technology going in the direction from commercial to military, in reverse of the historical pattern.

I wonder if there's much point in improving CEP much more for ICBMs? If you can deliver a nuke to within a couple of hundred meters, and its blast radius is several kilometers (assuming strategic-size nuke), further development would be up against the law of diminishing returns...I'd think, anyway.

While I'm willing to argue policy endlessly, up to the level of whether or not war is justified in various cases, I don't think there's any disputing that ever-more-precise weapons are a positive ethical development. We talk about specifics like limiting collateral damage to civilians, and minimizing damage to structures and surroundings...but basically we're talking about minimizing warfare itself. Who could disagree that the less, the better?

--Robert