Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- From: "P. Perry" <ravenwing71@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:08:25 -0700
<SNIP>
H'mmm...providing an example of the fail-safe system working as evidenceRegardless of whether or not missiles were exchanged in '95, or during false
that the fail-system won't work? A bit illogical IMO.
Brooks
alarms previously, is irrelevant. To dismiss it by saying "the system
worked" is ludicrous.
Simple fact is, we have dodged a bullet on more than one occasion, and in
nearly EVERY one of the false alarms that have occurred, and in two of the
most dangerous, it was a single launch detection that nearly brought us to
the brink.
The Norway incident was consistent with an SLBM launch profile, hence the
alert. To even surmise that the Russians are incapable of tracking SLBM
launches is itself absurd, as their coverage is still global, but only hits
a percentage of the globe per day, as they have been unable to launch new
satellites to replace those that have died.
ANY, and I repeat, ANY situation that invites a repeat of a situation circa
'95, is tempting fate, and whether or not the system will work is
irrelevant, it only takes one time for it to fail.
And I highly doubt we would inform Russia of a tactical launch aimed at a
country they are friendly with, if only that they would more than likely
pass that information along.
However given your typical brusque "Usenet Know It All" attitude, and
penchant for circular reasoning, your conclusions are not surprising.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- From: Kevin Brooks
- Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- References:
- "Conventional ICBMs"
- From: Mike
- Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- From: P. Perry
- Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- From: Kevin Brooks
- "Conventional ICBMs"
- Prev by Date: Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- Next by Date: Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- Next by thread: Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|