Re: "Conventional ICBMs"


"P. Perry" <ravenwing71@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LsXUf.177$CL6.137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<SNIP>
H'mmm...providing an example of the fail-safe system working as evidence
that the fail-system won't work? A bit illogical IMO.

Brooks

Regardless of whether or not missiles were exchanged in '95, or during
false
alarms previously, is irrelevant.

H'mmm...more of the approach that evidence that the system works is by
definition evidence that the system won't work, or is at best "irelevant" to
the question of whether the system will work? Very odd approach to acheiving
a logical conclusion IMO.

To dismiss it by saying "the system
worked" is ludicrous.

To point to it as evidence that it does not or will not work is much more
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.

Uhmmm...nothing a like a heaping helping of exaggeration to buttress the old
argument, huh? The fact is that neither the US nor Russia use a LOW posture,
which sort of makes all of the above just more background noise.


The Norway incident was consistent with an SLBM launch profile, hence the
alert.

But no catastrophe, and why was that? Because the system in place worked,
due to the fact that neither side is stupid enough to assume a LOW posture.

To even surmise that the Russians are incapable of tracking SLBM
launches is itself absurd,

LOL! I'd be very curious how good their ability is to detect, less alone
track, SLBM launches in the South Pacific or IO. You have some evidence to
support the contention that they can indeed do so? And if they can, do you
figure they could therefore do the basic track analysis that shows them the
target does NOT lie in their territory? How can they be so technically
capable as you seem to claim, and yet be so ham handed and stupid that they
can't do simple ballistic trajectory calcualtions? And where does this leave
you in the absence of a LOW posture on their part?

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.

Sounds a bit like you are saying that are only a little bit pregnant. Which
is it--do they have the capability today of detecting launches on a global
basis or not?


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.

LOL! "Whether or not the system will work is irrelevant"?! You have got to
be kidding, right? You *may* argue that such is not fully conclusive, but
that is a far stretch from claiming outright irrelevance.


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.

Why? Countries or regions are big areas, and the launch starts a
sub-half-hour clock ticking; by the time they have completely pinpointed the
exact grid of the target it will be too late for the folks on the receiving
end. They can call whomever they wish to; they would be rather unlikely to
get in touch with them before the dust settles at the impact point )I guess
you are basing this on the assumption that the Russians have hotlines in
place to every evil-doer around the planet for the purposes of
near-real-time information sharing?). That is even if they WANTED to do so.
Don't forget that the Russians have their own problems with, for example,
extremist Muslim groups, and may not necessarilly be unhappy to see some of
those types of targets taken out.

Now, tell my why using your brand of logic (shudder!), why has not every
launch of a conventional ALCM or SLCM, or every strike by a B-2, been
assumed by the Russians to be an immenent nuclear attack? After all, we do
have nuclear ALCM's still in the inventory, we still have SLCM nuclear
warheads in the stockpile, and the B-2 was originally developed as a nuclear
strike platform. How are those situations any different from morphing the
long range BM into a conventional system? What happened to those who claimed
at the time that *every* cruise missile launch would be assumed by the
Russians to be a nuclear attack in progress?


However given your typical brusque "Usenet Know It All" attitude, and
penchant for circular reasoning, your conclusions are not surprising.

Because they are based upon both fact and logic, bopth areas which you
evidently are not very well acquainted with.

Brooks




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
    ... nuclear deterrent forces present today. ... Which is why the proposal does not necessarilly include firing such missiles ... against Russia, even if they *did* detect said launch (not assured, SLBM ... the Russians that they are not a threat to them. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: "Conventional ICBMs"
    ... nuclear deterrent forces present today. ... Which is why the proposal does not necessarilly include firing such missiles ... against Russia, even if they *did* detect said launch (not assured, SLBM ... the Russians that they are not a threat to them. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Flyback boosters
    ... Our spacecraft sit on the launch pad ... I am talking flight rate you idiot. ... The Russians truck their vehicle out, erect it, and fly it within a ... Russian vehicle is the ugliest duck around. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: At least Rolf is addressing substantive matters rather than matters of form----M
    ... Dworetsky have produced empirical evidence that a rocket launched ... that the rotational velocity of the surface of the Earth is added to the ... velocity produced by the rocket's thrust, making it easier to launch ... You are making an extraordinary claim that the Earth does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT- does he have a point?
    ... The claims cited in this thread made by the Russians ... If you should acquire such evidence, ... also have reports from journalists in South Ossetia - clearly the Russians ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)