 | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | Aren't missile silos underground to protect them from attack? So an ICBM might not even do much damage to the underground compound, right? Jeff (...) (26 years ago, 1-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Jesse Long
|
| | | | | Jeff Stembel wrote in message <363CEBED.B9E133F9@aol.com>... (...) A ground impact would destroy it, if it landed close enough. Not all atomic weapons are programmed to be air bursts. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) My understanding (consider me the opposite of an expert) is that the silos require local human initiation of launches. So an attack doesn't have to destroy the missile in the silo, it just has to cook the operators in the bunker. Seems like if (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Jesse Long
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <363e0fa2.9016510@lu...et.com>... (...) Local is a very relative term. Local can be a hundred miles away, in terms of what the Air Force was capable of doing. Actually, they had a lot of redundant systems, and could (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure if this makes me feel better or worse about America's nuclear capabilities. Technically, it sounds 'cool', assuming it would actually work right under field conditions. But any discussion of making it easier to launch nukes gives (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Jesse Long
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <363efd9e.2257101@lu...et.com>... (...) To the best of my knowledge they decommissioned the auto-launch missile right before they declassified it (about five years ago), so it's not in use anymore. As for the rest of the (...) (26 years ago, 3-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Chris Moseley
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote (...) Was it just "war games" or didn't they have a sub 50% launch rate from manned sites in trials? Like, half the time the boys would choose not to set the thing off? So there was some incentive to have (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Matthew Marshall
|
| | | | | | | Well the actual figures aren't available but I'd guess somewhere to 80% 90% would launch. I mean these guys had several backups in case one did decide to cop out right? Also if it's not authorized to launch fairly quickly isn't there a call to the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Jesse Long
|
| | | | | | Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) Just War Games, AFAIK. Although I do know that they ran test firings a lot to make sure that people would actually turn the keys when they needed to. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here? —Richard Dee
|
| | | | (...) Probably the easiest and sure-fire method would be for all sides to agree to detonate their weapons in-situ. No need to worry about launch failures, etc. (26 years ago, 7-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
