Scenario 2 is impossible. We do not provide the ability to disarm after launch for exactly the reason you want to exploit: vulnerability to electronic warfare. (The earliest ICBMs had radio command guidance, but that was replaced in the next generation by inertial guidance.) The nuclear codes are to authorize launch, not abort missions. Once missiles are launched, they are for keeps. They have no radio receivers. You really need to grip more reality when you want to postulate scenarios. (It may be possible to abort a bombing mission, but that hinges on command-and-control protocols. I wouldn't count on it.)
And what, pray tell, is the safety net for Covid-19 vaccinations? A lot of people are going to die a slow, unpleasant, ill-recognized death with no evident possibility of cure or remission.
You can believe (or imagine) a perfect precipice with no casualties. I prefer to expect a real one, with real casualties.
You really need to grip more reality when you want to postulate scenarios.
You never fail to turn a good debate into a personal attack. Not that I mind, since for me, it gives a clue into the state of the opponent's mind and their stance.
We do not provide the ability to disarm after launch for exactly the reason you want to exploit: vulnerability to electronic warfare
There are many ways to ensure a disarm code is not vulnerable to ECW including cryptographic solutions.
(The earliest ICBMs had radio command guidance, but that was replaced in the next generation by inertial guidance.)
I am not going to push this issue too far since I know it would be futile to make a person who believes they are expert in an area to think outside the box. But remember that Q has shown us that technologies exist outside of public knowledge. Here is one example regarding the interception of the missile in Hawaii:
We also dont have to be limtied to "abort codes". It could any number of possibilites to sell this scenario, including interception.
And what, pray tell, is the safety net for Covid-19 vaccinations?
Safety net does not mean no real casualties. Of course there will be real casualties, especially in the financial precipice area.
That said, all those who are injured and suffering from the vaccines, who survive the shorter term issues, will most definitely have access to anti-covid-vaccine technologies after the precipice. If we assume that covid vaccines are bioweapons, then it is quite possible that an antidote for this weapon was created along with the weapon.
I prefer to expect a real one, with real casualties.
Your scenario of a impending civil war did not really include real casualties except "occasional gratuitous murder". Does not sound much like a real precipice with real casualties.
It also brings up the question of how much real casualties do we need to see at this precipice to ensure Great Awakening happens, while also not destroying the psyche of the humanity beyond repair? And how do you ensure the casualties remain within this acceptable range, if as you claim, the precipice will be with no controls?
Have it your way. I have only worked in strategic defense for decades and I am familiar with what is or is not done. Those missiles cannot be aborted, and that is a fact. They picked inertial navigation expressly to preclude that possibility. Why would anyone want to gamble with it? You simply do not know what that world is all about.
There was no missile intercept in Hawaii. That was a reference to the presumed rogue launch of a missile from Puget Sound, near Kitsap Peninsula. That would have been a possible boost-phase intercept by an F-15 flying combat air patrol over the submarine base at Keyport, I happen to be especially familiar with that technology. (If it had been, however, the sight and sound of the intercept would have been a matter of public note, and there was no record of such an event.)
So, no safety net. At least you are clearing your eyes.
But wishful thinking about a "cure" for the vaccine damage, which is latent at the genetic level. A vaccine for the vaccine? How are we to trust that?
Oh, "casualties" would not include hundreds of murders (killings by mass violence)? Sweep them under the rug, will you? There is no way to ensure that casualties will remain within an "acceptable range." I don't believe in an acceptable range (but evidently, you do). My whole point is that the premise of "control" is ill-conceived and points to events more serious than what we have experienced already. (Unless they have ready access to the equivalent of a fire extinguisher, such a speedy mobilization of the National Guard.)
The idea that people will have their "psyche destroyed beyond repair" is fatuous nonsense. People have survived the devastation of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, airplane crashes, and volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mount St. Helens), and no one has worried about their "psyches destroyed beyond repair." People are tough and resilient. Nobody likes to go through an extremity of pain and suffering, but they go through it. (Ever had open-heart surgery? No fun during recovery.)
You have a thin skin. Giving needed advice is not a "personal attack." I have thought "outside the box" enough to have been granted 9 patents on new ideas (sadly, others were not elected for patent protection by my employer). Indeed, do not push it too far, because a person who is not an expert in an area often does not know where the box is.
And here I was just starting to enjoy what was promising to be a nice debate. But its okay, have learnt not to expect too much from people intellectually.
Scenario 2 is impossible. We do not provide the ability to disarm after launch for exactly the reason you want to exploit: vulnerability to electronic warfare. (The earliest ICBMs had radio command guidance, but that was replaced in the next generation by inertial guidance.) The nuclear codes are to authorize launch, not abort missions. Once missiles are launched, they are for keeps. They have no radio receivers. You really need to grip more reality when you want to postulate scenarios. (It may be possible to abort a bombing mission, but that hinges on command-and-control protocols. I wouldn't count on it.)
And what, pray tell, is the safety net for Covid-19 vaccinations? A lot of people are going to die a slow, unpleasant, ill-recognized death with no evident possibility of cure or remission.
You can believe (or imagine) a perfect precipice with no casualties. I prefer to expect a real one, with real casualties.
You never fail to turn a good debate into a personal attack. Not that I mind, since for me, it gives a clue into the state of the opponent's mind and their stance.
There are many ways to ensure a disarm code is not vulnerable to ECW including cryptographic solutions.
I am not going to push this issue too far since I know it would be futile to make a person who believes they are expert in an area to think outside the box. But remember that Q has shown us that technologies exist outside of public knowledge. Here is one example regarding the interception of the missile in Hawaii:
u/#q1730
We also dont have to be limtied to "abort codes". It could any number of possibilites to sell this scenario, including interception.
Safety net does not mean no real casualties. Of course there will be real casualties, especially in the financial precipice area.
That said, all those who are injured and suffering from the vaccines, who survive the shorter term issues, will most definitely have access to anti-covid-vaccine technologies after the precipice. If we assume that covid vaccines are bioweapons, then it is quite possible that an antidote for this weapon was created along with the weapon.
Your scenario of a impending civil war did not really include real casualties except "occasional gratuitous murder". Does not sound much like a real precipice with real casualties.
It also brings up the question of how much real casualties do we need to see at this precipice to ensure Great Awakening happens, while also not destroying the psyche of the humanity beyond repair? And how do you ensure the casualties remain within this acceptable range, if as you claim, the precipice will be with no controls?
Have it your way. I have only worked in strategic defense for decades and I am familiar with what is or is not done. Those missiles cannot be aborted, and that is a fact. They picked inertial navigation expressly to preclude that possibility. Why would anyone want to gamble with it? You simply do not know what that world is all about.
There was no missile intercept in Hawaii. That was a reference to the presumed rogue launch of a missile from Puget Sound, near Kitsap Peninsula. That would have been a possible boost-phase intercept by an F-15 flying combat air patrol over the submarine base at Keyport, I happen to be especially familiar with that technology. (If it had been, however, the sight and sound of the intercept would have been a matter of public note, and there was no record of such an event.)
So, no safety net. At least you are clearing your eyes.
But wishful thinking about a "cure" for the vaccine damage, which is latent at the genetic level. A vaccine for the vaccine? How are we to trust that?
Oh, "casualties" would not include hundreds of murders (killings by mass violence)? Sweep them under the rug, will you? There is no way to ensure that casualties will remain within an "acceptable range." I don't believe in an acceptable range (but evidently, you do). My whole point is that the premise of "control" is ill-conceived and points to events more serious than what we have experienced already. (Unless they have ready access to the equivalent of a fire extinguisher, such a speedy mobilization of the National Guard.)
The idea that people will have their "psyche destroyed beyond repair" is fatuous nonsense. People have survived the devastation of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, airplane crashes, and volcanic eruptions (e.g., Mount St. Helens), and no one has worried about their "psyches destroyed beyond repair." People are tough and resilient. Nobody likes to go through an extremity of pain and suffering, but they go through it. (Ever had open-heart surgery? No fun during recovery.)
You have a thin skin. Giving needed advice is not a "personal attack." I have thought "outside the box" enough to have been granted 9 patents on new ideas (sadly, others were not elected for patent protection by my employer). Indeed, do not push it too far, because a person who is not an expert in an area often does not know where the box is.
And here I was just starting to enjoy what was promising to be a nice debate. But its okay, have learnt not to expect too much from people intellectually.
This is happening too often to be a coincidence: you don't address any point I made, and you conclude with a slur.