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.
Yeah its not a coincidence, and it always happens when you cannot argue a point based on merits and jump to "My lifelong expertise in _______ means no one can disagree with me".
Now that is false. I have elaborated at length, and provided specific reasons and information that ruined some of your fancies. You have no basis for refutation, so you just withdraw into Know-Nothing-ism and denounce me for having expertise. You stopped arguing when you had nothing to say to my last comments---that was you, not me.
If this comes down to the lack of a means to abort a nuclear shot, then there we are. You come from the school of thought that you can pull a trigger and shoot a bullet at someone---but you can change your mind in the slender time available and just "turn it off." The early developers of ICBMs saw that radio command guidance (which would only prevail near the launch site) was too "open" for mission continuation, so they told the bullet to do what it had to do and be blind and deaf to anything else after the match was lit. (Radio command guidance was ruled out for the SLBMs because submarines don't surface to conduct a launch and seawater shuts off radio signals of the kind that would be needed. We used to have intercontinental cruise missiles, but they had similar reliance on inertial guidance (which was partly their weakness, because the gyro drift over the flight time resulted in too much error).
These are facts. Facts that are known to those who have studied the subject, thus a manifestation of "expertise." It is fatal to your conceit. You don't like being informed of this and take the attitude of "Well, it can be otherwise," which is only wishful thinking. And so you lay it all down at my feet for being poison to reasoned debate, when all I am doing is educating you. When the teacher tells you that Madagasgar is east of Africa, are you going to denounce his/her expertise, or blink and learn something?
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.
Yeah its not a coincidence, and it always happens when you cannot argue a point based on merits and jump to "My lifelong expertise in _______ means no one can disagree with me".
Now that is false. I have elaborated at length, and provided specific reasons and information that ruined some of your fancies. You have no basis for refutation, so you just withdraw into Know-Nothing-ism and denounce me for having expertise. You stopped arguing when you had nothing to say to my last comments---that was you, not me.
If this comes down to the lack of a means to abort a nuclear shot, then there we are. You come from the school of thought that you can pull a trigger and shoot a bullet at someone---but you can change your mind in the slender time available and just "turn it off." The early developers of ICBMs saw that radio command guidance (which would only prevail near the launch site) was too "open" for mission continuation, so they told the bullet to do what it had to do and be blind and deaf to anything else after the match was lit. (Radio command guidance was ruled out for the SLBMs because submarines don't surface to conduct a launch and seawater shuts off radio signals of the kind that would be needed. We used to have intercontinental cruise missiles, but they had similar reliance on inertial guidance (which was partly their weakness, because the gyro drift over the flight time resulted in too much error).
These are facts. Facts that are known to those who have studied the subject, thus a manifestation of "expertise." It is fatal to your conceit. You don't like being informed of this and take the attitude of "Well, it can be otherwise," which is only wishful thinking. And so you lay it all down at my feet for being poison to reasoned debate, when all I am doing is educating you. When the teacher tells you that Madagasgar is east of Africa, are you going to denounce his/her expertise, or blink and learn something?