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?
All you have repeatedly argued so far is about guidance systems used on ICBM, but nothing to do with abort mechanisms that are independant of the guidance system. To put in simple words, arguments you have provided do not prove the impossibility of aborting a missile after launch, only impossibility to implement an certain abort mechanism that relies on the guidance system.
Hence my comment about thinking outside the box. It does not mean coming up with some extremely clever design. It just means thinking outside the limitations you have imposed on your own thinking.
A better argument would have been the official narrative that missiles do not have abort mechanisms as a nuclear deterrant policy. I could accept that as a valid argument and counter that with "optics is not the same as reality".
However you decided to make your point by proving the technological impossibility of implementing an abort mechanism. Proving impossibility has a higher bar of proof, and requires you to exhaust all possible avenues, not just a single avenue.
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?
All you have repeatedly argued so far is about guidance systems used on ICBM, but nothing to do with abort mechanisms that are independant of the guidance system. To put in simple words, arguments you have provided do not prove the impossibility of aborting a missile after launch, only impossibility to implement an certain abort mechanism that relies on the guidance system.
Hence my comment about thinking outside the box. It does not mean coming up with some extremely clever design. It just means thinking outside the limitations you have imposed on your own thinking.
A better argument would have been the official narrative that missiles do not have abort mechanisms as a nuclear deterrant policy. I could accept that as a valid argument and counter that with "optics is not the same as reality".
However you decided to make your point by proving the technological impossibility of implementing an abort mechanism. Proving impossibility has a higher bar of proof, and requires you to exhaust all possible avenues, not just a single avenue.