Here you are pettifogging. The choice was made for strategic reasons. Strategy in military affairs is policy, having nothing to do with technical preference. In other words, we do not now employ radio guidance as a matter of high level (i.e., policy) choice. You can't get around that fact. It has nothing to do with technical feasibility (you have no idea what to do when the booster has burned out, so you have a time window of maybe 120-150 seconds).
We have come to an end, since you have decided to abandon intellectual honesty for narrow parsing of words (what makes "policy" different from "strategy"?). The impossibility arises from a decision NEVER to allow a path into the system once launched. Your idea that it is "possible" is a fantasy. In the case in question, it would have to be a proven fact, not a "possibility."
I worked with people who were on B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, and ALCM programs. You can take it from me and learn something, or turn your back on reality and stay in fantasy land. It seems you have done so.
Haha, now you are trying to equate "policy" and "strategy" just because you want to run away from owning up to your false statements that.
You dont seem to understand the difference between policy, strategy and technical feasibility. No wonder you are having such a hard time trying to keep your own words in order. I will make it easy for you because I honestly feel sorry to see you thrashing around so badly.
Policy
Agreement about what objectives to focus on, decided by a group of people, politically. In this discussion the policy in question is "Nuclear Deterant Policy" - to disallow countries to call each others' bluff and launch nuclear missiles knowing they can be aborted. You didn't bring it up, I offered it to you as a plausible point of argument you could have used but you decided to rewrite history and claim you did use it. Hardly pertinent to this discussion, but love how you squirm around trying to hang on to this claim.
Strategy
The best plan to use to achieve a given policy, from amongst the set of technincall feasible plans.
In this discuassion using inertial guidance system instead of a radio guidance system is a better strategy, NOT because of the nuclear deterrant policy but because of security since radio guidance is prone to ECW. This has always been your claim, and you confuse this claim with both policy and technical feasibility.
Using Inertial Guidance System DOES NOT mean Abort Sequence is no longer technologically feasible
Technical Feasibility
The set of plans that are possible to be implemented, based on physical, technological, budgetary and time constraints, each with its own pros and cons.
There are a hundred different ways you can implement Abort Sequence even with Inertial Guidance System. A very simple solution would be an encrypted destruction signal (usually called DALCode) with encryption.
Inertial Guidance already has receivers for receiving GPS signals. They need to have an additional receiver to receive the DALCode. DALCode would be transmitted via satelliets.
Once the DALCode is received, decrypted and verified, a number of courses of actions can be taken. The easiest is to explode the missile while it is still high in its trajectory. There is roughly 20-30 minutes for all these shenanigans, more than enough for a precipice since emergency alert systems can be activated to ensure everyone's attention is on the event.
The only logical argument is that, due to the nuclear deterrant policy such an abort sequence would not have been implemented in the ICBMs, not because its not technically feasible (as you keep claming) but because of the policy.
My counter-argument to this is that, just like every other system we use, there are optics and there is reality. Almost all systems have backdoors programmed into them that even most of the engineers on the team are unaware. A couple years ago I would not have believed this is possible but we are seeing it all with our own eyes. So there is no reason why the same is not plausible for missile systems as well.
And yes, even before you say it, you were on the team and you know its not there. Yeah, you not being aware of it is not the same as it not being there, no matter what your roles in the project was.
You can take it from me and learn something, or turn your back on reality and stay in fantasy land.
I am not foolish enough to take anything from anyone due to their professed expertise. I continued debating with you hoping I could gather something of value from you (against my better judgement since your claims have been proven wrong spectacularly in the past), but ultimately nothing of value materialized.
I said you were pettifogging, and you still are. In military matters strategy and policy are the same thing: determinations at a top level as to how matters are going to go. It is a policy of assuring that once launched, our weapons CANNOT be turned back (excepting maybe bombers). It is also equivalent strategy. You can't separate the two.
There was never any question of technical feasibility since we had already developed the radio command guidance method and deployed it with the first generation of Atlas missiles. That would be effective only during boost phase when the missile was within line of sight. Destruction signals are used for training flights and are operational only during boost phase. Any other embodiment (beyond line of sight) would have incurred huge technical problems.
You invoke more wishful thinking by saying you can get an abort code from satellites. Satellites to whom our uplink may be disrupted by EMP events? Satellites whose ability to receive, decipher, and retransmit the signal may be likewise compromised, or them destroyed by acts of war? Similar problems in communicating with what?---the RV or the post-boost vehicle? If the PBV, you have a time window of a few minutes...and do you want it to have a beacon, and thereby advertise its nature and location? Same thing with the RV...how do you find it, to direct a signal? Or do you broadcast a signal and let the enemy know you are aborting an attack? No, for you, the policy is thrown out the window altogether and it doesn't matter if the system is secure from cyberattack.
And here is where you display your inability to read closely. I have, from the first, maintained that what you propose is impossible because of a strategic policy decision, not because it was innately impossible technically. (This does not preclude it from being technically impossible practically.)
You don't have a counter-argument. It is only wishful thinking. There is no reason to unravel a long-standing strategic policy, and certainly no evidence for it (like test shots, and announcement of any change to our strategic posture).
Before this conversation, you had no idea why the idea was a non-starter. And now you know. But you set aside knowledge for wishful thinking...not that you know anything otherwise, but that you insist that I don't know everything. Of course, if I did, I couldn't say anything about it could I? So, you really don't know what I know or don't know, because I do know how to keep a secret. Chew on that, but don't expect your scenario to happen.
Like arguing policy and strategy are the same for the fractional comfort of excusing yourself from taking back one misguided sentence you typed.
That would be effective only during boost phase when the missile was within line of sight.
Irrelvant to this discussion since we are not talking about Radio guidance
Satellites to whom our uplink may be disrupted by EMP events?
Invalid reasoning since if all the military Satellites are compromised by the enemy, your missile is not gonna find its target.
Also invalid logic to say if the enemy is capable of disabling a specific feature, lets not implement it at all.
No, for you, the policy is thrown out the window altogether and it doesn't matter if the system is secure from cyberattack.
I already addressed the policy issue. "Optics is not reality". Polic is what we want the world to believe. Reality is not neccarily same as optics. Oh, the shock of it! A year ago - agreed - would have been hard to believe.
Example: "Our policy is to enable free markets". Reality as we have learnt is that every aspect of the market is rigged.
I have, from the first, maintained that what you propose is impossible because of a strategic policy decision, not because it was innately impossible technically. (This does not preclude it from being technically impossible practically.)
Ah, you want to double down on it, while I am still waiting for you to show me specifically where you said it. But love how you change the wording from "policy" to "strategic policy" this time around. Do you keep massaging the facts until they fit your fiction? Entertaining for sure.
You don't have a counter-argument. It is only wishful thinking.
Counter argument explained like I am explaining a 5 year old here. Dont attribute the failure of your comprehension to my explanation.
And now you know.
God, I wish you gave one reason to back up your position that is not already addressed by me. Just one. I even had to throw one to your way and you immediately jumped on it, stole it, and tried to rewrite history to say you came up with it.
Pettifogging indeed. I like to know how many new words you create each day, simply to make yourself continue believing you know what you are talking about.
You keep on tripping over your ignorance of this field. Radio guidance presupposes a radio LINK, which is the point of relevance. How do you propose to shut down an ICBM without a link? Some other link? Now you are the one getting wrapped up in minutiae.
The whole point of inertial guidance is that it is totally independent of GPS and satellite communication. When the GPS signal is there, it may be helpful, but not necessary. The missile would get through. You simply don't understand the priorities of the mission.
At the beginning I explained that replacement of radio guidance with inertial navigation was a decision based on the desire not to be subject to electronic warfare (or hacking). You sometimes act as though you understand, and then you want to take the posture that I didn't explain it. Do you, or don't you?
You don't have a counter-argument. All you have is wishful thinking. There are no precedents. There are no programs. There is no demonstrated capability (except for range safety purposes when conducting training launches and vulnerability is not a consideration). You have no special knowledge. I do. And you don't know what I am not discussing. All you have is some vaporous "it may be possible." Just as it is possible to transport Mt. Everest to Australia by the tablespoon full (schedule no object).
"Pettifogging," by the way, dates back to 1570. So much for new words.
Here you are pettifogging. The choice was made for strategic reasons. Strategy in military affairs is policy, having nothing to do with technical preference. In other words, we do not now employ radio guidance as a matter of high level (i.e., policy) choice. You can't get around that fact. It has nothing to do with technical feasibility (you have no idea what to do when the booster has burned out, so you have a time window of maybe 120-150 seconds).
We have come to an end, since you have decided to abandon intellectual honesty for narrow parsing of words (what makes "policy" different from "strategy"?). The impossibility arises from a decision NEVER to allow a path into the system once launched. Your idea that it is "possible" is a fantasy. In the case in question, it would have to be a proven fact, not a "possibility."
I worked with people who were on B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, and ALCM programs. You can take it from me and learn something, or turn your back on reality and stay in fantasy land. It seems you have done so.
Haha, now you are trying to equate "policy" and "strategy" just because you want to run away from owning up to your false statements that.
You dont seem to understand the difference between policy, strategy and technical feasibility. No wonder you are having such a hard time trying to keep your own words in order. I will make it easy for you because I honestly feel sorry to see you thrashing around so badly.
Policy
Agreement about what objectives to focus on, decided by a group of people, politically. In this discussion the policy in question is "Nuclear Deterant Policy" - to disallow countries to call each others' bluff and launch nuclear missiles knowing they can be aborted. You didn't bring it up, I offered it to you as a plausible point of argument you could have used but you decided to rewrite history and claim you did use it. Hardly pertinent to this discussion, but love how you squirm around trying to hang on to this claim.
Strategy
The best plan to use to achieve a given policy, from amongst the set of technincall feasible plans.
In this discuassion using inertial guidance system instead of a radio guidance system is a better strategy, NOT because of the nuclear deterrant policy but because of security since radio guidance is prone to ECW. This has always been your claim, and you confuse this claim with both policy and technical feasibility.
Using Inertial Guidance System DOES NOT mean Abort Sequence is no longer technologically feasible
Technical Feasibility
The set of plans that are possible to be implemented, based on physical, technological, budgetary and time constraints, each with its own pros and cons.
There are a hundred different ways you can implement Abort Sequence even with Inertial Guidance System. A very simple solution would be an encrypted destruction signal (usually called DALCode) with encryption.
Inertial Guidance already has receivers for receiving GPS signals. They need to have an additional receiver to receive the DALCode. DALCode would be transmitted via satelliets.
Once the DALCode is received, decrypted and verified, a number of courses of actions can be taken. The easiest is to explode the missile while it is still high in its trajectory. There is roughly 20-30 minutes for all these shenanigans, more than enough for a precipice since emergency alert systems can be activated to ensure everyone's attention is on the event.
The only logical argument is that, due to the nuclear deterrant policy such an abort sequence would not have been implemented in the ICBMs, not because its not technically feasible (as you keep claming) but because of the policy.
My counter-argument to this is that, just like every other system we use, there are optics and there is reality. Almost all systems have backdoors programmed into them that even most of the engineers on the team are unaware. A couple years ago I would not have believed this is possible but we are seeing it all with our own eyes. So there is no reason why the same is not plausible for missile systems as well.
And yes, even before you say it, you were on the team and you know its not there. Yeah, you not being aware of it is not the same as it not being there, no matter what your roles in the project was.
I am not foolish enough to take anything from anyone due to their professed expertise. I continued debating with you hoping I could gather something of value from you (against my better judgement since your claims have been proven wrong spectacularly in the past), but ultimately nothing of value materialized.
I said you were pettifogging, and you still are. In military matters strategy and policy are the same thing: determinations at a top level as to how matters are going to go. It is a policy of assuring that once launched, our weapons CANNOT be turned back (excepting maybe bombers). It is also equivalent strategy. You can't separate the two.
There was never any question of technical feasibility since we had already developed the radio command guidance method and deployed it with the first generation of Atlas missiles. That would be effective only during boost phase when the missile was within line of sight. Destruction signals are used for training flights and are operational only during boost phase. Any other embodiment (beyond line of sight) would have incurred huge technical problems.
You invoke more wishful thinking by saying you can get an abort code from satellites. Satellites to whom our uplink may be disrupted by EMP events? Satellites whose ability to receive, decipher, and retransmit the signal may be likewise compromised, or them destroyed by acts of war? Similar problems in communicating with what?---the RV or the post-boost vehicle? If the PBV, you have a time window of a few minutes...and do you want it to have a beacon, and thereby advertise its nature and location? Same thing with the RV...how do you find it, to direct a signal? Or do you broadcast a signal and let the enemy know you are aborting an attack? No, for you, the policy is thrown out the window altogether and it doesn't matter if the system is secure from cyberattack.
And here is where you display your inability to read closely. I have, from the first, maintained that what you propose is impossible because of a strategic policy decision, not because it was innately impossible technically. (This does not preclude it from being technically impossible practically.)
You don't have a counter-argument. It is only wishful thinking. There is no reason to unravel a long-standing strategic policy, and certainly no evidence for it (like test shots, and announcement of any change to our strategic posture).
Before this conversation, you had no idea why the idea was a non-starter. And now you know. But you set aside knowledge for wishful thinking...not that you know anything otherwise, but that you insist that I don't know everything. Of course, if I did, I couldn't say anything about it could I? So, you really don't know what I know or don't know, because I do know how to keep a secret. Chew on that, but don't expect your scenario to happen.
Like arguing policy and strategy are the same for the fractional comfort of excusing yourself from taking back one misguided sentence you typed.
Irrelvant to this discussion since we are not talking about Radio guidance
Invalid reasoning since if all the military Satellites are compromised by the enemy, your missile is not gonna find its target.
Also invalid logic to say if the enemy is capable of disabling a specific feature, lets not implement it at all.
I already addressed the policy issue. "Optics is not reality". Polic is what we want the world to believe. Reality is not neccarily same as optics. Oh, the shock of it! A year ago - agreed - would have been hard to believe.
Example: "Our policy is to enable free markets". Reality as we have learnt is that every aspect of the market is rigged.
Ah, you want to double down on it, while I am still waiting for you to show me specifically where you said it. But love how you change the wording from "policy" to "strategic policy" this time around. Do you keep massaging the facts until they fit your fiction? Entertaining for sure.
Counter argument explained like I am explaining a 5 year old here. Dont attribute the failure of your comprehension to my explanation.
God, I wish you gave one reason to back up your position that is not already addressed by me. Just one. I even had to throw one to your way and you immediately jumped on it, stole it, and tried to rewrite history to say you came up with it.
Pettifogging indeed. I like to know how many new words you create each day, simply to make yourself continue believing you know what you are talking about.
You keep on tripping over your ignorance of this field. Radio guidance presupposes a radio LINK, which is the point of relevance. How do you propose to shut down an ICBM without a link? Some other link? Now you are the one getting wrapped up in minutiae.
The whole point of inertial guidance is that it is totally independent of GPS and satellite communication. When the GPS signal is there, it may be helpful, but not necessary. The missile would get through. You simply don't understand the priorities of the mission.
At the beginning I explained that replacement of radio guidance with inertial navigation was a decision based on the desire not to be subject to electronic warfare (or hacking). You sometimes act as though you understand, and then you want to take the posture that I didn't explain it. Do you, or don't you?
You don't have a counter-argument. All you have is wishful thinking. There are no precedents. There are no programs. There is no demonstrated capability (except for range safety purposes when conducting training launches and vulnerability is not a consideration). You have no special knowledge. I do. And you don't know what I am not discussing. All you have is some vaporous "it may be possible." Just as it is possible to transport Mt. Everest to Australia by the tablespoon full (schedule no object).
"Pettifogging," by the way, dates back to 1570. So much for new words.