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.
You keep on tripping over your ignorance of this field.
I think your frustration comes from the fact that you are unable to explain what seems so obvious to you in actual words and using logic. Much like my doctor felt when he was telling me take the vaccines.
How do you propose to shut down an ICBM without a link?
Already explained how radio guidanance has no connection to a abort link. Radio guidance relies on one kind of link - a link tha constantly receives signals and guides it to the target. Totally insecure for a million reasons.
You can have a separate link that receives encrypted signals from multiple satellites
on multiple frequencies, and can be activated only for aborts.
Not an issue if your target knows you aborted. Infact if you decide to abort, you want your target to know it.
Not an issue if EMP disables all the satellites. You are no worse off than if you launched it without an abort feature
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.
Agreed. GPS is only optional. See my point about regarding satellites
You simply don't understand the priorities of the mission.
You only believe you understand the priorities based on what is shared with someone of your level. Optics are different every level - one thing we have learnt about how this world works. You think only your field is an exception. Sure, live in that delusion. Keep repeating "The entire world is an illusion, except for the part I am expert in"
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?
Sometimes you claim radio guidance was replaced due to vulnerability ECW, and other times you claim it was a policy (I mean .. strategic policy decision). Do you udnerstand the difference between the two or don't you?
You don't have a counter-argument.
My counter arguments are itemized and address each of your arguments. Unlike yours.
All you have is wishful thinking.
Absolutely. I never pretend to know exactly how things are. Just how I believe it could be. Unless you, I have no delusions of grandeur.
There are no precedents.
There are no precedants to the times we live in.
There are no programs.
I am sure the DoD has to run every program by you.
There is no demonstrated capability (except for range safety purposes when conducting training launches and vulnerability is not a consideration).
I am sure they will demonstrate all the black tech capabiliteis to you.
You have no special knowledge.
Of course not.
I do. And you don't know what I am not discussing.
I would have atleast pretended to believe it had it not been the case that you have displayed your bloated ignorance so many times
All you have is some vaporous "it may be possible."
That is exactly what I am saying. You just dont listen. Burden of proof for possibility of something is far less than impossibility of something.
Just as it is possible to transport Mt. Everest to Australia by the tablespoon full (schedule no object).
I am sure a lot of things you do feels like this to you. Dont worry, its not your fault.
"Pettifogging," by the way, dates back to 1570. So much for new words.
Thanks for teaching me a new word. I personally never see the necessity to use it though, since once you complain about pettyfogging, you know you are technically wrong. Its the same as saying:
You are just dreaming up a very complex system to do something that is not desired at a policy and strategic level. You simply introduce more uncertainties into the total mission. For example, one way of hacking GPS would be to modify the signal code to include a timing error. That would throw off the accuracy to an indeterminable amount, and a dumb PBV or RV would not know what to believe, GPS or its own inertial system.
As for the discontinuance of radio guidance, it was done as a matter of policy (no vulnerability to ECM). I explained that. You have a hard time believing it.
You don't have any arguments for the present existence of any such capability. You admit you are only talking about your (uninformed) belief. Since what you are hoping for would exist only in some other reality where we would not have a policy against it, you will have a very long wait.
I'm not bothering to itemize anything. When someone has an inability to stick to a main point, the alternative is to wander all over the map. The only thing left is to quibble over punctuation.
You think your rhetorical maneuvers will get my goat and expose my "wrong." It doesn't work that way. I've worked in the environment of strategic delivery systems---B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, ALCM---and helped design kinetic energy weapons to intercept them after launch, as well as directed energy weapons to do other things. I've breathed this stuff for decades. You don't know how it works (or doesn't work) and you think you can teach me about "possibility." It seems I can't teach you about reality, more's the pity.
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.
I think your frustration comes from the fact that you are unable to explain what seems so obvious to you in actual words and using logic. Much like my doctor felt when he was telling me take the vaccines.
Already explained how radio guidanance has no connection to a abort link. Radio guidance relies on one kind of link - a link tha constantly receives signals and guides it to the target. Totally insecure for a million reasons.
You can have a separate link that receives encrypted signals from multiple satellites on multiple frequencies, and can be activated only for aborts.
Not an issue if your target knows you aborted. Infact if you decide to abort, you want your target to know it.
Not an issue if EMP disables all the satellites. You are no worse off than if you launched it without an abort feature
Agreed. GPS is only optional. See my point about regarding satellites
You only believe you understand the priorities based on what is shared with someone of your level. Optics are different every level - one thing we have learnt about how this world works. You think only your field is an exception. Sure, live in that delusion. Keep repeating "The entire world is an illusion, except for the part I am expert in"
Sometimes you claim radio guidance was replaced due to vulnerability ECW, and other times you claim it was a policy (I mean .. strategic policy decision). Do you udnerstand the difference between the two or don't you?
My counter arguments are itemized and address each of your arguments. Unlike yours.
Absolutely. I never pretend to know exactly how things are. Just how I believe it could be. Unless you, I have no delusions of grandeur.
There are no precedants to the times we live in.
I am sure the DoD has to run every program by you.
I am sure they will demonstrate all the black tech capabiliteis to you.
Of course not.
I would have atleast pretended to believe it had it not been the case that you have displayed your bloated ignorance so many times
That is exactly what I am saying. You just dont listen. Burden of proof for possibility of something is far less than impossibility of something.
I am sure a lot of things you do feels like this to you. Dont worry, its not your fault.
Thanks for teaching me a new word. I personally never see the necessity to use it though, since once you complain about pettyfogging, you know you are technically wrong. Its the same as saying:
"I am wrong, but you are mean for pointing out"
You are just dreaming up a very complex system to do something that is not desired at a policy and strategic level. You simply introduce more uncertainties into the total mission. For example, one way of hacking GPS would be to modify the signal code to include a timing error. That would throw off the accuracy to an indeterminable amount, and a dumb PBV or RV would not know what to believe, GPS or its own inertial system.
As for the discontinuance of radio guidance, it was done as a matter of policy (no vulnerability to ECM). I explained that. You have a hard time believing it.
You don't have any arguments for the present existence of any such capability. You admit you are only talking about your (uninformed) belief. Since what you are hoping for would exist only in some other reality where we would not have a policy against it, you will have a very long wait.
I'm not bothering to itemize anything. When someone has an inability to stick to a main point, the alternative is to wander all over the map. The only thing left is to quibble over punctuation.
You think your rhetorical maneuvers will get my goat and expose my "wrong." It doesn't work that way. I've worked in the environment of strategic delivery systems---B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, ALCM---and helped design kinetic energy weapons to intercept them after launch, as well as directed energy weapons to do other things. I've breathed this stuff for decades. You don't know how it works (or doesn't work) and you think you can teach me about "possibility." It seems I can't teach you about reality, more's the pity.