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.
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).
As for the discontinuance of radio guidance, it was done as a matter of policy (no vulnerability to ECM).
It is possible you are hosting two personalities! (I mean that in a good natured joking way, but seriously dude, keep it together. You make it too easy, kek)
You don't seem to understand that "policy" is involved in many levels of organization. They are otherwise understood as "groundrules," decisions on principles or constraints that are established at a level that governs all subsidiary decisions. I have consistently said that the decision to change guidance methods was on such a basis. If you want to twirl around the parsing of whether this is "strategy" or "policy," be advised that it is both.
I will make it easy for you since you have a very hard time with logic and reasoning.
Your position that it is impossible for nuclear missiles of any kind to have an abort feature is not a tenable position.
I do understand that what you are struggling to say is "Based on everything available publicly, and personal experience, I find it extremely improbable that it is the case"
For which I would have replied: "Fair enough. But we are living in improbable times and so for me this makes a good theory. Perhaps a variation that does not actually involve missiles flying in the air, but bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear war is more probably, but personally I think at the precipice we will atleat hear the news that missiles are on their way to destroy us. No hard feelings if your own beliefs stops you from even theoratically discussing it. Thats the best part about living in a free world!"
For future reference, when you try to make a point based on your personal experience that you cannot share the details fully is as useful to another person as someone claiming they can see the future in a crystal ball. Try to make your points with logic and reasoning, because "trust me bro" is not a valid reasoning.
Don't be absurd. I have said it is an impossibility from a doctrinal (another word for strategic policy) point of view. No one is going to implement such a feature. This has been doctrine for 60 years and there is nothing to suggest it will ever change---because it is not arbitrary. There are supremely life-and-death reasons for it being the way it is. You don't understand that. You don't want to understand that. You want to think it is a matter of "probability"? You literally don't know what you are talking about.
What makes you think we will hear "the news that missiles are on the way to destroy us"? Can you disseminate the news in 30 minutes to a whole nation, while you have your hands full trying to cope with the immediate military situation? That is about how much time we would have from launch to impact. Unless we had a well-developed and well-trained civil defense response, there would be little point in spreading such news. There would be no safety for anyone to find in 30 minutes...or they would already be outside the blast and radiation effects. You are an example of someone who gets his ideas about nuclear war from sensationalist movies. (The short timeline of a space-based boost-phase-intercept system made it mandatory, in our estimation, to provide a default autonomous activation capability. It's like a fire extinguishing system: it is supposed to activate when there is a fire, not wait for someone to turn it on. When you have maybe an engagement window of a few hundred seconds, you can't afford for the duty officer to track down and wake up the Colonel in command. And then you have to provide a system battle management solution for the intercept of maybe a thousand missiles in that time frame. We found one. Rather clever, and very simple. This is by way of illustrating the nature of the strategic combat problem.)
I have never made any points on information that is not openly available. I have merely shown you that you cannot estimate what I know or do not know, since I am not discussing classified information. All my points are based on history and doctrine that has been in place for a very long time, across multiple strategic weapon systems. You don't have any basis for suggesting or expecting that there is anything to overturn this situation---or, more importantly, that it has changed to support your fantasy.
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.
You said this:
You also said this:
It is possible you are hosting two personalities! (I mean that in a good natured joking way, but seriously dude, keep it together. You make it too easy, kek)
You don't seem to understand that "policy" is involved in many levels of organization. They are otherwise understood as "groundrules," decisions on principles or constraints that are established at a level that governs all subsidiary decisions. I have consistently said that the decision to change guidance methods was on such a basis. If you want to twirl around the parsing of whether this is "strategy" or "policy," be advised that it is both.
I will make it easy for you since you have a very hard time with logic and reasoning.
Your position that it is impossible for nuclear missiles of any kind to have an abort feature is not a tenable position.
I do understand that what you are struggling to say is "Based on everything available publicly, and personal experience, I find it extremely improbable that it is the case"
For which I would have replied: "Fair enough. But we are living in improbable times and so for me this makes a good theory. Perhaps a variation that does not actually involve missiles flying in the air, but bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear war is more probably, but personally I think at the precipice we will atleat hear the news that missiles are on their way to destroy us. No hard feelings if your own beliefs stops you from even theoratically discussing it. Thats the best part about living in a free world!"
For future reference, when you try to make a point based on your personal experience that you cannot share the details fully is as useful to another person as someone claiming they can see the future in a crystal ball. Try to make your points with logic and reasoning, because "trust me bro" is not a valid reasoning.
Don't be absurd. I have said it is an impossibility from a doctrinal (another word for strategic policy) point of view. No one is going to implement such a feature. This has been doctrine for 60 years and there is nothing to suggest it will ever change---because it is not arbitrary. There are supremely life-and-death reasons for it being the way it is. You don't understand that. You don't want to understand that. You want to think it is a matter of "probability"? You literally don't know what you are talking about.
What makes you think we will hear "the news that missiles are on the way to destroy us"? Can you disseminate the news in 30 minutes to a whole nation, while you have your hands full trying to cope with the immediate military situation? That is about how much time we would have from launch to impact. Unless we had a well-developed and well-trained civil defense response, there would be little point in spreading such news. There would be no safety for anyone to find in 30 minutes...or they would already be outside the blast and radiation effects. You are an example of someone who gets his ideas about nuclear war from sensationalist movies. (The short timeline of a space-based boost-phase-intercept system made it mandatory, in our estimation, to provide a default autonomous activation capability. It's like a fire extinguishing system: it is supposed to activate when there is a fire, not wait for someone to turn it on. When you have maybe an engagement window of a few hundred seconds, you can't afford for the duty officer to track down and wake up the Colonel in command. And then you have to provide a system battle management solution for the intercept of maybe a thousand missiles in that time frame. We found one. Rather clever, and very simple. This is by way of illustrating the nature of the strategic combat problem.)
I have never made any points on information that is not openly available. I have merely shown you that you cannot estimate what I know or do not know, since I am not discussing classified information. All my points are based on history and doctrine that has been in place for a very long time, across multiple strategic weapon systems. You don't have any basis for suggesting or expecting that there is anything to overturn this situation---or, more importantly, that it has changed to support your fantasy.