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.
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.