View Single Post
Old 09-05-2010, 06:03 AM   #12
Dndjzirw

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
535
Senior Member
Default
Can you repost this please.

When you do, please try to make sense.

Thanks.
Sorry about that. I know that this can seem like a foreign language to some people.

When you launch an ICBM it has a particular heat signature that can be (is ) picked up by defense satellites. We have these satellites as do other countries. When the see the flare they have to make a determination as to whether the launch is hostile or not. A bunch of different stuff goes into figuring out what the threat is and if there is a possibility that the threat is an ICBM the military goes into an alert posture preparing for both defense and retaliation.

The problem with a "conventional" ICBM is that there is no way to tell whether the launch is nuclear or conventional. Because of that the threat posture necessarily skews to the highest threat. This could very easily result in nuclear retaliation for a conventional strike.

That was problem #1

Problem #2 comes up when someone here decides to launch one of these things because he or she feels that it is a "less lethal" option than a nuke when they would never consider using a nuke. That is, their reasoning is that such a launch would only incur conventional retaliation.

The enemy, however, having no way of knowing whether the launch is nuclear or conventional (see problem #1) would be pressed into a nuclear response because they, like us, prepare for the worst.
Dndjzirw is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity