DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Diwokfkq** · 09-05-2010, 06:43 AM

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.

Most modern missiles, AFAIK, are now cruise types. ICBMs launched from submarines still have a place, I think, but the entire dynamic is different. The whole idea of having to be watch the other side with your finger on a hair trigger is no longer really either practicable (because most cruise missiles have the same heat signal as a conventional jet, if that much) nor necessary (becaused your arsenal is largely on subs and missile cruisers and you couldn't blow them all up even if you could keep track of them, which you can't)

And in any case what we are talking about is one launch against, let's say, a complex of caves. The time and target could be easily communicated to the Russians and they're still the only ones who have reliable rockets now, though we can add others as time goes on. It's a lot faster and cheaper than flying B2's from Minnesota to Afghanistan and obviates the possibility that someone might have the newest Russian SAM to pick off a 2 billion bomber

But I forget, this is something DBO (Done By Obama) so naturally you guys are bending over backwards to find any way you can to condemn it.

09-05-2010, 06:43 AM	#14
Diwokfkq Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	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. Most modern missiles, AFAIK, are now cruise types. ICBMs launched from submarines still have a place, I think, but the entire dynamic is different. The whole idea of having to be watch the other side with your finger on a hair trigger is no longer really either practicable (because most cruise missiles have the same heat signal as a conventional jet, if that much) nor necessary (becaused your arsenal is largely on subs and missile cruisers and you couldn't blow them all up even if you could keep track of them, which you can't) And in any case what we are talking about is one launch against, let's say, a complex of caves. The time and target could be easily communicated to the Russians and they're still the only ones who have reliable rockets now, though we can add others as time goes on. It's a lot faster and cheaper than flying B2's from Minnesota to Afghanistan and obviates the possibility that someone might have the newest Russian SAM to pick off a 2 billion bomber But I forget, this is something DBO (Done By Obama) so naturally you guys are bending over backwards to find any way you can to condemn it.
	Quote