I vote "crazy"

e:

ote:

t. The only

e incoming.

o if that c

de bursts.

the U.S.

hing inside

han just on

foot deep

hat we know

but

etc. are

and close

valves to

ke much of

mething

is easily

the

e

de

t a

land

nd

ll

ng

just

eavy

as a

.

he late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in tha t it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target v ersus the previous assignment of three per target.

ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recall Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or two later than this.

Dunno about ball bearings but Toshiba sold them a prohibited high tech nume rical milling machine that enabled them to make super balanced submarine pr opellers that could evade the sound thresholds of our sonobuoys at the time .

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred
Loading thread data ...

e:

ote:

out. The only

the incoming.

tm

ilo if that c

tude bursts.

ve the U.S.

ything inside

than just on

00 foot deep

that we know

, but

s etc. are

e and close

t valves to

take much of

Something

e is easily

m the

the

vide

nst a

o land

and

till

long

nt

d just

heavy

he

d as a

of

ed.

the late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in t hat it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.

er ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recal l Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or t wo later than this.

merical milling machine that enabled them to make super balanced submarine propellers that could evade the sound thresholds of our sonobuoys at the ti me.

Yeah, I think I'm mixing up two different things. I recall now the quiet p ropeller thing. That was while I was working DOD. The 70's thing was the precision grinding machines we sold the Soviets which likely produced the b all bearings used in gyroscopes of their ICBMs.

formatting link

5103e7

Some argue this was not actually consequential for several reasons.

Rick C.

  • Tesla referral code -
    formatting link
Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Population centers weren't anyone's first pick of targets, when SLBM accuracy was poorer as compared to ICBMs (they're almost on parity now afaik) they were for hitting less hardened targets of _military_ significance like bomber bases, airfields and airports enough to accommodate military aircraft, submarine bases, refineries, radar installations like PAVE/PAWs sites, Army bases, shipbuilding sites like Groton CT, logistics sites like Raytheon factories and Boeing plants, etc.

Time of flight from a submarine 200 miles out in the Atlantic to a bomber base in say Texas is 10 minutes, 8 minutes if the missile is on a depressed trajectory, the sub fires a few dozen warheads all around it the goal is to get those B1s and B-52s before they can get away.

Unfortunately for civilians many of these things are in or quite close to population centers. and fallout a few days after the prevailing winds from all those strikes in the West carried it east would be lethal levels for unprotected civilians underneath, surviving would require good shelter for at least several weeks.

Reply to
bitrex

By "design" in that the first type of missile defense is impossible with

20th or early 21st century technology
Reply to
bitrex

On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote (in article ):

contest

if one achieved 90% kill of the incoming missiles, enough would get through to destroy the target country. Even if 99% kill was achieved, the target country would be a fair mess, probably crippled. However, hard military targets would largely survive, and retain their ability to counter-strike.

The "by design" is political - nobody wanted to spend ten times as much to achieve the same level of deterrence. There is a history of such things:

.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote (in article ):

the

This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

.

Yep. The point is deterrence, to convince the other that their own country would also die, so they are never tempted to even try.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

s. The

o

ng

tion

rs

enses

by

the

ead

he

.

Are you talking about Soviet or U.S. targeting? U.S. SLBMs, which were orig inally low yield, were always aimed at population centers. Same thing for t he B-52s and their *one-way* retaliatory strike. Almost by definition, a re taliatory strike is a vengeance strike. The nuclear first strike capability of the adversary has already been spent attacking you. Why would you waste resources sending a B-52 to attack an empty missile launch field? The answ er isn't is you wouldn't. So what would be left?

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Those are worthless. And what is anyone supposed to do about that "early" warning? Say a prayer?

This technology is much more effective but they've had problems with it apparently. So they're going to throw a few trillion into a new one.

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

On Feb 3, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote (in article):

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

On Feb 3, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote (in article):

.
g
y
e
d
e

The sole purpose of a sentry is to get off one shot, this serving to warn the main body of soldiers.

lives.

What does this have to do with early-warning radars?

Anyway, we seem to be circling.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

On Feb 3, 2019, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote (in article):

The part about the handling and effect of 10,000 warheads was carefully worded to be symmetric.

After the first loud bang, the objective is to destroy the other. This is not likely to be carried out with great precision and discrimination. And, yes, retaliation is the intent. Were roses expected?

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

e:

ote:

t. The only

e incoming.

o if that c

de bursts.

the U.S.

hing inside

han just on

foot deep

hat we know

but

etc. are

and close

valves to

ke much

mething

is easily

the

e

de

t a

land

nd

ll

ng

just

eavy

as a

.

he

at it

rsus

d,

to

Not my understanding-- the older ones they've been using up in satellite la unches on the open market have been proven very reliable and very, very acc urate. They had and have good space technology.

--Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
speff

On Saturday, 2 February 2019 16:19:20 UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

e:

ote:

t. The only

e incoming.

o if that c

de bursts.

the U.S.

hing inside

han just on

foot deep

hat we know

but

etc. are

and close

valves to

ke much of

mething

is easily

the

e

de

t a

land

nd

ll

ng

just

eavy

as a

.

he late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in tha t it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target v ersus the previous assignment of three per target.

ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recall Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or two later than this.

The Toshiba debacle was related to their (in conjunction with a Norway comp any) selling advanced 9-axis simultaneous milling machines, controllers and software to the USSR. The machines could be used to make really quiet subm arine propellers. IIRC the Soviets knew what they wanted to make and just w anted to buy some milling machines.

Knowing where adversary submarines are at all times is of great interest to countries who may wish to perform a first-strike nuclear attack.

--Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
speff

On Feb 3, 2019, speff wrote (in article):

We were talking about the Cold War era. Both sides did what they needed to do to achieve the desired result. Neither US nor Soviet weapons were 100% reliable, but US weapons were probably twice as likely to succeed. But far too many things had to go right. Thus the use of multiple weapons per target.

Everybody?s stuff is better now. But the structure of deterrence endures.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

ed on

weapon

ll to d

targeti

center

le

o few

his is

ed to t

his. Re

, for t

deep

M

now

like

s, etc.

on a

it

y"

the

What shot? Those early warning jobs don't shoot anything.

on/

SBIRS detects the launch from the silo, mobile launcher or submarine possib ly. That sounds pretty much like early warning to me.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

:
:

ote:

d out. The only

f the incoming.

.htm

silo if that c

titude bursts.

bove the U.S.

erything inside

re than just on

400 foot deep

ow that we

ed, but

ers etc. are

rge and

ast valves

t take much

. Something

ure is

rom the

f the

rovide

ainst a

to land

ly and

still

a long

tant

and just

ve heavy

the

ood as a

e of

ered.

in the

n that

t versus

.

hey

pened,

get to

e

ry

o do

r

get.

Yes. The old ones I'm talking about **were** cold war era.

--Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
speff

e:

ote:

out. The only

the incoming.

tm

ilo if that c

tude bursts.

ve the U.S.

ything inside

than just on

00 foot deep

that we know

, but

s etc. are

e and close

t valves to

take much

Something

e is easily

m the

the

vide

nst a

o land

and

till

long

nt

d just

heavy

he

d as a

of

ed.

the

that it

versus

y

ned,

t to

launches on the open market have been proven very reliable and very, very a ccurate. They had and have good space technology.

Here's one of them:

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.