On Feb 3, 2019, speff wrote
On Saturday, 2 February 2019 11:46:28 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):
On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.
CEP is 200m for these behemoths:
Bill Sloman, Sydney
200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.
Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on
coming into that prize.
A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air
Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we
The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and
As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill.. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is
The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.
Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.
Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.
That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the
late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that
was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus
the previous assignment of three per target.
How do you know this, or that itâ€™s true? Please provide cites..
By the way, the other problem with Russian weapons was reliability. They
would send multiple weapons to ensure that at least one loud bang happened,
accurate or not. The US does the same, but need fewer weapons per target to
ensure at least one sufficiently loud bang.
Not my understanding-- the older ones they've been using up in satellite
launches on the open market have been proven very reliable and very, very
accurate. They had and have good space technology.
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.
Yes. The old ones I'm talking about **were** cold war era.