EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:31:45 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons. The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War",Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn


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.


Are you talking about Soviet or U.S. targeting? U.S. SLBMs, which were originally low yield, were always aimed at population centers. Same thing for the B-52s and their *one-way* retaliatory strike. Almost by definition, a retaliatory 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 answer isn't is you wouldn't. So what would be left?


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:38:32 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <wgt5E.169034$nO2.159617_at_fx08.iad>):

On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War", Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

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.

This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_State_Phased_Array_Radar_System


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.
https://spacenews.com/the-end-of-sbirs-air-force-says-its-time-to-move-on/


Quote:


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.

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


Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Feb 3, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<ff98f110-4206-482f-9b45-0a7901e629de_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 10:31:45 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile
defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War",Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

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.

Are you talking about Soviet or U.S. targeting? U.S. SLBMs, which were
originally low yield, were always aimed at population centers. Same thing for
the B-52s and their *one-way* retaliatory strike. Almost by definition, a
retaliatory 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 answer
isn't is you wouldn't. So what would be left?


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

speff
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Saturday, 2 February 2019 11:46:28 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

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
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
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 know
the truth.


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 close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

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
missile field.

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
mile.

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 it
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 it’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.

Joe Gwinn


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.

--Spehro Pefhany

speff
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Saturday, 2 February 2019 16:19:20 UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@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
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
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 know
the truth.


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 close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

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
missile field.

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
mile.

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 it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.

Did that have anything to do with the US selling equipment to make better 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 company) selling advanced 9-axis simultaneous milling machines, controllers and software to the USSR. The machines could be used to make really quiet submarine propellers. IIRC the Soviets knew what they wanted to make and just wanted 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

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Feb 3, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<6da48887-42f8-42fb-8326-017ff4dfcf4d_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:38:32 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <wgt5E.169034$nO2.159617_at_fx08.iad>):

On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its
population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile
defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War", Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

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.

This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_State_Phased_Array_Radar_System

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.
https://spacenews.com/the-end-of-sbirs-air-force-says-its-time-to-move-on/



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.


Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Feb 3, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<6da48887-42f8-42fb-8326-017ff4dfcf4d_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:38:32 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <wgt5E.169034$nO2.159617_at_fx08.iad>):

On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapon
..
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to d

significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeti
g
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its
population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population center

against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile
defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is
y
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to t
e
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Re
d
"On Thermonuclear War", Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for t
e
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

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.

This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_State_Phased_Array_Radar_System

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


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

It is not necessary that the sentry´s shot hits anything. Or that he
lives.

Quote:

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.
https://spacenews.com/the-end-of-sbirs-air-force-says-its-time-to-move-on/


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

Anyway, we seem to be circling.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Feb 3, 2019, speff wrote
(in article<764e3634-c144-494c-8077-cbb20ba8caa0_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Saturday, 2 February 2019 11:46:28 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

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
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
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
know
the truth.


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
close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves
to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is
easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

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
missile field.

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
mile.

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
it
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 it’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.

Joe Gwinn

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.

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

Joe Gwinn


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:24:29 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 3, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<6da48887-42f8-42fb-8326-017ff4dfcf4d_at_googlegroups.com>):

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:38:32 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <wgt5E.169034$nO2.159617_at_fx08.iad>):

On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapon
.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to d

significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeti
g
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its
population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population center

against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile
defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is
y
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to t
e
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Re
d
"On Thermonuclear War", Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for t
e
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

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.

This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_State_Phased_Array_Radar_System

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

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

It is not necessary that the sentry´s shot hits anything. Or that he
lives.


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

Quote:


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.
https://spacenews.com/the-end-of-sbirs-air-force-says-its-time-to-move-on/

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


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

Quote:

Anyway, we seem to be circling.

Joe Gwinn


speff
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:45 am   



On Sunday, 3 February 2019 15:46:56 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 3, 2019, speff wrote
(in article<764e3634-c144-494c-8077-cbb20ba8caa0_at_googlegroups.com>):

On Saturday, 2 February 2019 11:46:28 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

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
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan..htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
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
know
the truth.


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
close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves
to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill.. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is
easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

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
missile field.

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
mile.

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
it
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 it’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.

Joe Gwinn

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.


--Spehro Pefhany


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:45 pm   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-5, speff wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, 2 February 2019 11:46:28 UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

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
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
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 know
the truth.


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 close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

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
missile field.

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
mile.

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 it
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 it’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.

Joe Gwinn

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.

--Spehro Pefhany


Here's one of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMlqTfrWgT4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map