USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war

  • 174 Replies
  • 22256 Views
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker?  You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2014, 04:26:52 AM »
This probably belongs in the science section.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2014, 04:31:11 AM »
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2014, 04:38:20 AM »
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.

This is when a thread should be locked.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2014, 04:39:35 AM »
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.

This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2014, 04:42:49 AM »
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.

This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?

Be because it belongs elsewhere and you don't know the difference between a cruise missile and an ICBM.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2014, 04:45:40 AM »
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.

This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?

Be because it belongs elsewhere and you don't know the difference between a cruise missile and an ICBM.
Let me guess.
Is an ICBM a missile that goes super high and arcs all the way to it's target on another continent?
Is a crusise missile , a missile that does the mountain dodging stuff with it's little wings and fuel filled body?

It's what I gathered from TV.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2014, 05:10:01 AM »
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that!  It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"

This is when a thread should be locked.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2014, 06:49:38 AM »
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that!  It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"

This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2014, 07:35:28 AM »
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that!  It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"

This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?

What does waffling mean?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2014, 07:49:56 AM »
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that!  It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"

This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?

What does waffling mean?
Waffle (speech) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_(speech)‎CachedSimilar
The term waffle, particularly outside the U.S., denotes language without meaning;
blathering, babbling, droning. One might waffle throughout an essay or a ...

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2014, 07:54:09 AM »
Quote
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

I was in the Navy for 15 years. I was stationed on the USS Louisville in the Gulf during Desert Storm. The Louisville was responsible for launching many Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iraq.

But I guess I was just brainwashed into believing I was actually there.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2014, 07:57:22 AM »
Quote
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.

I was in the Navy for 15 years. I was stationed on the USS Louisville in the Gulf during Desert Storm. The Louisville was responsible for launching many Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iraq.

But I guess I was just brainwashed into believing I was actually there.
Of course you weren't brainwashed. You're simply not being honest with me.
If you prove me wrong, I will apologise, so lets have some questions about your submarine and these tomahawk missiles.

Try not to look it up on google, as 15 years sub experience should allow you to reel this stuff off in seconds.

First question.
How deep is the hull of your sub from floor to top, excluding the conning tower?

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2014, 08:03:01 AM »
My post is directly related to flat earth

Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2014, 08:04:14 AM »
No idea off the top of my head.

I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.

I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2014, 08:04:25 AM »
My post is directly related to flat earth

Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction
Agreed. It is all science fiction.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2014, 08:07:22 AM »
No idea off the top of my head.

I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.

I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.
I didn't expect you to fall apart after the first question.  ;D
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?

Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2014, 08:11:30 AM »
Where am I falling apart?

Quote
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?

I did six months of training before being assigned to the sub. You get schooled in every part of the sub and get the "low down" on all of it.

But that doesn't mean that over 20 years later..........every man on the sub is going to remember the hull depth off the top of his head.

Quote
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.

No.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2014, 08:11:55 AM »
No idea off the top of my head.

I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.

I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.
I didn't expect you to fall apart after the first question.  ;D
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?

Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.
How does his not knowing details about the submarine's structural design make him a liar and falling apart?  Your logic is astounding  ::)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38783
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2014, 08:12:49 AM »
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker?  You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.
First of all, ICBMs are armed with nukes, not conventional warheads.  Secondly, the V-2 (a fairly short range ballistic missile) was the the first man-made object to go into space.  Thirdly, how do you know that Scuds never went into space?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 08:17:02 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2014, 08:13:35 AM »
My post is directly related to flat earth

Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction

Only if you can tell me why ICBMs are not possible on a FE.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2014, 08:19:13 AM »
Where am I falling apart?

Quote
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?

I did six months of training before being assigned to the sub. You get schooled in every part of the sub and get the "low down" on all of it.

But that doesn't mean that over 20 years later..........every man on the sub is going to remember the hull depth off the top of his head.

Quote
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.

No.
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2014, 08:21:14 AM »
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker?  You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.
First of all, ICBMs are armed with nukes, not conventional warheads.  Secondly, the V-2 (a fairly short range ballistic missile) was the the first man-made object to go into space.  Thirdly, how do you know that Scuds never went into space?
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2014, 08:27:11 AM »
Quote
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?

Because I don't know the hull depth? How does that negate anything?

If I said I was a school teacher and you asked me how high the ceilings were in my classroom and I didn't know.....would that mean I'm not a school teacher?

Quote
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.

I can give plenty of details. I just don't know the height of the hull.

The Louisville is a Los Angeles class submarine. It is a nuclear powered submarine. I believe it weighs over 6000 tons and is 350 feet long. That's the best I can do with structural info off the top of my head.

It is typically stationed in San Diego. In the Gulf War we traveled from San Diego to the Gulf in the sub and the Louisville was the first sub to launch a Tomahawk on Iraq.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38783
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2014, 08:32:43 AM »
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space?  And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2014, 08:37:12 AM »
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space?  And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2014, 08:39:02 AM »
Quote
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?

Because I don't know the hull depth? How does that negate anything?

If I said I was a school teacher and you asked me how high the ceilings were in my classroom and I didn't know.....would that mean I'm not a school teacher?

Quote
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.

I can give plenty of details. I just don't know the height of the hull.

The Louisville is a Los Angeles class submarine. It is a nuclear powered submarine. I believe it weighs over 6000 tons and is 350 feet long. That's the best I can do with structural info off the top of my head.

It is typically stationed in San Diego. In the Gulf War we traveled from San Diego to the Gulf in the sub and the Louisville was the first sub to launch a Tomahawk on Iraq.
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23242
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2014, 08:48:03 AM »
Here's your tomahawk sub launch. It must be as scary as hell for those bad guys  not knowing this bad boy will home in on their land from the sea...unless it doesn't actually reach that is. I recall setting off a fire work rocket that went further than this.

I didn't realise they launched these tomahawks at an angle. Maybe some navy sub expert could put me right on this. Is there anyone on here that's had experinece on subs that launch tomahawk missiles?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2014, 08:50:09 AM »
My best guess would be that the beam would be around 30 to 35 feet.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa