Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 34099 Views
*

fjr66

  • 102
Intercontinental ballistic missile
« on: December 26, 2018, 01:32:53 AM »
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite, then why US government let the wrong satellite orbitting above their home land?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2018, 01:54:05 AM »
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite, then why US government let the wrong satellite orbitting above their home land?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
ICBMs do not usually use GPS or similar satellite based navigation systems because they are too easily jammed or corrupted by the owners of the satellites.
Quote from: Charles Hixon
Are ICBMs guided after their initial boost? Can they be steered to the target?
Actually most warheads are not guided by GPS. They are completely self sufficient but are actually aimed at certain targets (or a set of selectable targets) prior to launch.

They often have two guidance tools.

1) INS- inertial navigation system, this spins a gyroscope (several actually) that is often pointed at a celestial object, because the inertia of the gyroscope causes it to resist being pointed in any other direction, it will always point towards this celestial object regardless of the direction changes the missile makes. This provides a reference for the computer to always know where it is in relation to this object, and therefore make adjustments accordingly. You may have heard this in some submarine movies like Crimson Tide, where they tell the crew to “spin up the missiles”. This is a reference to starting the gyroscopes in preparation for launch.

2) Ground mapping radar. Preloaded satellite radar images of a target destination are loaded into the warheads computer. When the Warhead enters its terminal phase, it turns on its radar it then checks the image it is reading from the ground with the loaded image of the target and makes corrections for accurate delivery.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2018, 02:00:05 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2018, 02:16:41 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
This from someone who does not understand how nuclear power stations work. Have you visited one?

*

fjr66

  • 102
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2018, 02:26:34 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
This from someone who does not understand how nuclear power stations work. Have you visited one?

Radio communication blocked by horizon (maximum distance 100 km).

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2018, 02:37:33 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16054
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2018, 02:49:38 AM »
Oh, goodness gracious, this thread will conjure Heiwa.  ;D
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2018, 02:57:26 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.


The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?

Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.


Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2018, 03:07:47 AM »
How does Intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea hit US? If it is guided by satellite
I can stop you there. They don't need to be guided by satellite.

They launch and can either go based purely upon where they are from and how they are moving, or they can instead use various means to monitor their environment, such as the multitude of radio towers used to help some planes navigate, or mapping.

Radio communication blocked by horizon (maximum distance 100 km).
No. The higher they are the further it can go.

No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
You not liking something doesn't magically mean it is nonsense.
I would say it isn't rocket science, but in this case it is.

Why don't you provide some of this "logical looking into" for us?
Just how much fuel do you think they need?

Also, "missile" is a very broad term.
ICBMs are more akin to rockets than more common missiles.

They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Prove it.

Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Do you mean control surfaces? If so, they are vastly different to guidance systems.
Fins can be used, but I think they are more likely to use various forms of thrust vectoring. That tends to work better at high altitudes.

You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
No, yo uthen have a lot more air (by mass) to deal with.

Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.
So back to the pathetic analogies?

The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Where?
Are you confusing them with cruise missiles, i.e. guided missiles with significantly shorter range than an ICBM?

In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.
Or, the people and cargo are replaced by the payload. Did you ever think of that one?
But again, that is a cruise missile, not an ICBM.

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2018, 04:02:41 AM »
Oh, goodness gracious, this thread will conjure Heiwa.  ;D
Only if you mention nuclear war-heads, so pleased don't even ;) mention ;) nuclear war-heads ::)!

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2018, 05:58:49 AM »
Jackb
Scepti doesnt beleive air resistance can be dimished.
Vacuums and smpty soace dont exist in his world.
Its so simple and basic.


Rab.
Its pronouced "nucular".
Is heiwa like the boogieman/ beetlejuice?
say nuke 3 times.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2018, 06:00:07 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.


The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?

Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.


Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.

You need to focus your energy on answering if air can actually moves in and out of pressure vessels via pump.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16054
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2018, 06:13:50 AM »

Scepti doesnt beleive air resistance can be dimished.

Nobody with a measurable I.Q. 'beleive' air resistance can be 'dimished'.   ;D

RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2018, 07:28:00 AM »
Haha yes.
I spell figuratively.
Not literally.


*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16054
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2018, 08:16:22 AM »
Haha yes.
I spell figuratively.
Not literally.

and I'm picking on you literally, not figuratively.   ;D
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

Stash

  • 1736
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2018, 01:55:22 PM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

I've never heard this argument before. What's this based on?

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2018, 02:27:34 PM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.
Incorrect! Your empty words are meaningless.
Care to present your "logical looking into" the ICBM capability with actual numerical data and calculations?
My words are full to me and anyone else who has the logic to understand why a ICBM is nonsense.
They simply cannot hold enough fuel for starters.
You still have presented nothing to back that up. But remember that an ICBM is not an aircraft.
It is a rocket and apart from the initial burn to accelerate it to the appropriate sub-orbital trajectory it follows a "ballistic path" and needs no more fuel apart from small mid-course corrections.
The very name, InterContinental Ballistic Missile implies that.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Also they have no guidance system other than fins.
No that is incorrect, the fins on most rockets and ICBM's are simply for stability and some course adjustment during the initial launch while in the high density part of the atmosphere.
Once out of most of the atmosphere course adjustment is via vanes in the exhaust stream, a gimballed rocket engine and/or small manouvering thrusters.
And many have virtually no fins.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Missiles are simply darts thrown slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.
No, they are far more than "simply darts thrown slightly off vertical to create an arc towards a target". They are steerable after launch and in the later phase during the re-entry and targetting phase.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
So you say, but you have given no valid reasons for your claim!

Quote from: sceptimatic
The other issue we have is being shown so called ICBM's that apparently move over terrain to their target and have no need for arcing, apparently.
Anyone should be able to understand how nonsensical this is.
You need wings for starters but not just ordinary wings like a plane would have. Why?
Now you are not talking about ICBMs at all but cruise-missiles and these do fly just like a plane.
Cruise-missiles can have very small wings

Quote from: sceptimatic
Because a plane is basically a hollow tube with people in it and fuel in the wings, apparently.
In a so called ICBM moving horizontally as we are shown at times, it would require wings so large to cater for the actual pay load and also the stored fuel inside the actual cylindrical like structure...unless it acts like a plane in all ways except the obvious people inside, which would then make it an empty plane like missile.
Incorrect because an ICBM does not move horizontally other than at the zenith of its almost parabolic trajectory so an ICBM.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Ahhhhh but scepti, a cruise missile is one just ICBM. No it's not. Not with those tiny wings.
They may all look good on movie camera but as we all know, movie camera's don't always depict real life events but make it appear so.
There are numerous types of guided an unguided missiles from small shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile through the whole range of sizes up to ICBMs.
Then the cruise-missiles that fly like small aircraft. These can have much smaller wings that aircraft because they do not have to fly at low speeds to take-off and land.

*

fjr66

  • 102
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2018, 04:47:27 PM »
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
For long range we need rocket as a fuel, not just initial velocity.

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2018, 06:30:22 PM »
Missiles are simply darts thrown  slightly off vertical to create an  arc towards a target.
To do this they need an enormous amount of fuel just to reach a vertical cut off point before they hit that horizontal ready for down arcing.
You'd get a lot further if you launched the missile at an acute angle at launch.
Basic logic with simple objects, like darts, pea shooters and such can prove what will and won't work.

Either way the missiles are absolutely not going to go intercontinental.
For long range we need rocket as a fuel, not just initial velocity.
Once the ICBM has reached it's required velocity it is outside almost all the earth's atmosphere and flies a ballistic (hence the name) trajectory.
No more fuel is needed for propulsion, just a small amount for course corrections and final targetting.

The calculations are fairly straightforward over a flat plane with constant gravity and here is an online calculator: Ballistic Trajectory (2-D) Calculator. Try 9900 m/s and 45° launch angle.
But the more realistic case of launching through air over a rotating earth where gravity decreases with altitude is far harder and usually done by numerical integration.
Here is a PG student's version: BALLISTIC MISSILE TRAJECTORY ESTIMATION by Joseph Dituri
It's all a bit hard for me ;).

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2018, 10:48:34 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2018, 07:43:52 PM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

Good grief, again??  Scepti, have you considered that when you make sweeping, baseless assumptions like this you are saying that swaths of people either don't exist, or are getting paid to do nothing.  You're saying companies like Allied Signal, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell, and countless others are fictional.  You're also saying that the countless deaths caused by the TLAM, ACLM, AGM-129, and others never happened, or were caused by something else. 

In all fairness, you are stretching well past its breaking point any plausibility in your argument.  It would be one thing if you offered alternatives that were on equal footing but you simply pop in and say; this thing doesn't exist because I believe it to be so.  A strong argument this does not make. 

As Mikey T. has pointed out and one that I can join, I've worked on some of these systems as well.  At Hill AFB, we used to regularly dispose of Polaris rocket motors that had exceeded their shelf life or were decomissioned following START-II.  Your notion of "so little stored propellant" is interesting given the 1st stage produces a 33 kiloton blast; enough to knock you over 3 miles from the detonation. 

I'm game for hearing what alternatives exist that perform the same function as these weapon systems bearing in mind they would also need to have the same tactical utility; what I mean is a cruise missile performs a specific role while engaging in-theater.  Given what it does (highly accurate targeting attack), I could see GPS or laser guided, aircraft dropped bombs doing some of the same work, but the damage would be very different.  You'd need to reconcile that too.
Of all the woes facing our planet how does a flat earth help anything...

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2018, 11:55:22 PM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

I've never heard this argument before. What's this based on?
Logic and sense without having the physical proof's, like everyone else.
If you want to look into this stuff in a serious manner then look up ICBM's from submarines and ask yourself a few questions on how they're big enough and fuelled enough to get out of the deep water and also home in on a long distance target.

As has been said, ICBM's are apparently "rockets" and what is meant by that is, big so called space rocket types.

Ballistic missiles is about the ugliest you will get to long distance destruction.
Not 1000's of miles, just a hundred or so...and I think I'm being a bit generous saying that.


However, it's ICBM's we are talking about so it's just a case of...do they exist or are they just another fantasy?
I go with the latter.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2018, 12:03:52 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.
You're wrong.  I spent ten years in the US Navy; four and half of which I was stationed on the USS Andrew Jackson, a ballistic missile submarine.  My company is currently finishing up the design for new missile sub.  I've been there, seen it, worked on it, and helped design it. 

You on the other hand have only a belief and falsely call it fact...nothing but a lie. 

That's okay.  The so called "flat earth movement" will be undone by space tourism.  The flat earth is doomed by tourists buying their "I orbited the Globe" souvenir tee shirts.

Mike
Were your missiles, ICBM's?

Did you see any launched from your sub?
Do you know how they were launched?
Do you know at what depth is the max launch of those missiles.
How tall were those missiles?

What fuel were they carrying?
I assume those missiles were fully fuelled just in case they had to be deployed in minutes, right?

I'm just being nosey and asking questions. I'll grill you until you start using classified and what not.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2018, 12:09:04 AM »
Logic and sense without having the physical proof's, like everyone else.
No, not like everyone else. You have no logic or sense backing your claims.
All you have are baseless claims based upon wilful ignorance.

If you want to look into this stuff in a serious manner then look up ICBM's from submarines and ask yourself a few questions on how they're big enough and fuelled enough to get out of the deep water and also home in on a long distance target.
So more wilful ignorance?
Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.

ICBMs do not launch from depths.

Not 1000's of miles, just a hundred or so...and I think I'm being a bit generous saying that.
And I don't' really care if you think you are being generous.
You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2018, 12:16:35 AM »
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Missiles have so little stored propellant, an arc and height required for intercontinental travel is rendered impossible when logically looked into.

The issue is the fantasy of it being widespread media pushed into the psyche of the general public.
We are a bunch of naive mind absorbent people who basically mimic what's fed to us, which is why things like ICBM's and what not become a mind reality but not a physical reality. In my honest opinion of course.

Good grief, again??  Scepti, have you considered that when you make sweeping, baseless assumptions like this you are saying that swaths of people either don't exist, or are getting paid to do nothing.
I don't think I'm saying people don't exist. Not sure how you come to that.

 
Quote from: Gumwars
  You're saying companies like Allied Signal, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell, and countless others are fictional.
Again, no I'm not.

Quote from: Gumwars
   You're also saying that the countless deaths caused by the TLAM, ACLM, AGM-129, and others never happened, or were caused by something else. 

In all fairness, you are stretching well past its breaking point any plausibility in your argument.
I have no real plausibility other than questioning and a massive dose of scepticism based on my own logical sense.
I can't physically prove they don't exist no more than you can physically prove they do. ICBM's we are talking about.


Quote from: Gumwars
  It would be one thing if you offered alternatives that were on equal footing but you simply pop in and say; this thing doesn't exist because I believe it to be so.  A strong argument this does not make. 
Offering alternatives to ICBM's is simple.
Simple ballistic missiles that don't go very far and basically land back in the drink.
I'm not sure if there are any documented cases of so called ICBM's being launched and hitting targets on other continents....have they?

Quote from: Gumwars

As Mikey T. has pointed out and one that I can join, I've worked on some of these systems as well.  At Hill AFB, we used to regularly dispose of Polaris rocket motors that had exceeded their shelf life or were decomissioned following START-II.  Your notion of "so little stored propellant" is interesting given the 1st stage produces a 33 kiloton blast; enough to knock you over 3 miles from the detonation.
Have you seen one launched and if so,w here were you on the sub at launch.
Also if the blast is 33 kilotons then there would be one hell of a water shift. Do you have any physical proof of any of this happening?
Tell me about the launch system unless you're going to cover yourself and go into super secret mode.
 
Quote from: Gumwars

I'm game for hearing what alternatives exist that perform the same function as these weapon systems bearing in mind they would also need to have the same tactical utility; what I mean is a cruise missile performs a specific role while engaging in-theater.  Given what it does (highly accurate targeting attack), I could see GPS or laser guided, aircraft dropped bombs doing some of the same work, but the damage would be very different.  You'd need to reconcile that too.
We all know what these missiles are supposed to perform. How many of us have witnessed them perform what we are told?

That's the issue.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2018, 12:29:51 AM »

Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.
I'm discussing ICBM's mainly. I merely used cruise missiles as the winged horizontal variety of long distance supposed city annihilators.

Quote from: JackBlack
ICBMs do not launch from depths.
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?


Quote from: JackBlack

You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.
It could well be garbage what I'm spewing.
I could end up speculating without physical evidence that gleans zilch.

I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist. I'm questioning (hard) about the existence of this type of stuff and I will use all available wording to hammer that home.

What I won't use is....FACT.
However, I see plenty of people like yourself claiming I pass it off as fact...but it's not the truth, is it?

However, you calling what I say as garbage is all well and good. I can equally call what you are saying, garbage until you prove to me that what I am saying, is garbage.
How are you going to do that?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2018, 01:11:46 AM »

Again, you are discussing cruise missiles, not ICBMs.
The two are vastly different. Stop pretending that they are the same.
I'm discussing ICBM's mainly. I merely used cruise missiles as the winged horizontal variety of long distance supposed city annihilators.

Quote from: JackBlack
ICBMs do not launch from depths.
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?


Quote from: JackBlack

You have backed it up with absolutely nothing.

There is no logic at all.

How are you arriving at your number of a hundred or so miles? It seems to just be more garbage pulled from thin air.
It could well be garbage what I'm spewing.
I could end up speculating without physical evidence that gleans zilch.

I'm not calling it a fact that all this doesn't exist. I'm questioning (hard) about the existence of this type of stuff and I will use all available wording to hammer that home.

What I won't use is....FACT.
However, I see plenty of people like yourself claiming I pass it off as fact...but it's not the truth, is it?

However, you calling what I say as garbage is all well and good. I can equally call what you are saying, garbage until you prove to me that what I am saying, is garbage.
How are you going to do that?

As far as cruise missiles are concerned why don’t you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2018, 01:32:39 AM »


As far as cruise missiles are concerned why don’t you speak to someone from Baghdad. I think many of the residents who lived there in 1993 will have direct first hand experience of them.
And what did they tell you?

*

Stash

  • 1736
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2018, 03:16:41 AM »
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?

I don't have an absolute physical proof. I don't think anyone does unless they rode one down to the target and actually lived to tell the tale. But here's a cool video:



If you think ICBM's are a myth, then just explain why and back it up with something other than "I just think so." I could deliver to you countless hours of missile launch/strike footage of the non-nuclear type (b/c if I had that, the nuclear type, I probably wouldn't be typing right now and you wouldn't be reading right now), so what's the big jam for you that these things exist?

The big jam is, all your other notions don't allow for them. All fine and good. But until you have, as you asked for above, for your other notions:

"How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?"


Seems hypocritical to ask for 'absolute physical proof' in this instance, where when it comes to, let's say a critical component of den pressure being this dome affair, you provide none. Not even a crappy youtube video. Curious.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22465
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2018, 04:31:52 AM »
I don't believe they launch at all but seeing as you mention they don't launch from depths, then subs sitting in the middle of the sea with ready launch ability in the event of a supposed nuclear war to supposedly hit targets on continents, is basically pointless....unless you believe those subs are just sitting in the waters of the enemy with ready to fire so called nuclear tipped ballistic missiles that have a minimal range.

How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?

I don't have an absolute physical proof. I don't think anyone does unless they rode one down to the target and actually lived to tell the tale. But here's a cool video:



If you think ICBM's are a myth, then just explain why and back it up with something other than "I just think so." I could deliver to you countless hours of missile launch/strike footage of the non-nuclear type (b/c if I had that, the nuclear type, I probably wouldn't be typing right now and you wouldn't be reading right now), so what's the big jam for you that these things exist?

The big jam is, all your other notions don't allow for them. All fine and good. But until you have, as you asked for above, for your other notions:

"How much proof do you have against what I have?
Pictures?
Books?
Internet?
Or do you have absolute physical proof?"


Seems hypocritical to ask for 'absolute physical proof' in this instance, where when it comes to, let's say a critical component of den pressure being this dome affair, you provide none. Not even a crappy youtube video. Curious.
There's nothing really hypocritical about what I'm saying. I'm not pushing my theory out as fact and I'm not expecting anyone to accept anything I do say, as fact.

I think I have a right to question everything even if I do not have any physical evidence to prove my point.
I can make assumptions on anything based on what I believe from my side, just as you can by your acceptance of stuff you've never witnessed as a reality.

You are no more clued up on what the truth is than I am and yet you have a library of info on what I'm questioning.
In your mind it probably gives you some kind of authority over me when it comes down to proof but the stark reality could be a massive zero proof.


I simply look at what I'm shown and I try not to let special effects or potential special effects to alter my questioning mind, until I'm sure I'm on the wrong track with something.

The video you put up looks like the special effects I'm talking about.
Who's taking the footage?

Where are the fins on the so called missiles that balance the missile?
How could you possibly steer one to its target looking like that?

How can you literally propel one of those things out of a sub, vertically, using compressed air so that it jumps right out of the water by its entire length and then to immediately full thrust to carry that mass away from the water before it drops right back into it?

What about the so called massive kiloton blast on the water?

It all sounds fantastic and magical. It all appears to be the strong arm of the military and the super technological weaponry advances...but that's what I think it all is in terms of what I'm questioning. It's fantasy passed off as fact to the ever gullible masses.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 04:34:20 AM by sceptimatic »