I don't think I'm saying people don't exist. Not sure how you come to that.
Here's what you've previously stated:
No such thing as an ICBM. It's basically nonsense.
Your claim is that ICBMs do not exist, i.e., fictional. That would mean the companies that used to build components for systems like the LGM-118 (Peacekeeper) and the LGM-30 (Minuteman), the engineers that designed the weapon, the integration team that put it all together, the logistics team that moves the missile and puts it in a silo, and many other unnamed technicians, administrators, and military personnel are not real. All these people are involved with the creation, implementation, and maintenance of this weapon system; Scepti, that's a lot of folks involved here. Here's the breakdown and why I've arrived at this conclusion regarding your perspective:
ICBMs are not real or they do not function as we've been told. This rewording of your statement is an attempt to clean up the informal way you presented the argument. An implication of this argument is that the thousands of people that manage these weapon systems are either fictional (from the first statement) or they are a part of yet another conspiracy (from the second). I would lean more towards the first statement as what you explicitly wrote was, "[There's] no such thing as an ICBM." As it is written, you're saying they don't exist. However, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and work with the assumption that ICBMs have been misrepresented in their ability.
With that second position, you are still claiming an very large pool of people are in on a conspiracy or have been collectively duped. While possible, this is far from plausible. Just this refutation alone casts considerable doubt on your argument. If ICBMs were built by grade schoolers you might have something to work with but these are literally rocket scientists.
Again, no I'm not.
You've stated that ICBMs do not exist. Therefore, the people, companies, and government entities responsible for those systems would either not exist or are actors in a grand charade. As I'm making this an argument against the notion that this is a conspiratorial position, I would ask you to provide some evidence of conspiracies that have been proven
and involve at least 1000 people. If you can give me that, I would reconsider 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.
Skepticism is always a good thing until it starts making you look like a fool. Your second sentence is correct in the first half, and completely wrong in the second. What I cannot do, in this forum, is provide evidence that you would accept. I would be completely willing to make a trip to North Dakota and tour the silos with you. I would also invite you to visit Boeing's headquarters in Chicago and ask them about the Minuteman systems.
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?
Except ICBMs don't land back in the drink. The two systems we had until 2005 launched in stages and inserted a "kill" platform in low orbit. It would then deploy MIRVs at set intervals hitting designated targets.
As to your question, look up Minuteman III Glory Trip. These were several tests conducted between 1970 and 1987. The ICBMs were launched from Vandenberg AFB with dummy MIRVs with targets in the Marshall Islands. That's a distance of roughly 4,700 miles which is approximately half the max distance for the weapon.
Additionally, your query as to whether or not there's been a documented example of an ICBM actually hitting targets on a different continent poses one very difficult problem; countries usually don't conduct joint tests with highly classified weapon systems. Alternatively, and as we are all still here discussing this topic, no actual deployment of this weapon has happened.
The Glory Trip tests proved that the Minuteman system could accurately hit targets using the MIRV sub assembly at considerable distances. Going further out wasn't necessary.
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.
Yes, I have seen a launch. Vandenberg AFB isn't too far from where I live and they launch ICBMs (and more) on a fairly regular basis. No submarine required.
Kindly re-read my first response to you. The booster section we demolished was at Hill AFB in Utah. It was the primary stage of a Polaris missile, a submarine launched ICBM. The explosion I'm referring to is a non-nuclear detonation (for those keeping notes 33 kilotons is twice the Fat Man) but very impressive. There was no water shift as the bombing and gunnery ranges around Hill AFB are a blasted expanse of brown nothing and grass. Lots of grass.
No super secret mode here.
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.
Scepti, though your skepticism prevents you from believing most of what folks tell you, I was in the military for a decade, in EOD, and have been ringside dealing with many of the subcomponents involved with these weapons. I've worked on the payloads, in particular the W87 warhead which is the nuke of choice for the MIRV (a 300kt blast...this is a "tactical" weapon).
Back to your super secret stuff; the launch of an ICBM is identical to any other ballistic missile or rocket. Both the Minuteman and Peacekeeper are multi-stage rockets, just like the Saturn V, Falcon Heavy, or other tools we use to get into orbit. The missiles are assembled at an integration facility, placed in transportation canisters and moved by truck/train to the silos. From there they are lowered by cranes into the silos where they wait for the hopefully-never-coming end of the world.
Dude, there's healthy skepticism (ghosts and Mandela effect nonsense) and then there's outright denial of things that have ample evidence supporting their existence. I understand the materialistic notion that often it helps if you have first hand experience with something. However, if we take this to an extreme, how can knowledge of the world and universe grow? If every person took this super extreme view of the world, and in order to truly know something that person needed to experience it, then we would continually walk over the same ground. I can accept something if it logically follows
in addition to the experiences I have. ICBMs fit perfectly well in what I can accept as a real thing, though I've never been able to witness one flying its entire trajectory, deploy MIRVs, and then watch those fall through the atmosphere and hit targets. In fact,
no one has, because you can't.
I think the best and only way I can put this to you is by pointing out the gap between what you don't know and what you accept. I don't know what you do in your time away from here; I'd imagine it's probably not too different from what any of us do. But many of us have asked you to go visit certain places, see some of the things we've seen with our own eyes, because we know if you do, that gap will shrink.