really ?Originally posted by ditzy:Its more for fail-safeing. For situations like in case this in case that.![]()
12hrs ?Originally posted by zenden9:Some ICBM is using liquid fuel which cannot store together with it and can be only fuel in when abt to fire because liquid fuel is unstable! Fueling takes abt 12 hours.
The solution will be using solid fuel which will also take not more than 1 hour to fire! Why 1 hr? I'm not sure,maybe to deform it to liquid! Hmmm...??
hahahha...oopsOriginally posted by zenden9:Sorry wrong info, liquid is 2 hrs preparation and solid is 15mins
Actually dont recall any ICBM or IRBM in the US arsenal still using liquid fuel...Originally posted by zenden9:Some ICBM is using liquid fuel which cannot store together with it and can be only fuel in when abt to fire because liquid fuel is unstable! Fueling takes abt 12 hours.
The solution will be using solid fuel which will also take not more than 1 hour to fire! Why 1 hr? I'm not sure,maybe to deform it to liquid! Hmmm...??
Yes, but erm there wun probably be just 1..haiz..Originally posted by Jazzswing:Should the President of US decides on launching, an ICBM or SLBM will be in the air by 2 mins, to a pre-determined target. The procedures...(codewords, keys) is probably to verify that the launch order is indeed from the president (and not some bugger trying to masquarade as president) as he might be in Air Force One or some secluded bunker. Well, that's to the best of my knowledge.![]()
as far as i know, US boomers do not need authorization from the president or preventive action interlock (PAL) codes to fire their nukes..as they said during the cold war, if the US comes under an all out nuclear strike by the USSR to cripple the command and control networks, the retaliatory force of the US SSBNs would be useless as there would be no one to send out the PAL codes..Originally posted by Jazzswing:Should the President of US decides on launching, an ICBM or SLBM will be in the air by 2 mins, to a pre-determined target. The procedures...(codewords, keys) is probably to verify that the launch order is indeed from the president (and not some bugger trying to masquarade as president) as he might be in Air Force One or some secluded bunker. Well, that's to the best of my knowledge.![]()
Hmmm, actualy never heard of Preventive action interlock before...Permissive Action Links u mean?They have had a complicated PAL systems which involve the sequential entry of "secret codes" (in order for the weapons from the BUFF to be able to detonate...)Originally posted by sgFish:as far as i know, US boomers do not need authorization from the president or preventive action interlock (PAL) codes to fire their nukes..as they said during the cold war, if the US comes under an all out nuclear strike by the USSR to cripple the command and control networks, the retaliatory force of the US SSBNs would be useless as there would be no one to send out the PAL codes..
anyone knows whether this still true today?
yes they do...the chinese PLA is notorious for contorling everying!Originally posted by ferret69:Well, don't forget that India and Pakistan are nuclear powers with an adversarial relationship. Israel can definitely deploy nuclear weapons. China is another worry. I'm not familiar with their launch protocols; do they have similar failsafe protocols as practised by the US and former USSR?
Originally posted by Kaczynski:oh..interesting..
Hmmm, actualy never heard of Preventive action interlock before...Permissive Action Links u mean?They have had a complicated PAL systems which involve the sequential entry of "secret codes" (in order for the weapons from the BUFF to be able to detonate...)
As posted, the nuclear arsenal of the US [b]can be C&Ced from the Looking Glass itself should the Russians decide to take out Offutt (the US Strategic Air Command, now known as Strategic Command)...as quoting from the FAS (Federation of American Scientist)
"A mark of America's strategic excellence is its preeminent ability to command, control, and communicate with its nuclear forces. An essential element of that ability is the Airborne Command Post, also called "Looking Glass.", which was retired from service on 01 October 1998. Its highly-trained crew and staff ensured there wass[was] always an aircraft ready to direct bombers and missiles from the air should ground-based command centers become inoperable. Looking Glass guaranteed that U.S. strategic forces would act only in the precise manner dictated by the President. .........
.......The airborne launch control officer was the missile launch team leader and, along with the communications officer, operated the airborne launch control system. This system allowed Looking Glass to transmit launch codes to the intercontinental ballistic missiles in their underground silos should ground launch control centers become disabled. It qualified the aircraft as a weapon system even though Looking Glass itself cannot fire a bullet or drop a bomb."
and another FAS site states
"Like the Air Force, the Navy also developed a method for maintaining constant control of their nuclear forces. The same year that EC-135s took on the Looking Glass mission, modified Marine Corps KC-130s (re-designated EC-130Qs) took on the mission of command and control of SSBN forces. The EC-130Qs were equipped with a very low-frequency radio transmitters contained in vans loaded aboard the aircraft.. Despite force modernization and advances, both airframes displayed a high degree of reliability and remained essentially unchanged for decades..."
Hence, they seem to have a backup for the normal C&C networks and would use that should the usual network be disabled...As for the term "retaliatory force", well, the US likes to think of them as a "deterence force" though, using the "you wack me, I'll make sure I'll wack you back hard hard" mentality. Thank goddess none of these weapons have ever been knwon to be involved in an exchange.1962 was a close one...[/b]
Ya, but those where days in the past as they fade into history (Minuteman IIIs and Peacekeepers are the current missiles..)Originally posted by saintboy:I've read that a USAF Titan II ICBM needs liquid chemical to be loaded just before launch. That could take up a pretty long time if it is an unstable chemical.
Well, yes I guess...Anything that can happen will happen (despite the fact that they've clocked over 281,000 accident free hours)...It's a war after all, sabotage could be possible..Originally posted by sgFish:oh..interesting..
but did they say what happens in any case when the looking glass thingy gets shot down (anything can happen), and there is no C&C facilities left to authorise a retaliatory nuclear onslaught?
Not so.Originally posted by sgFish:as far as i know, US boomers do not need authorization from the president or preventive action interlock (PAL) codes to fire their nukes..as they said during the cold war, if the US comes under an all out nuclear strike by the USSR to cripple the command and control networks, the retaliatory force of the US SSBNs would be useless as there would be no one to send out the PAL codes..
anyone knows whether this still true today?
Hmm, for further clarification, you can look around HMV for Peacekeeper and Crimson Tide. Or ... WarGames, a very old movies which dealt with NORAD.Originally posted by bismarck:have no idea why i am asking this but why is it that after an order has been given to fire a big missile, ICBMs...whatever. why is there such a long arming time after the keys have been turned to start the countdown, during which the arming process can be stopped at any moment?
i mean what's taking them so long?