Reply to thread

Message

Bobby, yes, in theory, but in practice you'd need have inspectors on site permanently to guarantee that warheads would not be changed overnight (yes, it is paranoid, but everything when you look at ICBMs tends to veer into paranoia realm). More on the point since post-Cold War revelations have unveiled the capability of hiding such activities if done properly. As for the CAV, it could be used to attack Russia (or whoever else) using diversionary routes .. there were some (probably a lot) of projects during the Cold War just to do that (FOBS and the US "recallable ICBM" just to mention two). Third, you are assuming that a "real" attack would have the same preparations steps of an experimental test of an ICBM: putting the missile on an open-air launch pad, checking, fueling veeery slooowly, re-check, and launch. What about a storable fuel ICBM hidden in an hangar with an opening roof ? Or one aboard a civilian cargo ship ? North Korean has SS-N-6-like technology (better, one of an unbuilt competitor on SS-N-6, fully developed but not gone in series construction). Not to mention that satelites can do a lot (although not ALL is thought possible) but cannot do everything, for example guaranteeing a 1.5 hour warning time on an ICBM being readied for launch (look at what happened with the India's nuclear test in late '90s...).

<blockquote data-quote="Skybolt" data-source="post: 56725" data-attributes="member: 145"><p>Bobby, yes, in theory, but in practice you'd need have inspectors on site permanently to guarantee that warheads would not be changed overnight (yes, it is paranoid, but everything when you look at ICBMs tends to veer into paranoia realm). More on the point since post-Cold War revelations have unveiled the capability of hiding such activities if done properly. As for the CAV, it could be used to attack Russia (or whoever else) using diversionary routes .. there were some (probably a lot) of projects during the Cold War just to do that (FOBS and the US &quot;recallable ICBM&quot; just to mention two). Third, you are assuming that a &quot;real&quot; attack would have the same preparations steps of an experimental test of an ICBM: putting the missile on an open-air launch pad, checking, fueling veeery slooowly, re-check, and launch. What about a storable fuel ICBM hidden in an hangar with an opening roof ? Or one aboard a civilian cargo ship ? North Korean has SS-N-6-like technology (better, one of an unbuilt competitor on SS-N-6, fully developed but not gone in series construction). Not to mention that satelites can do a lot (although not ALL is thought possible) but cannot do everything, for example guaranteeing&nbsp; a 1.5 hour warning time on an ICBM being readied for launch (look at what happened with the India's nuclear test in late '90s...).</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Skybolt, post: 56725, member: 145"] Bobby, yes, in theory, but in practice you'd need have inspectors on site permanently to guarantee that warheads would not be changed overnight (yes, it is paranoid, but everything when you look at ICBMs tends to veer into paranoia realm). More on the point since post-Cold War revelations have unveiled the capability of hiding such activities if done properly. As for the CAV, it could be used to attack Russia (or whoever else) using diversionary routes .. there were some (probably a lot) of projects during the Cold War just to do that (FOBS and the US "recallable ICBM" just to mention two). Third, you are assuming that a "real" attack would have the same preparations steps of an experimental test of an ICBM: putting the missile on an open-air launch pad, checking, fueling veeery slooowly, re-check, and launch. What about a storable fuel ICBM hidden in an hangar with an opening roof ? Or one aboard a civilian cargo ship ? North Korean has SS-N-6-like technology (better, one of an unbuilt competitor on SS-N-6, fully developed but not gone in series construction). Not to mention that satelites can do a lot (although not ALL is thought possible) but cannot do everything, for example guaranteeing a 1.5 hour warning time on an ICBM being readied for launch (look at what happened with the India's nuclear test in late '90s...). [/QUOTE]

Verification