Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
That is the idea!You've proven nothing aside from a penchant for personal insults.
I've explained why neither the U.S. nor anyone else ever had a "launch on warning" policy and the fact that both sides were intensely interested in the survivability of their ICBMs in case of a nuclear attack.
If they did have a "launch on warning" or "launch under attack" posture there would've been no need to spend so much on ICBM survivability because the ICBM silos would've been empty when the nuclear first strike arrived.
You've never been able to answer that so I guess we can assume you cannot.
Thank you. Concessions accepted.
Though not expected.
Missiles launched after a first strike could be damaged in their silos by a near miss and/or destroyed upon launch into an environment after an attack.
Also, Russian nukes targeted to the ICBM sites have the precision to destroy missiles in their silos.
Why don't you admit you know nothing about nuclear weapons or our policies regarding their employment?
Continuing the discussion only makes you look more ignorant!
Last edited: