Attrition rates in WP NATO air combat scenario

[ObssesedNuker]

Do you even read posts?
Example: I specifically said that the Trident C4 was in service, and stated that it was not the "hole in one wonder" that was the D5.
You repetedly insist that what I said was that the D5 was in service.

Yes, I read posts. You stated that:
“Regarding a nuclear war they had a few problems. Trident missiles were still only C4, not the "hole in one" D5 wonders. But Trident was a sign that the USA was moving from city killers to silo killers. Plus US submarines were getting better and better, and the US was clearly developing a first strike capability that would genereta assymetric destruction inh the event of a nuclear war. On top of that they were more or less convinced that Reagan was crazy and hated them. They might have been right on one or two counts.”

The implication being that American submarines were mystically somehow already capable of neutralizing Soviet missile fields.

Why it's not a debate?
In a debate you can't say that:"professional military and political historians, as well as actual military professionals well-read on the subject" without quoting published work.
Some people demand that here, but I think it's silly to ask people to go to that amount of trouble when nobody is paying them for it. I also choose what I take seriously and what I don't. I don't take seriuously people who claim to have "dismantled arguments themselves" and think that proves something.

Says the guy who isn’t quoting any published works or academic works.

I changed my opinion about the real capability of the soviet military forces in the 80s after discussing it with eatsern european officers during the 90s.

Even leaving aside the lack of verifiability and non-academic nature of such claims, I’ve also chatted with Eastern European military personnel from the time period and received conflicting views.

You may choose to believe that a society that cannot produce a reliable car can produce a reliable tank. That a society that fakes production statistics does no fake flight logs. I think that's naive.

Ah, yes. The
old “It’s all propaganda!” Line. Unfortunately for you, we know the Soviet military-industrial complex was substantially different from the civilian industries. For one, it featured actual quality control...

"The military itself was given a critical mechanism for extracting its demands from military industries. The Commissariat of Military and Naval Affairs (the Ministry of Defense after World War II) placed military engineers and specialists, known as military representatives (voenpredy), within the military-industrial firms. The voenpredy could check any part of the production process, and they had to sign an acceptance document for each weapon or piece of equipment before the military department considered it delivered and before the factory was given credit in the state plan for having produced it. In other words, unlike any other consumer in the Soviet system, the voenpredy could demand quality products. All others had to take what was produced, and the firms received production credit before an item was actually sold. Henceforth, right down to the end of the Soviet Union, this military buyer control over the military-industrial producer was retained, although it lost some of its clout during the late postwar period. In turn, military-industrial firms retained priority within GOSPLAN's domain and within the GOSSNAB allocation system, allowing them to foist lower quality materials onto civilian industrial production. The bureaucratic effect was an informal siphoning of the higher quality raw materials and intermediate products into military production at the expense of all other sectors, causing a large, hidden, and nonbudgetary contribution to the military that no accounting system could capture in prices or percentages."
-Collapse of the Soviet Military, General William E Odom, Page 55

In a similar manner, the Soviet military actually had a system of checks and independent accounting to ensure it’s reporting was accurate. The MPRA, the KGB Special Sections, the various political administrations... the Soviets actually invested their resources and administration in ensuring the quantity and quality of the Red Army.

One example. In the eighties the VVS was dropping jet fuel on field near their bases because they couldn't make their flight hours targets and had to match existing fuel stocks with fake flight logs. We know that because the host countries had to clean up the ground after they left. Do you think those people would be well trained in air combat?

Unsourced claim presented with no support. In additional to the physical problem, Naha has pointed out the obvious physical problem with this, so it’s probably bullshit.

EDIT: Looks like partial bullshit. Flipping through various reports on environmental damage caused by the Soviet military, they indicate fuel contamination was the result of seepage from stores, not deliberate dumping of fuel stocks to match supposedly faked flight logs.
[

Another example.
MiG-15:. great plane out of the box
MiG-19: great plane out of the box
MiG-21: great plane out of the box
MiG-23: a decade to make it average.

I’ve already detailed how little difference this makes. Rivet counting only impresses amateurs. Also lol how you left out the subsequent MiG-29 and Su-27 designs, which are more than enough to show Soviet designers could play the aircraft game.

Try that exercise with almost everything they produced. The Soviet Union was competitive until the 60s, mamaged to remain competitive in some sectors in the 60s, started failing in everything (and faking success) in the 70s.

In reality, Soviet weaponry also remained competitive through the 70s and 80s, with outstanding designs in anti-ship, anti-aircraft, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery, aircraft, and various support vehicles still either developed or in development right up until the end.

Another example: try to find a Pole of military age in the 80s who claims he would have willingly fought alongside the Soviets in the 80s.

Oh, I’ve found plenty of those. Once chatted with one Pole who was a conscript back then, driving BMPs, expressing disbelief over the astounding incompetence of Iraqis. Another I talked with derided westerners for the ideological belief that the people in Eastern Europe would just spontaneously revolt simply because there’s a war on. These were along side those who expressed views more akin to what you’re arguing, so I did the logical thing and checked them against academic works like Odom’s above or David Miller’s The Cold War: A Military History

And academia tends to agree: they’d fight.

Communism, like tinkerbell, can only survive if poeple believe...

Irrespective of whether this is true or not, it is irrelevant. The discussion is on the military, not communism.

EDIT: The fuck happened to my formatting?

 

[AdA]

They drope

Which I think it ignores the fact that the Soviet designers took into mind the requirements of the Soviet Army and involved them in the designing process rather than an average citizen who would buy a car. They didn't care about the average consumer and the mass market so their product for the said market were sub par.

They did take the requirements of the highest levels of the party who rode limousines and produced the Zil which excellently served the role they were designed for. One could go on saying that compared to Western luxury cars it wasn't that good but unknowingly forget that the western users generally paid for the car and owned it and in many cases drove it unlike the users of the Zil who didn't own the state owned cars and were also provided with a full time chauffeur.

And here I thought that fuel is dumped at as high an altitude so that it dissipates before reaching the ground and sometimes ignited in the air with the afterburner. So the people were that fools. Don't tell me that they dumped fuel on purpose from low altitudes and at the same place none the less.

It was designed to go head to head with aircrafts life the F-5s and the Phantoms and outmatched them although the advantage was neutralized with the introduction of the US teen series fighters.

I am sure we could find whole lots of people during the 80s and now their answers would be tainted with the knowledge of the future and the rising nationalism and Russia being the bogeyman for them now.
___________
The Soviet Military was rather unaffected by the Political rot of the country as it was kept out of politics for the most part by the KGB and traditions. The military training and funding was never affected even by the reforms of Gorbachev and the political crisis spiralled out of control only by after 1988 onwards as we are talking of 1983 now after Brezhnev and the stagnation they are still a highly potent force capable of beating the NATO and perfectly capable of defending itself along with the Eastern bloc

They dumped the fuel from the fuel trucks into the fields. It never got into the aircraft. The units would log inflated flight hours and needed to get rid of the fuel so that numbers would match.

Think of it as (hey pretend to pay us we pretend to fight.

 

[AdA]

Yes, I read posts. You stated that:
“Regarding a nuclear war they had a few problems. Trident missiles were still only C4, not the "hole in one" D5 wonders. But Trident was a sign that the USA was moving from city killers to silo killers. Plus US submarines were getting better and better, and the US was clearly developing a first strike capability that would genereta assymetric destruction inh the event of a nuclear war. On top of that they were more or less convinced that Reagan was crazy and hated them. They might have been right on one or two counts.”

The implication being that American submarines were mystically somehow already capable of neutralizing Soviet missile fields.

Says the guy who isn’t quoting any published works or academic works.

Even leaving aside the lack of verifiability and non-academic nature of such claims, I’ve also chatted with Eastern European military personnel from the time period and received conflicting views.


Ah, yes. The
old “It’s all propaganda!” Line. Unfortunately for you, we know the Soviet military-industrial complex was substantially different from the civilian industries. For one, it featured actual quality control...

"The military itself was given a critical mechanism for extracting its demands from military industries. The Commissariat of Military and Naval Affairs (the Ministry of Defense after World War II) placed military engineers and specialists, known as military representatives (voenpredy), within the military-industrial firms. The voenpredy could check any part of the production process, and they had to sign an acceptance document for each weapon or piece of equipment before the military department considered it delivered and before the factory was given credit in the state plan for having produced it. In other words, unlike any other consumer in the Soviet system, the voenpredy could demand quality products. All others had to take what was produced, and the firms received production credit before an item was actually sold. Henceforth, right down to the end of the Soviet Union, this military buyer control over the military-industrial producer was retained, although it lost some of its clout during the late postwar period. In turn, military-industrial firms retained priority within GOSPLAN's domain and within the GOSSNAB allocation system, allowing them to foist lower quality materials onto civilian industrial production. The bureaucratic effect was an informal siphoning of the higher quality raw materials and intermediate products into military production at the expense of all other sectors, causing a large, hidden, and nonbudgetary contribution to the military that no accounting system could capture in prices or percentages."
-Collapse of the Soviet Military, General William E Odom, Page 55

In a similar manner, the Soviet military actually had a system of checks and independent accounting to ensure it’s reporting was accurate. The MPRA, the KGB Special Sections, the various political administrations... the Soviets actually invested their resources and administration in ensuring the quantity and quality of the Red Army.



Unsourced claim presented with no support. In additional to the physical problem, Naha has pointed out the obvious physical problem with this, so it’s probably bullshit.

EDIT: Looks like partial bullshit. Flipping through various reports on environmental damage caused by the Soviet military, they indicate fuel contamination was the result of seepage from stores, not deliberate dumping of fuel stocks to match supposedly faked flight logs.
[

I’ve already detailed how little difference this makes. Rivet counting only impresses amateurs. Also lol how you left out the subsequent MiG-29 and Su-27 designs, which are more than enough to show Soviet designers could play the aircraft game.


In reality, Soviet weaponry also remained competitive through the 70s and 80s, with outstanding designs in anti-ship, anti-aircraft, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery, aircraft, and various support vehicles still either developed or in development right up until the end.


Oh, I’ve found plenty of those. Once chatted with one Pole who was a conscript back then, driving BMPs, expressing disbelief over the astounding incompetence of Iraqis. Another I talked with derided westerners for the ideological belief that the people in Eastern Europe would just spontaneously revolt simply because there’s a war on. These were along side those who expressed views more akin to what you’re arguing, so I did the logical thing and checked them against academic works like Odom’s above or David Miller’s The Cold War: A Military History

And academia tends to agree: they’d fight.

Irrespective of whether this is true or not, it is irrelevant. The discussion is on the military, not communism.


EDIT: The fuck happened to my formatting?

Wait, you went from my post to "magical submarines killing missile silos"?
Let's take it step by step:
1. US has a new,long range accurate SLBM and is wrking on a even more accurate version;
2.US Cruise missiles are entering service;
3. US Subs are much better than Soviet subs. Los Angles class, being built in large numbers, can hunt down and kil soviet SSBNs;
4. Reagan is in charge and talking about anti ballistic missile defenses...
Can you not see how this would scream "The imperialist bastards are building up a first strike capability to wipe us out" (magical subs not included)?

 

[Blue cat]

Wait, you went from my post to "magical submarines killing missile silos"?
Let's take it step by step:
1. US has a new,long range accurate SLBM and is wrking on a even more accurate version;
2.US Cruise missiles are entering service;
3. US Subs are much better than Soviet subs. Los Angles class, being built in large numbers, can hunt down and kil soviet SSBNs;
4. Reagan is in charge and talking about anti ballistic missile defenses...
Can you not see how this would scream "The imperialist bastards are building up a first strike capability to wipe us out" (magical subs not included)?

I recall attending seminars in the late 1980's where this point of view seemed fairly widely held. I also recall the point being made that the C4 Trident wasn't really adequate for counter force use. That being said, the Cruise missile programs, the MK12A RV, the MX, the ongoing Trident Program that lead to the D5, the B1B and some other stuff (I'm not sure when it became widely known but I suspect the reactivation of some B53 bombs that reportedly were for use against deeply buried Soviet Command posts and modifications and partial testing of other nuclear bombs for similar purposes could likely be included in this list) were widely seen as examples of how the US was actively enhancing its ability to actually fight a nuclear war (vs simply engage in MAD.)

The INF treaty that eliminated the Pershing II may have dialed things down a bit in my view. (I recall speculation on the part of others about the possibility that the Pershing II might have been seen by the Soviets as having more range than the Americans claimed.)

The US also had other projects in the pipe line (ie the SRAM II) that were not cancelled until the end of the cold war. The Milstar satellite program (which IIRC wasn't operational until after the cold war ended) was also seen by some as enhancing the ability of the US to actually fight a nuclear war.

Decades after the fact it is hard at times to keep track of what was being debated and when

 

[ObssesedNuker]

They drope

They dumped the fuel from the fuel trucks into the fields. It never got into the aircraft. The units would log inflated flight hours and needed to get rid of the fuel so that numbers would match.

Think of it as (hey pretend to pay us we pretend to fight.

The EU environmental reports, using the example of the Baltic States, I’m reading state the contamination was found in regions where the Soviets set-up fuel storage sites:

Soviet Army units had their own fuel storage and tank facilities. The environmental damage caused by the ten biggest former Soviet Army oil bases has been estimated: A few centimetres to a meter layer of oil floats above groundwater at all these oil bases.
The largest polluted former Soviet Army oil base territories:
• Rumbula airport territory;
• Army fuel base, Riga, Tvaika iela 39;
• Army fuel base, Viestura prospekts, Riga;
• Former Navy fuel base, Riga, Flotes iela 6/8;
• Marine aviation fuel base in Skulte, Mārupe district;
• Oil base Vangaži;
• Army fuel base in Liepāja, Upmalas iela 16;
• Army oil base Zaļumi, Daugavpils region;
• Army airfield oil base in Tukums, Pļavas iela 10; and
• Lielvārde airfield oil base.

It has been estimated that 10 869 723 eur are required for the inspection and remediation of these bases.

• Facility hazard assessment processes included:
• Scope and area of the pollution, its migrating capacity (in form of a soluble phase
or a floating phase);
• Filtration conditions (filtration coefficient, groundwater flow gradient;
atmospheric precipitation, surface runoff conditions); and
• Presence of protected (endangered) sites (residential houses, surface waters, etc.).

It is assumed that during remediation, the layer of oil products floating on the groundwater level has to be eliminated; the soil, polluted by oil products, has to be treated and the oil product fractions, dissolved in the groundwater, must be eliminated after assessing if there are endangered or protected sites downstream and what the probability of migration of oil products could be. It is possible to treat all three types of pollution concurrently if technological, technical, and financial conditions allow.

Feasibility assessments and indicative cost estimates of the measures have been conducted for additional inspection of soil and groundwater pollution (if such inspection is required at the given site) and for remediation measures individually. In general the estimates are made at the indicative level.

The implication here is contamination they were the result of seepage from said sites. Most other reports are in this vein. Mentions of dumping on the military sites themselves are limited to the period of actual military withdrawals from these regions in 1991, when the withdrawing Soviet forces were ordered to destroy what they couldn’t take back and thus disposed of non-transportable fuel by opening the spigots and letting it flow out.

“When the Russians pulled out, they had
instructions to take everything back. Unable to take everything, or sell it, the military either destroyed or dumped what was left. Thousands of tons of poisonous chemicals and outdated ordinances were dumped in the sea. The rest of the military-industrial waste that was not sold or destroyed was simply left behind for the Estonian government to clean up.” -International Responsibility of an Occupying Power for Environmental Harm: The Case of Estonia

I have found no mention of dumping in random fields like you are claiming for the purposes of somehow cheating inspections. One interview with a Czech official responsible for clean-up tasks even contradicts the claim by stating that such contamination was purely limited to the Soviet military sites:

Q: Was the damage contained at least or has it affected people living nearby?
A: “The main contamination happened on military sites which were not inhabited by civilians but there were also some sites located in the close vicinity of towns where the Soviet troops had their barracks, so for instance there are some contaminated sites in Milovice where people live or in Neředin near Olomouc where there are also people living in the area. So there was a risk that the contamination could affect civilians, but fortunately sanitation work started very quickly –almost as soon as the last Soviet train left the Milovice train station clean-up work began.”

At this point, you’re going to have to pony up an actual source for this claim so we can examine it.

Wait, you went from my post to "magical submarines killing missile silos"?
Let's take it step by step:
1. US has a new,long range accurate SLBM and is wrking on a even more accurate version;
2.US Cruise missiles are entering service;
3. US Subs are much better than Soviet subs. Los Angles class, being built in large numbers, can hunt down and kil soviet SSBNs;
4. Reagan is in charge and talking about anti ballistic missile defenses...

1. Said SLBM is still incapable of presenting a meaningful threat to Soviet missile fields and the new version is still almost a decade off, giving time for the development of silos with improved survivability and the new generation of mobile missiles.
2. Said cruise missiles lack the range to threaten the missile fields. They do threaten senior command and control, but steps have already been taken to rectify that danger and add redundancy to Soviet C2.
3. Soviet subs are also improving, getting steadily quieter and the now-intercontinental range of their missiles mean they can be secured within bastion areas.
4. And talking is all he’s doing. Intelligence reports indicate the US is making little actual progress and technical experts note that the proposed program is impractical.

Can you not see how this would scream "The imperialist bastards are building up a first strike capability to wipe us out" (magical subs not included)?

I can see how this might result in the perception of a lot mg-term threat requiring response via ones own weapon development programs. They do not represent any imminent nuclear threat.

 

[AdA]

The EU environmental reports, using the example of the Baltic States, I’m reading state the contamination was found in regions where the Soviets set-up fuel storage sites:



The implication here is contamination they were the result of seepage from said sites. Most other reports are in this vein. Mentions of dumping on the military sites themselves are limited to the period of actual military withdrawals from these regions in 1991, when the withdrawing Soviet forces were ordered to destroy what they couldn’t take back and thus disposed of fuel by opening the spigots and letting it flow out. I have found no mention of dumping in random fields like you are claiming for the purposes of somehow cheating inspections. One interview with a Czech official responsible for clean-up tasks even contradicts the claim by stating that such contamination was purely limited to the Soviet military sites:

Q: Was the damage contained at least or has it affected people living nearby?
A: “The main contamination happened on military sites which were not inhabited by civilians but there were also some sites located in the close vicinity of towns where the Soviet troops had their barracks, so for instance there are some contaminated sites in Milovice where people live or in Neředin near Olomouc where there are also people living in the area. So there was a risk that the contamination could affect civilians, but fortunately sanitation work started very quickly –almost as soon as the last Soviet train left the Milovice train station clean-up work began.”

At this point, you’re going to have to pony up an actual source for this claim so we can examine it.


1. Said SLBM is still incapable of presenting a meaningful threat to Soviet missile fields and the new version is still almost a decade off, giving time for the development of silos with improved survivability and the new generation of mobile missiles.
2. Said cruise missiles lack the range to threaten the missile fields. They do threaten senior command and control, but steps have already been taken to rectify that danger and add redundancy to Soviet C2.
3. Soviet subs are also improving, getting steadily quieter and the now-intercontinental range of their missiles mean they can be secured within bastion areas.
4. And talking is all he’s doing. Intelligence reports indicate the US is making little actual progress and technical experts note that the proposed program is impractical.



I can see how this might result in the perception of a lot mg-term threat requiring response via ones own weapon development programs. They do not represent any imminent nuclear threat.

And the pony is:
Got that in briefings while attending NATO environmental officers course (in the 90s) from people who had done site inspections.
Did not write down the name of the guys giving the Brieffing.
Pretty sure it was not in a Baltic state.

 

[Blue cat]

The EU environmental reports, using the example of the Baltic States, I’m reading state the contamination was found in regions where the Soviets set-up fuel storage sites:



The implication here is contamination they were the result of seepage from said sites. Most other reports are in this vein. Mentions of dumping on the military sites themselves are limited to the period of actual military withdrawals from these regions in 1991, when the withdrawing Soviet forces were ordered to destroy what they couldn’t take back and thus disposed of non-transportable fuel by opening the spigots and letting it flow out. I have found no mention of dumping in random fields like you are claiming for the purposes of somehow cheating inspections. One interview with a Czech official responsible for clean-up tasks even contradicts the claim by stating that such contamination was purely limited to the Soviet military sites:

Q: Was the damage contained at least or has it affected people living nearby?
A: “The main contamination happened on military sites which were not inhabited by civilians but there were also some sites located in the close vicinity of towns where the Soviet troops had their barracks, so for instance there are some contaminated sites in Milovice where people live or in Neředin near Olomouc where there are also people living in the area. So there was a risk that the contamination could affect civilians, but fortunately sanitation work started very quickly –almost as soon as the last Soviet train left the Milovice train station clean-up work began.”

At this point, you’re going to have to pony up an actual source for this claim so we can examine it.


1. Said SLBM is still incapable of presenting a meaningful threat to Soviet missile fields and the new version is still almost a decade off, giving time for the development of silos with improved survivability and the new generation of mobile missiles.
2. Said cruise missiles lack the range to threaten the missile fields. They do threaten senior command and control, but steps have already been taken to rectify that danger and add redundancy to Soviet C2.
3. Soviet subs are also improving, getting steadily quieter and the now-intercontinental range of their missiles mean they can be secured within bastion areas.
4. And talking is all he’s doing. Intelligence reports indicate the US is making little actual progress and technical experts note that the proposed program is impractical.



I can see how this might result in the perception of a lot mg-term threat requiring response via ones own weapon development programs. They do not represent any imminent nuclear threat.

Well for example I seem to recall reading claims in the 1980's that the US could somehow have exploited their initial GPS systems and somehow suddenly enhanced the accuracy of their ICBMs and SLBM's (I vaguely recally the Trident C4 being mentioned in this context vis a vis it somehow being transformed into a first strike weapon..) I didn't really buy into those types of claims but I seem to recall those types of arguments were made. I wish I had kept better records of the stuff I read back in the 1980's

 

[ObssesedNuker]

And the pony is:
Got that in briefings while attending NATO environmental officers course (in the 90s) from people who had done site inspections.
Did not write down the name of the guys giving the Brieffing.

So something that cannot at all be verified or checked for accuracy and hence amounts to total hearsay, but which fails common sense testing as such cover-ups when examined against the structure of Soviet military organization. It would be useless given that the Soviets alternative reporting structures they set-up with and in their military would blow the whole charade open anyways. The offending officers would be duly court-martialed at best, incarcerated at worst. I think that rather says it all.

 

[AdA]

So something that cannot at all be verified or checked for accuracy and hence amounts to total hearsay, but which fails common sense testing as such cover-ups would be useless given that the Soviets alternative reporting structures they set-up with and in their military would blow the whole charade open anyways. I think that rather says it all.

You forgot to say: Objection your honour!
Your lack of trust in the NATO school is duly noted for future reference.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

You forgot to say: Objection your honour!
Your lack of trust in the NATO school is duly noted for future reference.

Correction: my lack of trust in your unsubstantiated word, as we have no evidence of your attendance or even the existence of this briefing beyond your say-so and have been unable to find any other substantiating evidence for the clsim. If you’re going to make a note of something, get it right what your making note of.

 

[AdA]

Well for example I seem to recall reading claims in the 1980's that the US could somehow have exploited their initial GPS systems and somehow suddenly enhanced the accuracy of their ICBMs and SLBM's (I vaguely recally the Trident C4 being mentioned in this context vis a vis it somehow being transformed into a first strike weapon..) I didn't really buy into those types of claims but I seem to recall those types of arguments were made. I wish I had kept better records of the stuff I read back in the 1980's

I was teaching nuclear war strategy in 1991 and actually gave a class on how the U.S. had developed the capability to launch a first strike.
Didn't keep the notes either.
Cruise missiles, SDI and the growing gap in computer technology really put the USSR in the defensive in the 80s.
The speed with with things changed in the first half of the 80s was amazing.

 

[AdA]

Correction: my lack of trust in your unsubstantiated word, as we have no evidence of your attendance or even the existence of this briefing beyond your say-so and have been unable to find any other substantiating evidence for the clsim. If you’re going to make a note of something, get it right what your making note of.

You don't even know I'm an actual person.
That's how the internet works.
Ignore what you don't trust. I would if you had not started demanding surrender terms and generally being offensive.
My #25 post was basically an "agree to disagree" conversation ender
Did you not get that?

 

[Blue cat]

I was teaching nuclear war strategy in 1991 and actually gave a class on how the U.S. had developed the capability to launch a first strike.
Didn't keep the notes either.
Cruise missiles, SDI and the growing gap in computer technology really put the USSR in the defensive in the 80s.
The speed with with things changed in the first half of the 80s was amazing.

I think my instructors in the late 1980's probably had a slightly different point of view but I agree that there were a range of credible views on that subject.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I was teaching nuclear war strategy in 1991 and actually gave a class on how the U.S. had developed the capability to launch a first strike.

Again, I see no verifiable details or credentials that can be checked.

Didn't keep the notes either.

So your dog ate your homework. How convenient for you.

 

[AdA]

I think my instructors in the late 1980's probably had a slightly different point of view but I agree that there were a range of credible views on that subject.

Without an actual working SDI it was more difficult, but you could build a theoretical scenario in which a first strike would degrade the USSR response potential to the point of producing asymmetrical destruction. But it would be an hell of a gamble and not a real life possibility unless there was foolproof Intel that the USSR was about to launch their own first strike.
IMO there is no such thing as foolproof Intel. There are always more fools than Intel.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

You don't even know I'm an actual person.
That's how the internet works.

I’ve seen numerous people who claim to be authority figures on this or that subject. Those who are being honest tend to be able to provide verifiable details that can be checked against records in universities, officer instruction schools, military units, etc.

Those who don’t are invariably exposed as frauds sooner or later.

Those who are being especially honest are able to provide independent academic sources verifying what they say.

 

[Blue cat]

Without an actual working SDI it was more difficult, but you could build a theoretical scenario in which a first strike would degrade the USSR response potential to the point of producing asymmetrical destruction. But it would be an hell of a gamble and not a real life possibility unless there was foolproof Intel that the USSR was about to launch their own first strike.
IMO there is no such thing as foolproof Intel. There are always more fools than Intel.

Yep I can agree that such an argument could have been made in the late cold war era. I am not saying the US would actually have done such a thing or even seriously contemplated this.

 

[AdA]

I’ve seen numerous people who claim to be authority figures on this or that subject. Those who are being honest tend to be able to provide verifiable details that can be checked against records in universities, officer instruction schools, military units, etc.

Those who don’t are invariably exposed as frauds sooner or later.

Those who are being especially honest are able to provide independent academic sources verifying what they say.

Is Obssessed Nuker your real name?
AdA is not my real name either.
If I wanted you to know who I am I would have used my real name, the way I do IRL.
IRL rules do not apply to sites were you enter under an alias. It's not civil to ask people to give you personal details on the web.

 

[CalBear]

Ya' all REALLY want me to come in here and stop this slap fight?

Several of you will NOT be happy if I do.

Strong suggest that everyone go back to facts and cut out the "you" statements.

That goes for one and all.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Is Obssessed Nuker your real name?
AdA is not my real name either.

‘Course not. Difference is, I do not rest my arguements entirely on extravagant personal claims and then refuse to present information that will verify them. Hence why I have also cited documents like the environmental reports or books which like General Odom’s which can be examined.

If you do want to know my real name, it’s Gregory McKenna.

If I wanted you to know who I am I would have used my real name, the way I do IRL.
IRL rules do not apply to sites were you enter under an alias. It's not civil to ask people to give you personal details on the web.

It’s even more uncivil to claim to be an authority figure, rest all arguments on that claim of authority, and then refuse to provide any proof that would substantiate said authority. It’s pure Ipse dixit.

EDIT: Didn’t see Calbear there...