We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Most people have no idea how much damn maintenance and tender loving care a ballistic missile needs to remain operational. The frigging things are like a temperamental girlfriend (more likely to go off in your face than take you to the heavens). If I was forced to chose between standing 500 yards from the launch site of a Russian ICBM or within 500 yards of the intended target, I’d chose the target.
– A pseudonymous commenter
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Now that is seriously funny!
I dunno, the Trident D5 I keep in the backyard needs only occasional tinkering with some WD-40 and a posidrive.
Why does anybody believe the Russians haven’t maintained their ICBM fleet? Quite demonstrably the very similar technology of their space program works A-OK so why shouldn’t their ICBMs? To think otherwise is bizarre. It is really worrying if people extend this kind of thinking to other non-western nations. Somehow I expect that Indian, Pakistani, Israeli and Chinese nukes are in top-notch order. Certainly, top-notch enough not to dismiss. As somebody else put it, “Which European capital city could we do without?”
Brussels?
Yes, Brussels. Good idea.
A western ICBM or any sort of complex western missile, needs a lot of tender loving care, and the US ones get it. BUT Soviet missiles were designed to be taken care of by Soviet troops of the “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work” variety and were (and still are,) robust and fairly idiot proof.
I would happily sit in a lawn chair 500 yards from the launch of any ICBM currently in our (American) arsenal.
Pass me a video camera and a cold beer.
Question 2: I can easily see why a European would pick Brussels. You have my heartfelt sympathy.
I’d pick Paris. Different perspective, I guess.
Dear Sirs,
I worked with the Minuteman II guidance sytem in the mid 60’s. Almost all of these systems sat in the silos well beyond their expected life (15 years) with no problems. The missiles were solid fueled and required almost no maintenance. The systems were realigned once a year using a Wilde 3000 theodolite. The major maintenance task was replacing the warheads periodically because of the deterioration of the tritium/deuterium/plutonium/uranium ignition agents. I have no idea what the composition was or the the maintenance schedule – above my pay grade. We see airplanes (C-47, B-52) that have useful lives exceeding 50 years. The question is not the delivery sytems but the state of the warheads. The smaller the warhead the more quickly they deteriorate. We can rest assured that the so-called “suitcase” nukes are no longer a danger. It requires a major industrial base to maintain these devices.
Regards,
Roy
BUT Soviet missiles were designed to be taken care of by Soviet troops of the “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work” variety and were (and still are,) robust and fairly idiot proof.
This might have applied to most of the military equipment of the USSR, but not the ICBMs. They had a hard enough job designing a solid fuel system in the first place, and were way behind the Americans in the early-mid 1960s (hence Khruschev sent a few IRBM to Cuba), and they would have been in no position to design one which could be maintained by an unpaid, ill-educated Russian soldier.
BTW, I’m glad this made quote of the day. I chuckled to myself when I read it first time round.
But he said Russian.
Things like this and this and this, is why.
Read that last linked story…if they cannot get a SLBM launch right (after two tries!) when they have Vladimir Putin standing and watching in person (and presumably the crews had quite some time to try and get things ready to show him… it was not a sudden combat launch), I suspect that the true state of operational readiness is much much much worse than anyone would dare admit officially.
I suspect that you are right, but it doesn’t matter. These things aren’t intended to be actually launched, they’re just for deterrence. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are dummies.
Nobody would risk to provoke their launch, in order to find out how many really do fly. They exist – by this they accomplished their mission.
Perry,
I already conceded that most Russky armaments are shambolic but… D’ya honestly think those Su-30s they sold to India are anything other than state of the art? D’ya think that a nation that can launch satellites and other space-stuff can’t get an ICBM to work? More to the point, would you be prepared to face ’em down on the basis that their stuff didn’t work?
Much of the former Sov military is a shambles but they still managed to bomb Grozny (the size of Liverpool) to kibbles and bits. The Russian Army might be a hell-hole for the poor sods conscripted into it (and my wife knows a few – having lived in Moscow) but the SRS is a totally different kettle of fish – it was always considered an elite force.
My wife is very much the pacifist vegetarian and (of course) she was wolf-whistled by Sov squaddies in Moscow but despite her natural tendancies she got a little “soft” on Russian Airforce officers and their pretty blue uniforms. These were all top of the heap graduates with (apparently) impeccable cheek-bones. D’ya not think such folks could have kept something of such critical importance to Russian global-power in working order?
Russia isn’t the power it was in Sov days but I wouldn’t want to take ’em on, would you?
The Russians lacked the technology of the Americans but, in many cases, their systems were more reliable because they kept them simple for that very reason. Query: who was relied upon to service the ISS while the US shuttle fleet was grounded?
There is also a fundamental flaw in the quote. Assume for a moment that it is better to be near the target than near the launch vehicle. Now consider ten, twenty, or 100 launch vehicles. Still want to be near the target?