3 ms·
Why? My understanding is that there would have been a few minutes of warning time, enough to open the silos and complete the launch sequence before impact, or i
by MrBuddyCasino 10y ago
Why? My understanding is that there would have been a few minutes of warning time, enough to open the silos and complete the launch sequence before impact, or ist that not the case?
- tomjen3 10y agoFrom missiles, yes. Special forces, b2 bomber strikes or coastal bombardment? There you may not get a warning.
- MrBuddyCasino 10y agoI don't think bombers and ships reach firing positions quicker than a missile flies. Maybe the answer is submarines, they can remain undetected and are able to launch their missiles close to the enemy territory.
- tomjen3 10y agoNo, but they can remain undetected longer.
- arethuza 10y agoIn the UK the warning was supposed to be 4 minutes - it would probably have been a lot less. That's not much time for a command authority to decide how to react, communicate and for missiles actually to be launched.
- MrBuddyCasino 10y agoI grew up in the 80s in West Germany, thus I'm acutely aware of that fact - but this was about the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union, not NATO as whole I believe.
- arethuza 10y agoWell, the assertion was that the numbers were so high because of the risk of being destroyed quickly by first strikes. As far as I know, most weapons in the Cold War were tactical and stored close to likely crisis points.
- MrBuddyCasino 10y agoHadn't thought of that, you're right - Pershing II and stuff, doesn't get much more 80s Cold War than that.
- gaius 10y agoSpetsnaz's main mission if the Cold War turned hot would have been taking out these kinds of assets before they could be used - destroyed on the ground means more than just ICBMs.