I enjoy this site, but every so often you say something really bizzare and frankly, dumb.

The soviets had thousands of those missiles, 90 percent of them, at least, would have flown to their targets and detonated. Since they had multiple warheads designated for each American city, and since each of those warheads were dozens of times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, you can bet they would have done some damage to 'someone besides themselves'.

Would Russia have survived the counterstrike? Nope. Would America? Nope.

I agree with Amos up to a point: if the Soviets had pressed the button, lots of warheads would have come our way. Even if only some had gone off anywhere near their targets, they'd have done lots of damage. We'd have survived, I think, but it would have been a huge catastrophe.

(I did once read some anti-nuke guy in the '80s arguing that since nobody had ever tested an ICBM over the pole, nobody could be sure how accurate they'd be, due to gravitational anomalies, etc.)

I was working in Special Services at Mountain Bell in the summer of 1969 when we got a call from Cheyenne Mountain. It seems they had detected a warhead estimated to impact on Washington in 15 minutes. The Commander picked up his PTT telephone to alert NCA only to get a squeal which prevented any communications. The problem was finally cleared 20 minutes later.

IIRC, there was an article in the late 80's in Scientific American which estimated that, in the event of an attack, somewhere around 1/3 of U.S. land-based missiles would not function properly due to CCC and improper targeting problems. The failure rate of Soviet missiles would probably have been higher than this.

When it somes to "political science", it pays to remember that by the mid-1980s, Scientific American barely qualified as either.

OJ,
If only one of these missile got through, it would have been 9/11 times 100. It would have been a catastrophic event. Maybe the world would be better, maybe worse, but the threat, though overestimated, was real, and this man is a hero.

Raoul, Has Scientific American changed since them? From what I understand their editorial position is still slanted left, to wit, their stand on "global warming."

Yeah, that Soyuz thing almost never works, does it.

Erp:

SA was, for the most part, pretty darn good until the late '90s, then it went through a significant change in format and editorial policy straight into the dumpster.

OJ, which nation has a working launch vehicle able to service the International Space Station? What the Soviet/Russian engineers lacked in advanced technical sophistication compared to us, they made up for in reliable, robust design. Their aerospace engineers are world class.

Ever read James Oberg? They're space program has been a disaster.

I've read Oberg.

Our space program has been a disaster, too.

Just day before yesterday, a US missile failed to take off when asked.

What does that tell you about all the rest of our missiles?

we failed in an attempt to do something no other nation dreams of doing. We'll get it right.

Oh for God's sake, there was about ten times more mega-tonnage designated for each city than was needed to utterly raze it to the ground. Russia launches sattilites all the time, their rockets aren't sexy BUT THEY WORK.

This is a stupid argument, if WW3 had broken out nuclear we'd all be dead and every city you know utterly gone along with their populations.

Dead. No ifs, no buts. Dead.

Harry: I assume you're refering to the latest missile defense test. The interceptor launch was aborted due to monitoring equipment failure. It makes no sense to run a test producing no data -- that would just be a waste of money.

Jeff, Robert: Apples and oranges. It is one thing to launch a single missile with weeks of preparation and the luxury of postponing if necessary; it is quite another to launch a large number which have been sitting in silos for months on 15 minutes surprise notice.

> a mangy spotted dog named Jack the Ripper

I wonder if he's named after the general in Dr. Strangelove.

Soviet equipment worked well enough to down KAL 007.

They shot down KAL 007 with an ICBM?

Guy T:
That was Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper, played by Sterling Hayden.

Failed is failed, jd.

The USSR launched at least thousands of missiles, of which a few dozen were failures.

Too bad for Vegas that Orrin doesn't travel, the croupiers would live him as a customer.

Russian missiles, even when maintained by Egyptians, worked well against the Israeli navy. And Reagan was smart enough to be very afraid of them, which is why he wouldn't take on Libya in the Gulf of Sirte.

OJ:

You said: ... there are still folks around who think Soviet equipment would have worked ...

Soyuz, a Soviet era design, works very well.

JD Watson:

If 80% of a large number of Soviet ICBMs failed, the remaining 20% would have seen the end of the US.

Jeff:

Yes, Nazi technology works fine.

If he had named his dog after General "Buck" Turgidson, then I'd be impressed.

OJ:

Worked fine for us too. I guess that means ours is no better than the Soviets?

As a couple other examples: Soviet fighter engines were a heck of a lot more powerful than ours, and their ejection seats put ours to shame. So much so that Martin Baker actually licensed some of their technology.

British engines.

Israel vs. Syria over Lebanon: 93-0