View Single Post
  #8  
Old December 15th 16, 04:03 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

From David Spain:
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

Nuclear ICBMs are the only fielded weapon that has NEVER undergone an end-to-end test.


Well technically for a "ballistic missile" that is correct. However
historically for a non-ballistic missile or non-ballistic rocket, of
intermediate range (Thor) not true.


I specifically stated INTER-CONTINENTAL ballistic missiles, and you come back with (paraphrase) "That's not true, there were cases of INTERMEDIATE RANGE..."

Hello? I was operating under the assumption that we were speaking the same language. Maybe I should try putting your reply into Google Translate.


Prior to the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty there were a few
documented tests of nuclear devices detonated in space via rocket by the
USAF & Los Alamos in the early 1960's. See the "Starfish Prime" test series:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime


Yes, I remember my surprise decades ago when I first learned about those tests.


On 12/12/2016 10:00 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
How would any other country know that it had a nuclear warhead when it was launched?


Point taken. There may be historical record of test objects launched as
prototype nuclear warheads that had the mass/design-shape needed for
missilery but without the required nuclear material. I can't document
that fact just now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact I'm
certain it did, quite a bit...


I do not know the exact protocol, but I would expect that countries be required to register (perhaps with the UN?) any plan to launch any missile or rocket that had the range of impacting other countries.

Or maybe this guess is mistaken, and that instead there is a long tradition of countries unilaterally doing whatever they want. No notice at all.

It seems to me that a spotlight has been shined on a deficient area of space history. One that I myself cannot recall reading about:
How can something like even the Space Shuttle be launched without a country on the other side of the planet not be terrified that the US just launched a nuclear warhead at them?

If a surprise attack was intended, it would be very easy to roll video tape of astronauts being strapped into the cabin while in fact warhead were there.

There was even a Star Trek episode from 1967ish that showed the Saturn V as launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet Union.

Have any space historians, the folks who do this as a profession, ever mentioned this a single time? Again, if so, I haven't seen it.


On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:
By simply *testing* a full-up ICBM, you would be starting a war.


No. As Scott points out without KNOWING in advance the payload is a
nuclear weapon, it is hard to tell a "full-up" ICBM from a "test
article". A missile launch of that range is not necessarily considered
by the military of the world as a hostile (as opposed to provocative)
act. And prior to the 1963 Test Ban treaty, for a "full-up" not even
illegal. It would depend on the trajectory, target and even the tactical
doctrine of a would be adversary. Lots of ICBMs with RVs (re-entry
vehicles) designed to contain a nuclear warhead but minus same have been
tested in ballistic trajectories from the west coast of the US to the
waters just off the Kwajalein Atoll. A distance of roughly 4321 nautical
miles.[1] We presumably have treaty arrangements with the inhabitants
there to permit this. Makes a difference.... This came to prominence in
the late 1960's co-incident to and independent of the Apollo program as
the USAF tested early MIRVs.


I agree that Scott raises an excellent point. There is LOTS more that I would like to see published on this particular issue.


JFK was explaining to James Webb that this was the way we test the system without starting a war.

Cite? JFK may have said that, but that would have been a
misunderstanding on his part. See above. The Air Force & Navy would beg
to differ. Also the Saturn series was never designed to be used as an
ICBM. Atlas and Titan, as a matter of expediency, yes, Saturn, no.


I agree that the exact words used by JFK leave some latitude for interpretation to historians looking back on the event today. But I myself am confident that the two of them were perfectly clear what was meant by a "test of the system".

In another thread I just started this morning, it is explained how this very "test of the [nuclear ICBM] system" was the very reason why JFK pulled a 180 on Apollo after he secured the test ban treaty.

I think you all might like the video posted there, if you haven't seen it yet.

~ CT