Talk:Launch on warning

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can someone provide references for some of this information. Such as that no countries have "launch on warning" systems employed, and the current situation regarding anti-ballistic missile systems. Kernow 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this, but even if an attacking nation can disrupt another's ability to launch a ground-based retaliation with low-trajectory launches, doesn't the attacked nation still have the ability to retaliate immediately from subs?

There was a comprehensive article in Scientific American in the 1980s on this subject, that went into considerable detail It explained the positive and negative control mechanisms for Minuteman missles, and the problems of launch on warning. It gave a detailed time line of a hypothetical multiphased Soviet attack that included some initial SLBMs with exoatmospheric bursts to partially degrade ground based C3I systems, some depressed trajectory SLBMs to knock out soft target bomber bases, and a steady barrage of depressed trajectory SLBMs with high altitude bursts to create X-ray pindown on US Minuteman missile fields, to allow more time for more accurate ICBMs to arrive at targeted US silos. It took into account the time required to confirm the attack from IR launch plume detection from satelites and BMEWS radar, and the time required for completion of launch procedures for US missiles. It all added up to a strong case for the practical infeasibility of a workable launch on warning policy that could recover from false alarms and still be effective during a real attack. It made the case for relying instead on survivable basing modes such as submarines to ride out the attack and retaliate afterward. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the name or authorship of the Scientific American article, but I used it as required reading for my students in a military policy class I taught in the mid-1980s. I think it may have been called "Launch under attack". I tried Googling for it recently, but that was before Scientific American kept their articles online. If I recover the article from a closet somewhere, I will add a citation. prz 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (citation found: John Steinbruner, "Launch under Attack," Scientific American, January 1984, pp. 37-47)[reply]

I killed the entire 3rd section, as it was nothing but a massive WP:OR essay from beginning to end, i.e- completely un-Wikipedic. I seriously suggest someone goes and finds some real sources, since at the moment this article looks like a 6th grader's Current Events project. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but deletion of the passage is unwarranted. The entire article, not just the 3rd section, is unreferenced - as is the case for countless articles on Wiki. A strict application of WP:Verifiability and WP:OR will actually mandate the deletion of the article (and all those). I'm sure one can agree that finding some sources to buttress the article is more productive than destroying it completely. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word "misconception" to "belief" in the third paragraph of the "Launch on Warning" section, as the section later states that this has never been confirmed or denied - to be a misconception would surely require the claim to have been denied, or to have been false.81.158.152.89 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference question if anyone is around

I'm trying to whip this article into shape--to take out the unsourced statements and original research. Where possible, of course, I'd prefer to add in sourced statements instead. However, given my limited access to academic journals, plus the fact that its difficult to obtain factual information for an WP article about a subject that was and still mostly is highly classified, this isn't always possible. One article I found seems like it might have some useful information to discuss post-Cold War launch on warning ideas, but I'm not sure that, for the purposes of this article, it qualifies as a reliable source. The source I saw is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which, in the field of medicine, is one of the most prestigious journals there is. Of course, this isn't an article about medicine, so the question is, do the conclusions of a group of doctors (albeit, a highly respected group), meet WP:RS in this context? If I don't get any comments here, I can always take this to WP:RSN, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Yes, it would be WP:reliable source, please proceed and be bold. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll pull the article up again in the next few days and see what can be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 patrols

multiple bombers on patrol at all times;[1] so, presumably, did its Soviet counterpart. - really ? Had the Soviet Union the capacity to do this 24/7 patrols (enough bombers, tankers, and suitable bases ?). Doubtful. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Launch on warning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110193544/http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/special/ec135.html to https://fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/special/ec135.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Glass retaliation

I'm brand new to this and can't figure out how, or whether I should, indicate it in the article itself-- but source [5] doesn't support the claim immediately before it that "[the flag officer] was authorized to order a retaliatory strike if the President could not be contacted." A cursory Google search isn't showing me a better source to support this claim, but I don't know if that warrants deleting it. TrumanXray (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)TrumanXray[reply]