Talk:Launch on warning

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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.

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

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