User talk:2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915

July 2024
Hello, I'm Swatjester. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to RS-28 Sarmat have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Like I said if you know of a Missile that can go over Mach 33 let me know. Also let me know what planet you are on lol--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Couldn't care less. On the planet I live on, we expect you to follow the rules while you edit on this project, which include following our policies on reliable sourcing and original research, civility, edit-warring, and the proper use of edit summaries. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem just doesn't claim my edit summary is inaccurate when I am going off of what a psychist told me.

"Well, their speed is not much below the Escape Velocity. Once the missile hits Mach 32, it bids farewell to Earth and never comes back.

Even speeds just below it are not much use - you don’t need an ICBM which would go around Moon or Mars and then come back. Predicting which patch of Earth it would hit may be a bummer. Your target could be on the other side of the planet by then.

Everything at or above the low-orbit speed - Mach 25.2 - will result in longer flight time, as your missile would go away and then come back. The velocity of ICBMs, about Mach 24, is optimal.

-Ken Benneth, Psychist, Stanford alumni.


 * What some random "Psychist" (which is not a thing) says is irrelevant; they are not a reliable source per our policies. He's also simply flat wrong when it comes to the physics, since most ballistic missile's warhead buses are capable of making orbital adjustment burns to alter their trajectory, and Sarmat in particular is widely believed to have FOBS capability. ~Mach 33 is the escape velocity for a *non-maneuverable* object; it's not applicable to a maneuverable warhead bus carrying independently maneuverable warheads; not to mention that ICBMs do not achieve maximum velocity until the terminal stage re-entry anyway. This is an excellent example of why we require reliable sourcing for claims like this; not withstanding the fact that I can't find any information that supports the claim that a "Ken Benneth" from Stanford exists or has any expertise in arms control or missileering.    ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok I get it you don't believe in science psychics, chemistry, etc but if you have any proof in any missile being able to go above Mach 33 please let me know. your revert wasn't the issue here. you calling me a liar about my edit summary was. I am just saying the revert was not the issue at ALL 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand about the physics involved is that escape velocity (which is what the Mach 33 number you're quoting is for Earth) is only an applicable concept to objects traveling in a purely ballistic trajectory with no external influences or propulsion acting upon them. As I've already explained to you, that is not the case for an ICBM, which is launched under powered flight, and maintains maneuverability throughout the relevant duration of its flight (and at least, in the case of Sarmat in a MaRV or HGV warhead configuration, at all portions during the flight). Modern ICBMs do *not* follow purely ballistic trajectories for the entirety of their flight. As such, the statement that they cannot exceed Mach 33 is simply false. Please note -- there is a difference between being a "liar" (which I did not accuse you of) and being simply wrong (which you unambiguously, unequivocally are). Regardless, none of this matters as (like I've repeatedly informed you) you failed to provide a reliable source for your claims; and your revert/self-revert for the purposes of making an edit summary was disruptive. Do not do that again.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that civility is required when editing Wikipedia. If you cannot edit civilly, and engage in constructive discussion with others, you will be restricted from editing at all. Comments like "I get it you don't believe in science psychics, chemistry, etc" are non-constructive, uncivil, and disruptive. — ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude I havent made a single personal attack. You are just angry because I very have a Higher IQ than you. It's an anonymous IP so i could care less what happens to it. anyways goodbye.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeated personal attacks after being warned, as done at User talk:2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D5DB:F66D:CD9D:E915. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Have it your way. I warned you repeatedly not to engage in personal attacks or to violate the civility policy or your editing privileges would be revoked. Goodbye. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)