Q: Tell me, as and when and if rockets are no-good and warhead are less-good, should such be 'tested' out of submarines and silos, what more-bad might happen ? the booms fall back onto / into whatever launched them and go kaboom ? Just-asking, out of curiosity.
Q: What is effective useful life of electronic boards and of solid fuel matrix? and given such, is no-longer-good rocket more likely than no-longer-good warhead mechanism? or the other way around?
Q: BTW, just a guess, please confirm one or another way, that neither solid-fuel rocket motor nor warhead electronics can be inspected for definitive work / no-work by either ocular or electronic protocol, and only by firing / trigger. IOW, Trump has a point re testing testing testing, but that testing must first be notified to Russia and China and both would be grabbing for the popcorn and whatever traditional drinks suitable for the occasion.
China newsweek.com <<China Reveals Details of Nuclear Missile Test>> all-systems good.
UK, an off-shoot of the US arsenal bbc.com <<Trident missile test fails for second time in a row>>, iow, no-good.
US airandspaceforces.com <<ICBM Test Failure Puts Nuclear Modernization Effort Into Focus>> is un-good, am told. Yes?
Q: another 'thingy' or many 'thingies' about testing of inherently unreliable nuclear arsenal is that passing the test today does not guarantee okay tomorrow, and better, or, ... eh ... worse, any replacement of whatever this bit and that bob guarantees failure as such kinetics bother circuit board - such are features and not bugs, as some might intone |
