A big part of the reason they added the 'C' in 1993.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Netflix recommendations?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
A big part of the reason they added the 'C' in 1993.
Apparently, this movie is drawing some attention from the Pentagon. I hope they don't expend too much energy on it. I thought it was an okay movie; kind of thought-provoking and was attempting to present an air of realism but obviously some creative liberties were taken. The ending was a bit disappointing.
Is that the same Annie Jacobsen that wrote the column referenced here about witnessing a hijacking dry-run in the early 2000s?
Are you responding to me or Randy?
The fundamentals of military, appointed, and elected officials having to make critical decisions and extremely time compressed situation is pretty much on point. And I think that is the point.
One thing I thought was super realistic was the SECDEF having a moment where he realized he was still on mute in a video conference.
I liked that the movie was divided into 3 different perspectives that kept the clock ticking.
As a sidenote, has there been any thought to bringing back / updating something like the Nike Sprint point defense interceptor rocket? Although it would be overwhelmed in a massive attack, it might be useful in a situation the movie describes where there is only 1 or 2 terrorist / rogue nations missiles inbound?
Unless you’re specifically referring to the nuclear warhead on the Sprint interceptor, we pretty much do. There are a few terminal stage ABM defense systems.
Article…Greg Cope White Asks and Tells
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/10/20/greg-cope-white-asks-and-tells
Fixed that for you!
I think there is a bit of a 'false choice' where a decision on retaliation has to be made NOW when it was only a single missile, a response can definitely wait for a single nuclear strike that does not hold the entire at risk.
That is an extremely complex targeting problem, much more so when the Sprint was in service in the 70's. That is why GBI's intercept the missiles much earlier in flight, better chance to hit less targets. You can at least partially solve the targeting problem by arming the interceptors with nukes themselves like the Sprint was but that causes a whole host of additional issues, and and even then it still doesn't solve the problem if the missile is MIRV'd and/or has countermeasures.
Missile defense is a hard problem to solve, that is the biggest reason it costs so much money.
Last edited:
Yeah, I thought that part of it was a weak argument.
The flip side is, like 9-11, you'd have to think that this was the first strike with more to follow. And the idea that the DSP was hacked...
Especially when you start having to look at new routes of flight annd threat profiles because your opponent(s) decide to ignore or circumvent agreed protocols.
The GBIs have effectively the same problem set as the Maginot line. That’s a beautiful defense you constructed there… shame if somebody simply decided to develop something that could end run around it.