Other than to say that the discussion has become circular...you are right. Since it has become circular, there is no further need to address it.
If your "last post" did not address my concern, then I failed to see the purpose for pointing me to it.
As I have pointed out, I am not arguing that your tests provide no advantages at all. I concur that there are advantages, but said they can be negated by other factors. You may want to re-read the discussion to ensure you are not addressing something else entirely.
Nope. See my response above...more circular discussion of ground already covered.
Said response did not address my point.
Yep.
That's because the technology for them is proven. Not so for this design of a claim to field a ballistic missile and warhead, manueverable in the terminal stage to hit a moving target at sea thousands of kilometers away with OTH radar and other means for target acquisition before launch and during flight. That is something entirely new which will also be pitted against an active and further developing defense.
Er, no. You assert that a "real test" must be done because it's "always best to have actually done the thing you propose before you put something into real life use". So in that regard, a new nuclear warhead design, which undoubtedly involves new concepts, would have to be tested as a whole. Otherwise, it is not proven, because the new concepts are not proven. This is your logic.
If your qualification for "proven" is that an old nuclear device has been tested as a whole, then I should point out that the old device is irrelevant. An old device does not contain new concepts. By extension of your logic, as long as new concepts are not tested as a whole with the system, they are still not proven, thus the new nuclear device is still not proven.
See, you tried to set up the definition for "operational" by requiring a "real test", but then immediately do away with it when it suits you.
And why do you do away with it? Because said requirement is flawed. No one denies that a "real test" might be nice to do but there simply isn't such a requirement.
Now, we should not limit ourselves on using nuclear warhead as the only example. There are many instances where only components are tested individually, and a "real test" is not carried out. In fact, it is done all the time. For example, components on a satellite are tested extensively, but never can there be a "real test" before launch.
...but there we go again. You have your opinion, I have mine. Time will tell.
When we see something much more demonstrable, I will be happy to get back together and discuss those developments
To clarify, I am fully well aware of the possibilities that ASBM does not exist. However, that does not mean those who are denying the possibilities for ASBM's existence with all sorts of implicit arguments are correct.
