World Missiles News

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

Very silly numbers. They're round numbers (.e. approximate measures) in kilometres, converted to miles with spurious precision. 1087 miles is 1750 km, for example. 4598 miles is 7400 km. And so on.

I hate spurious precision. It is misleading.

Profile picture for user coolieno99

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 372

Very silly numbers. They're round numbers (.e. approximate measures) in kilometres, converted to miles with spurious precision. 1087 miles is 1750 km, for example. 4598 miles is 7400 km. And so on.

I hate spurious precision. It is misleading.

All ICBM ranges are averages or approximate. The actual range depends on the size of the warhead. For example. a 5,000 mile range ICBM fitted with a lightweight 90 KT warhead would traveled 5,500 mile, while the same missile fitted with a heavy 1 MT warhead would only traveled 4,500 mile.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

I'm afraid you've missed the point. I know that ICBM ranges are approximate.

The silliness in those ranges in miles is that they are not approximate. They have been converted to precise numbers of miles from approximate numbers in kilometres.

It's known as spurious precision, giving a measurement which appears to be precise when it is, in fact, approximate. It's silly, & that's why I commented on it.