cause you're spouting nonsense.

The Russian Soyuz booster was derived from their R-1 ICBM. Missiles have to contend with a harsher range of possible launch conditions than space boosters. The Russians have to deal with really severe winters, so their systems are designed to work in exteme cold that few of our civilian systems could handle. Our ICBMs are largely based in some pretty harsh places like South Dakota, so they were built to function in harsh climatic conditions, too. It doesn't get very cold at the Cape or Vandenberg, so our boosters aren't designed to tolerate those conditions.

One thing the Russians seldom have to worry about is thunderstorms. Florida has perhaps the highest incidence of lightning strikes on Earth. NASA launched Apollo 12 too close to a thunderstorm. The ionization from the engine exhaust created a conduction path that caused the Saturn V to be struck by lightning at least once. The strike was a hairy experience and almost ended the mission before it began. Since then, NASA and the other organizations that launch satellites have learned to be very wary of lightning. Unmanned boosters seldom have the degree of redundancy of man-rated vehicles, so their tolerance for lightning strikes is probably less.

Every aerospace vehicle has a performance envelop of g-loadings that it is designed to handle, regardless of whether you're talking about an ultralight or the Shuttle. In addition to lightning, thunderstorms produce strong wind sheers that can exceed the structural limits of just about any vehicle, much less a rocket. There's also the range of winds that a guidance system can handle.

Finally, all Delta boosters are launched by Boeing just as all Atlas and Titan launches are performed by Lockheed-Martin, not NASA In cases like this where the payload is owned by NASA, then they would have a say in go-no go decisions. But ultimately, the decision is made by the launching agency. Any overtime would come out of the launching company's hide.