Current Nuclear Weapons Development

I'm thinking that retiring the B57 in 1993 was maybe a little shortsighted as Russia still has a shitload of tactical nuclear weapons in its' arsenal.
 
NMaude said:
I'm thinking that retiring the B57 in 1993 was maybe a little shortsighted as Russia still has a shitload of tactical nuclear weapons in its' arsenal.
Click to expand...

Not sure what weapon you are referencing (guessing B-53? Several physics packages reserved in enduring stockpile for "planetary defense"), but I don't see how anything that was a free fall piece of ordnance was going to increase deterrence. The B-61mod 12 works somewhat because it is something that can be deployed from any fighter bomber with a lot of precision, so long as it has the right equipment. The W-76 mod 2 also works as something that is tactical and can very rapidly be delivered anywhere. I don't see how other types of free fall ordnance would bring anything to the table. If you want a 5-10 kt precision standoff weapon that isn't mounted on a Trident, use an AGM-86. Or an F-35 with 61-12. Or hopefully in the future LRSO.

In any case, tactical nuclear weapons don't need to exist in a lot of numbers because after the first couple uses, things likely get strategic. No one is going to spend a week going tit for tat and assuming the other side just needs a few more tactical nukes to learn its place. There likely is one, at most two, attempts at resetting deterrence with tactical nukes, and after that it just goes full counter force because deterrence obviously has failed.
 
Josh_TN said:
Not sure what weapon you are referencing (guessing B-53? Several physics packages reserved in enduring stockpile for "planetary defense"), but I don't see how anything that was a free fall piece of ordnance was going to increase deterrence. The B-61mod 12 works somewhat because it is something that can be deployed from any fighter bomber with a lot of precision, so long as it has the right equipment. The W-76 mod 2 also works as something that is tactical and can very rapidly be delivered anywhere. I don't see how other types of free fall ordnance would bring anything to the table. If you want a 5-10 kt precision standoff weapon that isn't mounted on a Trident, use an AGM-86. Or an F-35 with 61-12. Or hopefully in the future LRSO.
Click to expand...
I have significant questions about the W76mod2, given that you're likely launching 4 of them at once (4 warheads per missile) and are revealing the location of a missile sub with roughly 1/8 of the submerged deterrent package on it. It would be worth throwing a heavy lift missile with many strategic warheads on it back at the location of the launch to take out that many remaining missiles. Yes, it may take more than one missile with a dozen plus warheads on it to put the entire traversable area under enough force to kill the sub, but it'd be worth it to take out 24 Tridents. Also, both Russia and China would flip out (assuming a Pacific launch), assuming that the US wasn't in a shooting war with both of them at the same time. It might lead to the other country misidentifying the target location and them sending return fire to take out the sub.

So I'm very much in favor of sticking some tactical scale warheads onto Minuteman, up to and including declaring that one of the Minuteman bases is tactical warheads only, for the sake of letting everyone else in the world know that a launch from that location is not immediately the end of the world, and is instead likely the last chance before things go MAD.

======

Given that the B61-12 is basically a B61 with the JDAM guidance package slapped on, I wonder if the JDAM-ER wing kit is equally adaptable? Trying to give some more standoff range here. Also, I'd want some stealth shaping on the casing while I'm at it.

Josh_TN said:
In any case, tactical nuclear weapons don't need to exist in a lot of numbers because after the first couple uses, things likely get strategic. No one is going to spend a week going tit for tat and assuming the other side just needs a few more tactical nukes to learn its place. There likely is one, at most two, attempts at resetting deterrence with tactical nukes, and after that it just goes full counter force because deterrence obviously has failed.
Click to expand...
Depending on just how long someone's command and control cycle takes, it may take a week. It will certainly take a couple of days at a minimum, even with a single tactical nuke in response from the US.
 
Josh_TN said:
Not sure what weapon you are referencing (guessing B-53? Several physics packages reserved in enduring stockpile for "planetary defense"),
Click to expand...

The B57


DuVnmRtVYAYZsCl
 
Scott Kenny said:
I have significant questions about the W76mod2, given that you're likely launching 4 of them at once (4 warheads per missile) and are revealing the location of a missile sub with roughly 1/8 of the submerged deterrent package on it. It would be worth throwing a heavy lift missile with many strategic warheads on it back at the location of the launch to take out that many remaining missiles. Yes, it may take more than one missile with a dozen plus warheads on it to put the entire traversable area under enough force to kill the sub, but it'd be worth it to take out 24 Tridents. Also, both Russia and China would flip out (assuming a Pacific launch), assuming that the US wasn't in a shooting war with both of them at the same time. It might lead to the other country misidentifying the target location and them sending return fire to take out the sub.

So I'm very much in favor of sticking some tactical scale warheads onto Minuteman, up to and including declaring that one of the Minuteman bases is tactical warheads only, for the sake of letting everyone else in the world know that a launch from that location is not immediately the end of the world, and is instead likely the last chance before things go MAD.

======

Given that the B61-12 is basically a B61 with the JDAM guidance package slapped on, I wonder if the JDAM-ER wing kit is equally adaptable? Trying to give some more standoff range here. Also, I'd want some stealth shaping on the casing while I'm at it.


Depending on just how long someone's command and control cycle takes, it may take a week. It will certainly take a couple of days at a minimum, even with a single tactical nuke in response from the US.
Click to expand...
The SSBNs must have the ability to launch one or two D5s then max descend at max speed and be way too far away to properly target with the type of response you discuss?
 
bobbymike said:
The SSBNs must have the ability to launch one or two D5s then max descend at max speed and be way too far away to properly target with the type of response you discuss?
Click to expand...
At "greater than 25 knots", an Ohio can move all of about 6nmi from the launch point in 15min.

Let's assume that a 10kt warhead has a kill radius of about 1nmi (deliberately underestimating this, ASROC had a 4nmi safety distance for its 10kt warhead). A 100kt warhead will have a kill radius of about 3nmi, a 1Mt warhead a kill radius of about 9nmi (inverse square rule at work).

A 750kt warhead (the size carried by the SS-18Mod5) will have a kill radius of about 8.25nmi under that assumption. And the SS-18Mod5 carries 10 of those. 7 warheads in a hexagonal pattern, with about 12nmi separation so that every part of the ocean under the pattern is within the kill radius of at least one warhead, will cover an area about 40nmi across in the kill zones of the warheads, much farther than an Ohio can travel in the time it takes to retarget the missile, launch, and flight time. Scratch one Ohio.

My strategic calculus says that's a fair trade, one SS-18Mod5 fully loaded for 22 Tridents.
 
Scott Kenny said:
At "greater than 25 knots", an Ohio can move all of about 6nmi from the launch point in 15min.

Let's assume that a 10kt warhead has a kill radius of about 1nmi (deliberately underestimating this, ASROC had a 4nmi safety distance for its 10kt warhead). A 100kt warhead will have a kill radius of about 3nmi, a 1Mt warhead a kill radius of about 9nmi (inverse square rule at work).

A 750kt warhead (the size carried by the SS-18Mod5) will have a kill radius of about 8.25nmi under that assumption. And the SS-18Mod5 carries 10 of those. 7 warheads in a hexagonal pattern, with about 12nmi separation so that every part of the ocean under the pattern is within the kill radius of at least one warhead, will cover an area about 40nmi across in the kill zones of the warheads, much farther than an Ohio can travel in the time it takes to retarget the missile, launch, and flight time. Scratch one Ohio.

My strategic calculus says that's a fair trade, one SS-18Mod5 fully loaded for 22 Tridents.
Click to expand...

Can any warhead survive water entry at Mach 30?
 
Is the kill radius of a 10kT warhead 1nm under water against a submarine? Wouldn't the Trident have launched in that 15 minutes?
 
Scott Kenny said:
At "greater than 25 knots", an Ohio can move all of about 6nmi from the launch point in 15min.

Let's assume that a 10kt warhead has a kill radius of about 1nmi (deliberately underestimating this, ASROC had a 4nmi safety distance for its 10kt warhead). A 100kt warhead will have a kill radius of about 3nmi, a 1Mt warhead a kill radius of about 9nmi (inverse square rule at work).

A 750kt warhead (the size carried by the SS-18Mod5) will have a kill radius of about 8.25nmi under that assumption. And the SS-18Mod5 carries 10 of those. 7 warheads in a hexagonal pattern, with about 12nmi separation so that every part of the ocean under the pattern is within the kill radius of at least one warhead, will cover an area about 40nmi across in the kill zones of the warheads, much farther than an Ohio can travel in the time it takes to retarget the missile, launch, and flight time. Scratch one Ohio.

My strategic calculus says that's a fair trade, one SS-18Mod5 fully loaded for 22 Tridents.
Click to expand...
There are major major assumptions in this. Like the SSBN is only 15 minutes away from an ICBM field? The other side launches immediately upon detecting what may be a single D5? I understand US “in service” warhead count went down when they deployed the W76-2 cause they only had two per missile (I’ll try and find the info) which means the D5 would have to ICBM range - 12,000+km?

What was the kill radius of the ocean surface detonation during the above ground testing phase of the Cold War?

If you have links to the data you used for your Pk assumptions I’d be interested in reading.
 
Forest Green said:
Is the kill radius of a 10kT warhead 1nm under water against a submarine? Wouldn't the Trident have launched in that 15 minutes?
Click to expand...
The safety standoff range from the ASROC's 10kt warhead is 4nmi, 8000yds. Pressure waves at 4nmi will be about 1/16 the energy of the energy at 1nmi, inverse square rule at work. Though it looks like the kill radius for 10kt is significantly less than that, based on Crossroads Baker. ~675yds.

bobbymike said:
If you have links to the data you used for your Pk assumptions I’d be interested in reading.
Click to expand...
Straight from the Wiki on the ASROC, plus wiki on Operation Crossroads Baker. All subs within 850 yards of target were sunk.

What was the kill radius of the ocean surface detonation during the above ground testing phase of the Cold War?
Click to expand...
Kill radius on Crossroads Baker was somewhere north of 1000yds, 1/2nmi. Though that was for a ~22kt warhead. Let's drop the guaranteed kill radius to 675yd (1000yd / sqrt2.2) for a 10kt boom.

Adjusting to a 675yd kill radius for 10kt: a 750kt warhead will have about an 5500yd kill radius, so a single SS-18 would blanket an area about 16000yds across in the 90+% kill zone. 8nmi. Ouch, that's a much smaller area than I had originally assumed. 8x SS-18 would cover an area ~30nmi (don't want to do the trig to get a precise number) across, 15nmi radius. That's a heptagon with one missile landing in the center for pattern. A second ring would be 13 more birds, and cover an area about 44-45nmi across, ~22nmi radius. A third ring would be 19 more birds (40 total), ~29nmi radius. Holy crap, it might take a fourth ring to get a radius of 36nmi, 65 or 66 total birds(!), unless the Russian command and control is pretty quick... 1+7+13+19+25 or 26.


There are major major assumptions in this. Like the SSBN is only 15 minutes away from an ICBM field? The other side launches immediately upon detecting what may be a single D5? I understand US “in service” warhead count went down when they deployed the W76-2 cause they only had two per missile (I’ll try and find the info) which means the D5 would have to ICBM range - 12,000+km?
Click to expand...
The Russians did detect an SLBM launch, from the middle of the Northern Pacific. Not from Cape Canaveral, not somewhere down by San Diego and flying towards Kwajelin. Somewhere up by Alaska.

The "fire mission" assumption is that the Ohio/Columbia launches 1-2 birds with tactical warheads, detected by Russia regardless of where the Trident missiles are going. Russia decides to take out that Ohio, so fires enough SS-18Mod5 to blanket the area. It's not the Russian Grid Square Deletion Service, it's the Russian Nautical Chart Area Deletion Service!

Said SS-18s have 10x 750kt warheads onboard each, centered on the launch position. (I'm going to drop the 3 extra warheads inside the hexagon of doom for extra kill power.)

Let's assume 30 minutes to upload the target location, doing this before the rest of the launch preparations can happen, to give the sub the greatest advantage possible. Let's further assume that an SS-18 takes 25 minutes to prepare the missile for launch like the UR100N does. 15 minute flight time, for a total of 70 minutes from tactical Trident launch to Satan impact. The sub has displaced somewhere greater than 30nmi, but let's assume less than 40nmi because Ohios are big freaking subs. Covering that much area would take 66 birds. Not worth the exchange to take out ~22 Tridents.

Now, let's assume that the "preparation time to launch" is just for loading the targeting data, so the missiles are ready to go in 25 minutes with that same 15min flight time. 40 minutes total. Sub has displaced by roughly 20nmi. That area can be covered by 21 missiles. May-or-may-not be worth it, since you're taking out ~20-21 Trident missiles. And their launcher.

If the Trident is close enough to hit with a depressed-trajectory shot, that gets the reaction time down to about 32 minutes, 25min prep plus ~7 minutes flight time. Sub has displaced roughly 16nmi. That's iffy about 8 missiles covering the area in a 90+% kill zone, but 21 missiles would definitely cover it to overkill.

If the Russians can get their missile reaction time down to about 20 minutes total on that depressed-trajectory shot, that would make it a very high probability to take out an Ohio with only 8x SS-18.

It would take getting the total reaction time down to about 15 minutes before a single SS-18 could take out an Ohio after being revealed by a tactical Trident launch.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The safety standoff range from the ASROC's 10kt warhead is 4nmi, 8000yds. Pressure waves at 4nmi will be about 1/16 the energy of the energy at 1nmi, inverse square rule at work. Though it looks like the kill radius for 10kt is significantly less than that, based on Crossroads Baker. ~675yds.


Straight from the Wiki on the ASROC, plus wiki on Operation Crossroads Baker. All subs within 850 yards of target were sunk.


Kill radius on Crossroads Baker was somewhere north of 1000yds, 1/2nmi. Though that was for a ~22kt warhead. Let's drop the guaranteed kill radius to 675yd (1000yd / sqrt2.2) for a 10kt boom.

Adjusting to a 675yd kill radius for 10kt: a 750kt warhead will have about an 5500yd kill radius, so a single SS-18 would blanket an area about 16000yds across in the 90+% kill zone. 8nmi. Ouch, that's a much smaller area than I had originally assumed. 8x SS-18 would cover an area ~30nmi (don't want to do the trig to get a precise number) across, 15nmi radius. That's a heptagon with one missile landing in the center for pattern. A second ring would be 13 more birds, and cover an area about 44-45nmi across, ~22nmi radius. A third ring would be 19 more birds (40 total), ~29nmi radius. Holy crap, it might take a fourth ring to get a radius of 36nmi, 65 or 66 total birds(!), unless the Russian command and control is pretty quick... 1+7+13+19+25 or 26.



The Russians did detect an SLBM launch, from the middle of the Northern Pacific. Not from Cape Canaveral, not somewhere down by San Diego and flying towards Kwajelin. Somewhere up by Alaska.

The "fire mission" assumption is that the Ohio/Columbia launches 1-2 birds with tactical warheads, detected by Russia regardless of where the Trident missiles are going. Russia decides to take out that Ohio, so fires enough SS-18Mod5 to blanket the area. It's not the Russian Grid Square Deletion Service, it's the Russian Nautical Chart Area Deletion Service!

Said SS-18s have 10x 750kt warheads onboard each, centered on the launch position. (I'm going to drop the 3 extra warheads inside the hexagon of doom for extra kill power.)

Let's assume 30 minutes to upload the target location, doing this before the rest of the launch preparations can happen, to give the sub the greatest advantage possible. Let's further assume that an SS-18 takes 25 minutes to prepare the missile for launch like the UR100N does. 15 minute flight time, for a total of 70 minutes from tactical Trident launch to Satan impact. The sub has displaced somewhere greater than 30nmi, but let's assume less than 40nmi because Ohios are big freaking subs. Covering that much area would take 66 birds. Not worth the exchange to take out ~22 Tridents.

Now, let's assume that the "preparation time to launch" is just for loading the targeting data, so the missiles are ready to go in 25 minutes with that same 15min flight time. 40 minutes total. Sub has displaced by roughly 20nmi. That area can be covered by 21 missiles. May-or-may-not be worth it, since you're taking out ~20-21 Trident missiles. And their launcher.

If the Trident is close enough to hit with a depressed-trajectory shot, that gets the reaction time down to about 32 minutes, 25min prep plus ~7 minutes flight time. Sub has displaced roughly 16nmi. That's iffy about 8 missiles covering the area in a 90+% kill zone, but 21 missiles would definitely cover it to overkill.

If the Russians can get their missile reaction time down to about 20 minutes total on that depressed-trajectory shot, that would make it a very high probability to take out an Ohio with only 8x SS-18.

It would take getting the total reaction time down to about 15 minutes before a single SS-18 could take out an Ohio after being revealed by a tactical Trident launch.
Click to expand...
Trident isn't a tactical weapon. If one D5 gets launched, a whole shed load of D5s will follow shortly after. If Russia wants to waste 20 warheads trying to hit 1 submarine after that, well okay, that means 20 less warheads aimed at NATO territory.
 
The W76 mod2 is arguably tactical and might be launched one at a time. It would be highly situational though-the only reason I can think of for using this delivery method vice B-61 or AGM-86 is speed of delivery.
 
Josh_TN said:
The W76 mod2 is arguably tactical and might be launched one at a time. It would be highly situational though-the only reason I can think of for using this delivery method vice B-61 or AGM-86 is speed of delivery.
Click to expand...
Partially agree, but I don't think they be used against Russia or China IMO (at least not in isolation), it would more likely be used in the event of a rogue nuclear program in an undesirable state as a last resort if diplomacy fails and more penetration is required than a conventional weapon or B-61/AGM-86 can provide.
 
Forest Green said:
Trident isn't a tactical weapon. If one D5 gets launched, a whole shed load of D5s will follow shortly after. If Russia wants to waste 20 warheads trying to hit 1 submarine after that, well okay, that means 20 less warheads aimed at NATO territory.
Click to expand...
US policy (as seen in NSDM-242 and PD-59) in the latter half of the Cold War envisaged using strategic systems like Poseidon, Trident and Peacekeeper in the tactical role against general-purpose forces.
 
Forest Green said:
Partially agree, but I don't think they be used against Russia or China IMO (at least not in isolation), it would more likely be used in the event of a rogue nuclear program in an undesirable state as a last resort if diplomacy fails and more penetration is required than a conventional weapon or B-61/AGM-86 can provide.
Click to expand...

Actually it seems to me the situation where W76 mod2 would be most practical is a response to PRC/Russian tactical use. From a practical viewpoint, both countries have a much greater ability to shoot down other delivery methods. From a political perspective, it might be necessary to demonstrate an immediate response in reaction to first use. B-61s and AGM-86s are more vulnerable and would likely have a response time measured in days unless the B-52s at Minot were on alert.
 
I would argue at this point in time given “the global situation” the two main uses of the D5 armed W76-2 would be N. Korea or Iran about to launch a nuke and the D5 is the only weapon inside the launch window.

Guarantees speed, accuracy and therefore the destruction of the target with “minimum” damage. Also, you “may” reduce the possibility of a retaliatory strike.

There can be many possibilities but those are my “best guess” scenarios.
 
Josh_TN said:
Actually it seems to me the situation where W76 mod2 would be most practical is a response to PRC/Russian tactical use. From a practical viewpoint, both countries have a much greater ability to shoot down other delivery methods. From a political perspective, it might be necessary to demonstrate an immediate response in reaction to first use. B-61s and AGM-86s are more vulnerable and would likely have a response time measured in days unless the B-52s at Minot were on alert.
Click to expand...
That is my assumption as well.

I just don't like it on a Trident from a sub. I would prefer a declared "tactical sized warhead" launching zone in the US. Go ahead and use a Trident from land, if the Minuteman can't take a Mk4RBA. Or an American Avanguard HBG.
 
bobbymike said:
More Than 23,000 Nukes Found in 14 Nations, Report Says
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009

There are an estimated 23,360 nuclear weapons stockpiled in 14 nations, with the great majority held by Russia and the United States, two nonproliferation experts said in a report issued this week (see GSN, Oct. 20).

There are nine nations known or widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons -- China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Another five European states -- Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands -- also host U.S. nuclear bombs.

Russia is believed to hold roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons, of which 4,850 are on active or operational status. "The status of the other 8,150 warheads is unclear. Some portion may be in reserve with the balance retired and awaiting dismantlement," Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen stated in the November/December edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

...........the rest of the story - http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20091118_4824.php
Click to expand...
Wrong! Number of Nuclear Weapons around the World is not above 12'000, and even if all were used at same time, mankind will survive, but not all, and under miserable circumstances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NMaude said:
I was thinking of the standard D5 load out which gives a range significantly lower range than 7,500 miles.
Click to expand...
Assuming New START is in force, even a D5 is only carrying 4-6 warheads as "full load". So it will reach farther than whatever is spec'd for the original 12xMk5 RBAs.

And since most assumptions for using tactical nukes involve one or two getting used in an escalate-to-deescalate maneuver, only keeping a couple of Tridents loaded with W76Mod2s or even concrete ballast and based at Cape Canaveral and/or Vandenberg AFB would be a better idea than at sea. Less likely to cause catastrophic panic-attacks than a launch from the middle of the ocean.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
US policy (as seen in NSDM-242 and PD-59) in the latter half of the Cold War envisaged using strategic systems like Poseidon, Trident and Peacekeeper in the tactical role against general-purpose forces.
Click to expand...
Probably had to as by then many (most?) tactical nuclear systems had been retired. Things like Honest John, Lacross, Little John, Lance, Pershing IA, etc. IMO we should have a nuclear variant of PrSM and land attack SM-6.
 
sferrin said:
Probably had to as by then many (most?) tactical nuclear systems had been retired. Things like Honest John, Lacross, Little John, Lance, Pershing IA, etc. IMO we should have a nuclear variant of PrSM and land attack SM-6.
Click to expand...
They had Sergeant, which was replaced by Lance, Pershing IA was still in service, again being replaced by Pershing II, they still had the strike aircraft of Tactical Air Command, and nuclear shells for the field artillery, not sure any of those short-ranged 1950s systems with their long set-up times would be viable in the 70s and 80s.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
They had Sergeant, which was replaced by Lance, Pershing IA was still in service, again being replaced by Pershing II, they still had the strike aircraft of Tactical Air Command, and nuclear shells for the field artillery, not sure any of those short-ranged 1950s systems with their long set-up times would be viable in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
Pershing II was not a tactical system. (Neither was GLCM). Strike aircraft don't really count because of the slow reaction time and artillery because of the short range.
 
sferrin said:
Pershing II was not a tactical system. (Neither was GLCM). Strike aircraft don't really count because of the slow reaction time and artillery because of the short range.
Click to expand...
203mm nuclear shells all had longer ranges than the systems you suggested, with the exception of Lance and Pershing IA, but given this is the late 70s and early 80s we're talking about (NSDM-242 being implemented by Ford, and PD-59 being implemented by Jimmy Carter), both systems were still in service, with replacements for both expected in the future.

Poseidon, Trident D5 and Peacekeeper used against tactical targets were not going to replace the likes of Lacrosse or Honest John, especially when said systems already had their own more capable replacements in the form of Lance, and there was no great shortage of Tactical Nuclear Weapons available to NATO at the time.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
203mm nuclear shells all had longer ranges than the systems you suggested, with the exception of Lance and Pershing IA, but given this is the late 70s and early 80s we're talking about (NSDM-242 being implemented by Ford, and PD-59 being implemented by Jimmy Carter), both systems were still in service, with replacements for both expected in the future.

Poseidon, Trident D5 and Peacekeeper used against tactical targets were not going to replace the likes of Lacrosse or Honest John, especially when said systems already had their own more capable replacements in the form of Lance, and there was no great shortage of Tactical Nuclear Weapons available to NATO at the time.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. By the time Peacekeeper and D5 were on the scene the only tactical nukes left were bombs and artillery shells. If we wanted to hit something on short notice strategic weapons were the only option.
 
sferrin said:
You're missing the point. By the time Peacekeeper and D5 were on the scene the only tactical nukes left were bombs and artillery shells. If we wanted to hit something on short notice strategic weapons were the only option.
Click to expand...
Peacekeeper and Trident both began development towards the end of the Nixon Administration, and their development continued throughout the subsequent administrations. The nuclear strike plans drawn up by the Nixon and Ford Administrations and subsequent administrations (like Carter's PD-59) stressed the need for flexible options,. including amongst other things, targeting general purpose forces with strategic systems. Whilst this was intended to be met with existing systems, like Minuteman and Poseidon, these requirements would obviously feed into the systems then in development, hence the improved accuracy and C3 developed for Trident and Peacekeeper (not to mention Peacekeeper's basing modes, brought about by the requirement, to quote Lawrence Freedman's The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy that "the ability to fight a prolonged war would be maintained by a ‘secure strategic reserve’, that is invulnerable missiles that would not be employed in the early stages", which probably goes much of the way to explaining the thinking behind MPS).
 
sferrin said:
You're missing the point. By the time Peacekeeper and D5 were on the scene the only tactical nukes left were bombs and artillery shells. If we wanted to hit something on short notice strategic weapons were the only option.
Click to expand...
Pershing II?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom