- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,885
- Reaction score
- 10,947
100” diameter!! A guy can dream
And that's still actually small compared to things like Titan II, SS-18 and it's replacement.
100” diameter!! A guy can dream
Like Sarmat and the DF-41 those tiny missilesWhy the fetish for giant boosters? Smaller means more efficient, more missiles, cheaper, more basing options, less chance to get canceled. Give me an ICBM that can fit in a standard 40' shipping container.
In a preemptive first strike? InterestingYes Sarmat... the most vulnerable and destabilizing missile in the Russian arsenal. We should definitely copy that one. A handful of Tridents and poof a third of the Russian warheads are gone.
P.S. But what is clearly NOT wise, is to concentrate on silo-based missiles instead of mobile launchers.
P.S. But what is clearly NOT wise, is to concentrate on silo-based missiles instead of mobile launchers.
Mobile launchers pretty much kill the cheap argument.
P.S. But what is clearly NOT wise, is to concentrate on silo-based missiles instead of mobile launchers.
Mobile launchers pretty much kill the cheap argument.
They can't be THAT expensive if every other country on the planet with ICBMs uses them. (Even lowly North Korea.)
Mobile launchers pretty much kill the cheap argument.
Mobile launchers pretty much kill the cheap argument.
Not that much.
Perhaps look up the definition of nuclear proliferation?
P.S. But what is clearly NOT wise, is to concentrate on silo-based missiles instead of mobile launchers.
Mobile launchers pretty much kill the cheap argument.
They can't be THAT expensive if every other country on the planet with ICBMs uses them. (Even lowly North Korea.)
They definitely don't have our manning costs.
If you are a new nuclear power, the cost of building silos (assuming you have the appropriate geology and expertise),
will be weighed against the cost of putting the missile on a TEL.
Even in silos they're far more of a deterrent than bombers or SLBMs.
Even in silos they're far more of a deterrent than bombers or SLBMs.
Exactly how?
On the homelandEven in silos they're far more of a deterrent than bombers or SLBMs.
Exactly how?
They require a nuclear attack to destroy.
This is the key that some just cant' wrap their head around. If Russia or China sank an Ohio (and it's 200+ warheads, or whatever they've been downloaded to) and then claimed, "whoops, accident", would we nuke them? Probably not. If they nuked the equivalent amount of warheads on ICBMs (couple hundred nukes going off on the homeland) then yeah, no way they're talking their way out of that. It raises the bar for a war starting. In other words it's a deterrent. The only thing keeping SSBNs "safe" is they're currently hard to detect. I wouldn't bank on it staying that way forever.On the homelandEven in silos they're far more of a deterrent than bombers or SLBMs.
Exactly how?
They require a nuclear attack to destroy.
You can always sink one or two of their subs in retaliation, its not like they are hard to find. But thats beside the point. Yes single-warhead ICBMs in silos are stabilizing deterrents, MIRVed ICBMs in silos (like Sarmat or Peacekeeper) however are destabilizing.
You can always sink one or two of their subs in retaliation, its not like they are hard to find. But thats beside the point. Yes single-warhead ICBMs in silos are stabilizing deterrents, MIRVed ICBMs in silos (like Sarmat or Peacekeeper) however are destabilizing.
Except big missiles like MX are highly resistant to pindown effects; the declassified
1979 ICBM and Strategic Force Modernization Options study indicated that MX could not be pinned down by an SLBM attack.
So the typical threats to a LOW/LUA posture are eliminated.
You can always sink one or two of their subs in retaliation, its not like they are hard to find. But thats beside the point. Yes single-warhead ICBMs in silos are stabilizing deterrents, MIRVed ICBMs in silos (like Sarmat or Peacekeeper) however are destabilizing.
Except big missiles like MX are highly resistant to pindown effects; the declassified
1979 ICBM and Strategic Force Modernization Options study indicated that MX could not be pinned down by an SLBM attack.
So the typical threats to a LOW/LUA posture are eliminated.
In theory? I'd suspect a slightly different outcome in reality since the MX as deployed as the "Peacekeeper" was based in repurposed Minuteman silo's and as such were likely MORE, not less vulnerable as compared to the various proposed MX basing systems which were supposed to be new designs with a high survive-ability.
Randy
You can always sink one or two of their subs in retaliation, its not like they are hard to find. But thats beside the point. Yes single-warhead ICBMs in silos are stabilizing deterrents, MIRVed ICBMs in silos (like Sarmat or Peacekeeper) however are destabilizing.
Except big missiles like MX are highly resistant to pindown effects; the declassified
1979 ICBM and Strategic Force Modernization Options study indicated that MX could not be pinned down by an SLBM attack.
So the typical threats to a LOW/LUA posture are eliminated.
In theory? I'd suspect a slightly different outcome in reality since the MX as deployed as the "Peacekeeper" was based in repurposed Minuteman silo's and as such were likely MORE, not less vulnerable as compared to the various proposed MX basing systems which were supposed to be new designs with a high survive-ability.
Randy
Given that pindown resistance is a property of the missile and not the silo your suspicions are baseless.
Given that pindown resistance is a property of the missile and not the silo your suspicions are baseless.