You are actually agreeing with what I posted. I’m saying an adversary would have to attack CONUS with 400-800 high yield warheads to hope to eliminate our ICBMs.
Or 400 to 800 x Conventionally Armed Intercontinental Cruise Missiles aiming at the silo doors themselves with 500 to 1,000 lb shaped charge warheads.
Over the decades, the force structure required to destroy a target set of 500 x 1000 PSI hardness silo-based missiles has gone down and down:
1961 - Titan I force vs 500 silos: 9,500 missiles needed.
1966 - Minuteman II force vs 500 silos: 3,000 missiles needed.
1970+ - Minuteman III force vs 500 silos: 500 missiles needed (3 RV per silo)
2000+ - Trident II D-5 force vs 500 silos: 36 missiles needed (1 RV per silo)
Silos made sense from 1960-1985, due to a whole clutch of factors, some of which I've mentioned in prior posts:
1.) Geolocating enemy silos accurately was a nation-state level task -- this is no longer true.
2A.) Accuracy of weapons; both in the navigational and terminal phase was bad enough to preclude conventional methods of attack -- this is no longer true.
2B) The big advantage of silo based missiles -- accuracy -- has largely been negated by advances in technology enabling mobile missiles (whether rail/road or submarine based) to have accuracy roughly equal to fixed launch sites, with minimal preparation before launch.
(That was a big one for Minuteman in the old days; because the location of each silo was known and continental drift could be accounted for -- they were able to launch in a minute, as opposed to taking around 15-20 minutes to perform navigational fixes for mobile platforms. Additionally, road/rail mobile systems needed geolocated/surveyed positions to take fixes from; which could be detected through satellites and targeted ahead of time)
But in the end, what I think effectively drove a stake into the heart of fixed missiles was Bush's withdrawal and nullification of the ABM Treaty in the early 2000s.
Fixed missiles' trajectories are very well known and can be calculated -- there's only so many paths a missile launched from a specific spot in North Dakota can take if it's path must terminate in downtown Moscow or Cheylabinsk.
ABM assets such as radars and interceptors can then be preferentially deployed against the threat tracks from the major ICBM fields in CONUS.
For all the crying of "decoys are cheap and fool ABM systems!" by the arms controllers, Russian military R&D shows otherwise; because why else would hypersonic gliders be developed, when they reduce the amount of warheads a heavy ICBM can deploy from about 10~ to only 1 or 2 hypersonic gliders?
Same thing with the nuclear powered 9M730 Burevestnik Intercontinental Cruise Missile and Poseidon Intercontinental Torpedo.
You don't do those if you're confident of your "cheap" decoys and chaff enabling you to sneak RVs past ABM defenses.
Extremely mobile ballistic missiles, such as those carried on submarines or on aircraft, allow the attacker to orient their launch trajectories so they can preferentially fly through weak defense sectors, something not possible for fixed sites in North Dakota.
That would be a much harder decision than 2-10 low yield against our bomber bases.
Something I think you are missing sight of here is that silo basing isn't about protecting the population of a country -- the population play the role of expendable bystanders who must die to protect the missiles.
See attached photo.