Preserving the US ICBM Force ?

[sferrin]

Those SSBNs will have to be found first. Those are big oceans out there.

What makes you think it's impossible for them to be tailed right from port? And (to repeat yet again) we come back to threshold, which is one of the real strengths of the land-based ICBM.

 

[Arjen]

Not impossible to track an SSBN. Very difficult. Tracing all seven - extremely unlikely. They were *designed* to make themselves hard to track.

 

[sferrin]

Not impossible to track an SSBN. Very difficult. Tracing all seven - extremely unlikely. They were *designed* to make themselves hard to track.

This is not news. Still, they don't have nearly the deterrent effect ICBMs do. For example, an unknown player sending 96 nuclear warheads (1 Ohio) to the bottom of the Pacific will not receive the same attention a known player detonating 192 nukes (2 warheads on 96 silos) on US soil would.

 

[bobbymike]

Not impossible to track an SSBN. Very difficult. Tracing all seven - extremely unlikely. They were *designed* to make themselves hard to track.

This is not news. Still, they don't have nearly the deterrent effect ICBMs do. For example, an unknown player sending 96 nuclear warheads (1 Ohio) to the bottom of the Pacific will not receive the same attention a known player detonating 192 nukes (2 warheads on 96 silos) on US soil would.

And the original point that is most relevant for deterrence is; having a sea and land based deterrent is better than just sea based. Does it not give the US more options, more flexibility in response, more targets for the enemy?

We have had successful deterrence for 50+ years with a Triad THE BURDEN of proof is not with those who propose to keep the status quo but with those who want to change it.

I am still waiting for evidence of the test of an ICBM, WITH nuclear warhead, travel over the pole to SUCCESSFULLY attack an underground hardened MMIII silo.

 

[Arjen]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21573.msg213779.html#msg213779
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21573.msg214869.html#msg214869

 

[bobbymike]

I am well aware that you've been working on your thatching skills since this thread started. Keep it up, you'll soon be able to build a whole wickerman soon.

*sigh* okay, write this down. There are 14 Ohio SSBNs in service. 7 are at sea at any given time and 7 ARE NOT. Comprende'?

14 instead of 7 SSBNS strengthens Ryan Crierie's/Kadija_Man's case. Every additional SSBN makes it that much harder to simultaneously take out the entire SSBN-force.

Actually it doesn't as in a real war those seven at the pier will go up together in one *boom*. One target vs 450? Yeah, I could see why you'd think it would be harder.

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

IMHO those who want to move to a sea based monad don't really believe in deterrence at all and are hiding behind their true belief that all nuclear weapons are useless in war and if the US disarmed tomorrow NOTHING would change in the world.

They know that can't say this so they claim to support SSBN's. How do I know this? Because I have been listening and reading the anti-nuclear crowd since 1980.

 

[Arjen]

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

Neither I, K_M, or RC claimed any such thing. SSBNs in port are more vulnerable. Which is why, to maintain a credible deterrent, part of the SSBN force is always at sea. SSBNs are notoriously difficult to track, not because they are technologically different from other submarines, but because they stay well clear from other traffic.

IMHO those who want to move to a sea based monad don't really believe in deterrence at all and are hiding behind their true belief that all nuclear weapons are useless in war and if the US disarmed tomorrow NOTHING would change in the world.

They know that can't say this so they claim to support SSBN's. How do I know this? Because I have been listening and reading the anti-nuclear crowd since 1980.

Either you are accusing all(?) your opponents of dishonesty, or you claim to know better whatever it is they're thinking than your opponents know themselves.

This attitude makes any discussion pointless.

 

[bobbymike]

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

Neither I, K_M, or RC claimed any such thing. SSBNs in port are more vulnerable. Which is why, to maintain a credible deterrent, part of the SSBN force is always at sea. SSBNs are notoriously difficult to track, not because they are technologically different from other submarines, but because they stay well clear from other traffic.

So if those in port are destroyed by conventional means those at sea can stay on patrol for years like ICBMs can sit in silos?

Future Scenario;

The US has 12 SSBN(X) six at sea, six in port.
The one's in port are taken out by conventional means, two more are lost at sea, leaving us 4 subs that at some point have to come back to port
Russia who have stopped all inspections since 2014, see Ukrainian crisis, have secretly up loaded their ICBMs, which include the SS-18 or its replacement to 3000 or 4000 warheads (warheads in storage are not counted in New START and Russia has active production lines)
We have 300 or so warheads left
Russia says 'We want our empire back
Do we risk nuclear war over Latvia, et al outnumbered 3000 warheads to 300.

Again I say the burden of proof is on the proponents of changing to a Monad and show it will be superior IN EVERY WAY from a Triad.

 

[Rickshaw]

I am well aware that you've been working on your thatching skills since this thread started. Keep it up, you'll soon be able to build a whole wickerman soon.

*sigh* okay, write this down. There are 14 Ohio SSBNs in service. 7 are at sea at any given time and 7 ARE NOT. Comprende'? (Waits while he googles the most basic information there is about the subject he's been argueing incessantly about. : ) Hell with this. Tell ya what sweetie. How about we just ignore you from now on. Buh bye.

Not all 7 are going to be tied up a the same quay in the same port - and that is the point. The USN homeports its SSBNs in several ports, around your nation to disperse them and prevent all being destroyed in a single strike.

Then there would be difficulty in smuggling weapons into the USA, setting them up close enough, which were (a) large enough, with (b) sufficient range and (c) accurate to actually hit the submarines and damage them while they are alongside a quayside. As has been noted, 7 is not the whole USN SSBN force. This has been pointed out to you in several messages yet you keep ignoring it, in favour of this fantasy that you are propounding to us as being realistic.

The reality is that your mysterious attackers are on a hiding to nothing. Your entire civil, military and naval security force would have be incredibly incompetent to allow them to get close enough to be able to use whatever weapons (IIRC mortars) you're proposing. They would have be super mortarmen to actually hit a target like a submarine. Mortars are not that accurate. Then there is the problem of them actually penetrating the hull of the submarine to do sufficient damage to disable their missiles. I know you believe it but anybody who looks at the matter objectively would suggest you're erecting a strawman scenario. : :

 

[Rickshaw]

I am well aware that you've been working on your thatching skills since this thread started. Keep it up, you'll soon be able to build a whole wickerman soon.

*sigh* okay, write this down. There are 14 Ohio SSBNs in service. 7 are at sea at any given time and 7 ARE NOT. Comprende'?

14 instead of 7 SSBNS strengthens Ryan Crierie's/Kadija_Man's case. Every additional SSBN makes it that much harder to simultaneously take out the entire SSBN-force.

Actually it doesn't as in a real war those seven at the pier will go up together in one *boom*. One target vs 450? Yeah, I could see why you'd think it would be harder.

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

I think if you actually read what was typed, instead of inserting different words into your brain, you might discover that no one claimed it was possible. I know I didn't. 450 Spetsnaz won't work any better than the destruction of 7 submarines spread along both coasts of your nation. : : : :

 

[Rickshaw]

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

Neither I, K_M, or RC claimed any such thing. SSBNs in port are more vulnerable. Which is why, to maintain a credible deterrent, part of the SSBN force is always at sea. SSBNs are notoriously difficult to track, not because they are technologically different from other submarines, but because they stay well clear from other traffic.

So if those in port are destroyed by conventional means those at sea can stay on patrol for years like ICBMs can sit in silos?

Future Scenario;

The US has 12 SSBN(X) six at sea, six in port.
The one's in port are taken out by conventional means, two more are lost at sea, leaving us 4 subs that at some point have to come back to port
Russia who have stopped all inspections since 2014, see Ukrainian crisis, have secretly up loaded their ICBMs, which include the SS-18 or its replacement to 3000 or 4000 warheads (warheads in storage are not counted in New START and Russia has active production lines)
We have 300 or so warheads left
Russia says 'We want our empire back
Do we risk nuclear war over Latvia, et al outnumbered 3000 warheads to 300.

Again I say the burden of proof is on the proponents of changing to a Monad and show it will be superior IN EVERY WAY from a Triad.

300 or 3000 you still end up dead and glowing in the dark.

Them threatening to use their 3000 won't stop the US from using it's 300. 300 will kill their nation and most of it's inhabitants, just as their 3000 will kill most of your nation's. Everybody ends up dead.

DO you seriously believe that the US Government is just going to fold 'cause Vlad threatens them? Really? Do you have such little faith in your own national leaders? If you do, then I wonder why you bother living there. Why aren't you scurrying off to your fall out bunkers now? : : : :

 

[sferrin]

I am well aware that you've been working on your thatching skills since this thread started. Keep it up, you'll soon be able to build a whole wickerman soon.

*sigh* okay, write this down. There are 14 Ohio SSBNs in service. 7 are at sea at any given time and 7 ARE NOT. Comprende'?

14 instead of 7 SSBNS strengthens Ryan Crierie's/Kadija_Man's case. Every additional SSBN makes it that much harder to simultaneously take out the entire SSBN-force.

Actually it doesn't as in a real war those seven at the pier will go up together in one *boom*. One target vs 450? Yeah, I could see why you'd think it would be harder.

They just claimed the possibility of 450 spetsnaz teams taking out our ICBM's but 7 subs in port 'impossible'!

I think if you actually read what was typed, instead of inserting different words into your brain, you might discover that no one claimed it was possible. I know I didn't. 450 Spetsnaz won't work any better than the destruction of 7 submarines spread along both coasts of your nation. : : : :

^------ Apparently he thinks they park 18,000 ton subs full of nukes at just any old boat pier. LOL

 

[Antonio]

This thread is going nowhere. To be closed soon

 

[sferrin]

This thread is going nowhere. To be closed soon

Praise the Lords of Kobol.

 

[bobbymike]

This thread is going nowhere. To be closed soon

Might as well close the topic just going around and around.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Troll-like behaviour with the usual suspects. Shape up or be banned.