Register here

Author Topic: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.  (Read 159701 times)

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2036
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1230 on: January 21, 2018, 06:47:52 pm »
Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty.

Under New START, the hardened launch hangers would each count towards the total number of ICBM launchers.
That and on-site inspections makes preserving the probability of location uncertainty doubtful.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 06:58:03 pm by marauder2048 »

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2036
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1231 on: January 21, 2018, 09:23:12 pm »
"God No, America Does Not Need Mobile Nuclear Missile Launchers"
Robert Beckhusen
April 13, 2016

Source:
https://warisboring.com/god-no-america-does-not-need-mobile-nuclear-missile-launchers/

Quote
The New START treaty between the United States and Russia, which went into force in 2011, restricts deployed mobile launchers to ICBM bases
a nd nondeployed launchers to military production, repair and storage facilities. Which, in the event of a nuclear war, negates mobile
launchers’ mobility advantage. It would take hours to disperse the slow-moving vehicles away from their bases as the nukes begin flying.

This is not accurate.  From the Office of Treaty Compliance

https://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/NST/Art%20By%20Art/art_treaty%20text.htm

Quote
There are no restrictions on where deployed mobile launchers of ICBMs may be located. These launchers may leave their basing areas for field
deployments, similar to the deployments from their bases of ballistic missile submarines and heavy bombers. Because mobile ICBMs are
considered survivable when deployed in the field and therefore stabilizing, their unhampered operation while deployed in the field is permitted.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1016
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1232 on: January 22, 2018, 01:42:32 am »
Must be why everybody else is going mobile. Because they suck.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.
A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1233 on: January 22, 2018, 03:12:19 am »
Must be why everybody else is going mobile. Because they suck.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.
A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.

Are you serious?  You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?   ::)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1234 on: January 22, 2018, 03:13:32 am »
You don't need a harden launcher with the much lower number of warheads currently. What needs to be done is go back to the old shell game idea. Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty. Its cheaper than Midgetman, its mobile, its a warhead sponge, and the missiles would not be rolling around the highways, being limited to only transfers between hangars, which could be secured easier than a launcher on the road.

"Rolling around highways"?   As pointed out earlier (which you'd have seen if you'd actually read the thread) Midgetman, or any other mobile ICBM would not be "rolling around highways". 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 03:15:36 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 507
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1235 on: January 22, 2018, 03:51:03 am »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5708271444001/?#sp=show-clips

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.


"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1016
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1236 on: January 22, 2018, 04:50:55 am »
Are you serious?  You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?   ::)

I think its a psychological factor that shouldn't be overlooked, its a common denominator for all those nations. I'm not saying its a military factor but its a bonus feature of having a mobile deterrent. You can show it off easily when you need to and hide it when you don't. I'm not questioning the obvious fact that mobility imparts a high-degree of survivability and is therefore desirable in itself. Also, wheeled transports are generally cheaper when you haven't got an aviation and/or submarine shipyard capability to give you other mobile options (I don't count the sole North Korean SSB).


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8473
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1237 on: January 22, 2018, 06:23:52 am »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5708271444001/?#sp=show-clips

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.
I think we are going to be surprised one day.


"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1238 on: January 22, 2018, 07:59:28 am »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5708271444001/?#sp=show-clips

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.


"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

"Massive" is correct.  Two types of new ICBM, a new SLBM, numerous types of sub-ICBM ballistic missiles, most of which are nuclear capable, and all of which are mobile.  New nuclear capable cruise missiles.  They aren't pulling the warheads off old DF-5s and putting them on cruise missiles.   China is well on it's way to a "Prompt Global Strike" system the US merely talks about.  It ALREADY has such a system regionally.  Between the DF-11/15/16/17/21/26 it can reach out to 2,200 miles in a matter of minutes.  The US doesn't even have that kind of control over the Gulf of Mexico.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 11:47:45 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1239 on: January 22, 2018, 08:02:22 am »
Are you serious?  You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?   ::)

I think its a psychological factor that shouldn't be overlooked, its a common denominator for all those nations. I'm not saying its a military factor but its a bonus feature of having a mobile deterrent. You can show it off easily when you need to and hide it when you don't. I'm not questioning the obvious fact that mobility imparts a high-degree of survivability and is therefore desirable in itself. Also, wheeled transports are generally cheaper when you haven't got an aviation and/or submarine shipyard capability to give you other mobile options (I don't count the sole North Korean SSB).

The "psychological", "parade value" is, at best, a happy coincidence.  Mobility has been desired from the outset and the lessons of Desert Storm only magnified its benefits.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2036
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1240 on: January 22, 2018, 11:44:37 am »
The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to
roll those around the parade routes.

A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population.

Which is funny given that one of the (sometimes unstated) reasons for retaining silo-based ICBMs
is the economic dislocation that would be caused by the decommissioning of an ICBM wing.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1241 on: January 22, 2018, 11:52:18 am »
The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to
roll those around the parade routes.

Yep.  Don't need mobile ICBMs to parade ICBMs through Red Square.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 11:58:02 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Desertfox

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1242 on: January 22, 2018, 06:33:54 pm »
Quote
Under New START, the hardened launch hangers would each count towards the total number of ICBM launchers.
That and on-site inspections makes preserving the probability of location uncertainty doubtful.
Under New START only the mobile launcher itself would count, the harden shelters would not. On-site inspections only tell you where the launchers are during the inspection, if they are in inspectable areas (theoretically you could have "wartime" hideouts in non-inspectable areas). As soon as the inspection is over the launchers could be re-shuffled.

Quote
"Rolling around highways"?   As pointed out earlier (which you'd have seen if you'd actually read the thread) Midgetman, or any other mobile ICBM would not be "rolling around highways". 
The point is Americans do not like nuclear warheads running around our deserts or highways, so this way they can be kept in secure locations most of the time, with only short periods of transit time between shelters.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2036
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1243 on: January 23, 2018, 12:20:22 am »
Under New START only the mobile launcher itself would count, the harden shelters would not.

IIUC, Since the hardened shelters have or are intended to have all of equipment required
to launch an ICBM they would get counted as launchers albeit of the non-deployed variety
which is a slightly higher limit but not on order of the typical MPS:missile ratio.

As soon as the inspection is over the launchers could be re-shuffled.

Which means the price-to-attack is potentially much less than GBSD in silos. That's typically
been the concern with mobile missiles; the minimum price-to-attack is conceivably achievable
with one close-in SSBN.

What would change the minimum would be HMLs operating in the vicinity of
ensiloed hit-to-kill ABM interceptors; there's no limit on the latter.


Offline Desertfox

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 18
Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Reply #1244 on: January 23, 2018, 05:13:30 am »
All the launch equipment would be on the mobile launcher itself. The shelters would have no launch equipment at all. Why would they be counted?

How is the price-to-attack lower? They would still have to target every single shelter, whether its empty or not. Could one SSBN target 1500+ shelters?