Alternative locations for basing ICBMs?

E

exclaimedleech8

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
30 September 2024
Messages
589
Reaction score
646
Do we know what alternate locations were seriously considered and rejected for basing ICBMs?
 
The Minuteman basing (1960's) and Peacekeeper basing (1980's) studies proved at length and ad nauseam that nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths are the ultimate deterrent. Nothing come close : not even space, as low Earth orbit (hello, FOBS) are constrained by orbital mechanics while GEO, cislunar or deep space are just too far away.
The ultimate hardened silo would have been a carved out Sierra granite mountain, but that would have been eye watering expensive.
Mobile ICBM plans have all kind of complicated issues.
Overall, "basing" was a game of fools.
 
Archibald said:
constrained by orbital mechanics while GEO, cislunar or deep space are just too far away.
Click to expand...
Well, there are strong arguments that high orbit nuclear weapon basing is a perfect place from retaliation point of view. The distance (and transparity of space) made high orbit weapon platform useless as first strike capability. On the other hand, the same distance & transparity made them almost invulnerable to the enemy disarming strikes - any large-scale attack would not be able to proceed unnoticed.
 
Grey Havoc said:
With regards as to the United States' MX program and earlier projects/studies:
Click to expand...
I know about that one. One really wonders why the US put its Minuteman silos upwind of its agricultural heartland rather than in the middle of the desert.

The Minuteman basing (1960's) and Peacekeeper basing (1980's) studies proved at length and ad nauseam that nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths are the ultimate deterrent. Nothing come close : not even space, as low Earth orbit (hello, FOBS) are constrained by orbital mechanics while GEO, cislunar or deep space are just too far away.
The ultimate hardened silo would have been a carved out Sierra granite mountain, but that would have been eye watering expensive.
Mobile ICBM plans have all kind of complicated issues.
Overall, "basing" was a game of fools.
Click to expand...
The Pentagon's justification for land based missiles as that they'll serve as a nuclear sponge, forcing the enemy to disarm himself in destroying the silos before he can go after cities. The other problem with the Sierra Granite Mountain is that while the missile would probably safe, the silo opening could be covered in rubble quite easily. My idea is to build a series of road loops and then have a bunch of ICBM carrying trucks drive around them continuously. You get the same nuclear sponge but without making the enemy do fallout-generating groundbursts.
Well, there are strong arguments that high orbit nuclear weapon basing is a perfect place from retaliation point of view. The distance (and transparity of space) made high orbit weapon platform useless as first strike capability. On the other hand, the same distance & transparity made them almost invulnerable to the enemy disarming strikes - any large-scale attack would not be able to proceed unnoticed.
Click to expand...
Anything space-based in a pre-SpaceX era would be far too costly.
 
Last edited:
exclaimedleech8 said:
I know about that one. One really wonders why the US put its Minuteman silos upwind of its agricultural heartland rather than in the middle of the desert.
Click to expand...
Part of McNamara's infamous 'Strategic Sufficiency' dogma combined with his infamous penny pinching (except for his own pet projects), I believe. Some pork barrel politics may also have been involved (missile bases brought jobs, directly and otherwise).
 
The Pentagon's justification for land based missiles as that they'll serve as a nuclear sponge, forcing the enemy to disarm himself in destroying the silos before he can go after cities.
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting ! Didn't knew. So that's how USAF has justified Minuteman (and MX brief existence) to this day ?
 
Archibald said:
The Minuteman basing (1960's) and Peacekeeper basing (1980's) studies proved at length and ad nauseam that nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths are the ultimate deterrent. Nothing come close : not even space, as low Earth orbit (hello, FOBS) are constrained by orbital mechanics while GEO, cislunar or deep space are just too far away.
The ultimate hardened silo would have been a carved out Sierra granite mountain, but that would have been eye watering expensive.
Mobile ICBM plans have all kind of complicated issues.
Overall, "basing" was a game of fools.
Click to expand...
Many people seem to miss the biggest advantage of ICBMs in silos - it raises the threshold for starting a nuclear war. Mobile ICBMs combine the advantages of SSBNs and silos. And everybody uses them except the US. Because it's evil if the US does it apparently.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
I know about that one. One really wonders why the US put its Minuteman silos upwind of its agricultural heartland rather than in the middle of the desert.
Click to expand...
The joke is because the Minuteman fields are in the most miserable locations known to man.

On a more serious note, because the locations were chosen before people really grokked the risks of fallout.



Sferrin said:
Mobile ICBMs combine the advantages of SSBNs and silos. And everybody uses them except the US. Because it's evil if the US does it apparently.
Click to expand...
No, because the US isn't willing to just shoot or run over protesters attempting to block the trucks.
 
Wasn't there a consideration to field nuclear missiles on Greenland? There was a test camp there but abandoned some years later.
 
Dilandu said:
In modern days, any ICBM location should be hardened agsinst possible FPV drone attack "from inside".
Click to expand...
Standard ICBM silos and ballistic missile subs (when at sea) are by their basic nature proof against foreseeable drone strikes. But road-mobile ICBMs seem like easy meat for swarms of thermite-equipped drones.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Part of McNamara's infamous 'Strategic Sufficiency' dogma combined with his infamous penny pinching (except for his own pet projects), I believe. Some pork barrel politics may also have been involved (missile bases brought jobs, directly and otherwise).
Click to expand...
not really. not enough votes in those states to matter
 
Orionblamblam said:
Standard ICBM silos and ballistic missile subs (when at sea) are by their basic nature proof against foreseeable drone strikes. But road-mobile ICBMs seem like easy meat for swarms of thermite-equipped drones.
Click to expand...
True. While I previously supported the mobile ICBM's, now I think that silos are more reliable.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Standard ICBM silos and ballistic missile subs (when at sea) are by their basic nature proof against foreseeable drone strikes. But road-mobile ICBMs seem like easy meat for swarms of thermite-equipped drones.
Click to expand...

Another bad news for Russia then, with all the money they sunk into mobile ballistic missiles over the last 50 years - SS-16, SS-20, SS-24 and whatever came after.

Dragon drone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom