• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Build Your Own Deterrent

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
2,247
From Global Security Newswire - http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090722_3426.php

Let's choose 1500 warheads and 800 launchers. The rules 1) You can keep the Triad or not and 2) please include delivery systems and platforms (including the name). I'll start us off.

Bobbymike's nuclear deterrent - 300 single warhead Minuteman missiles and 10 Trident subs with Trident D5 missiles with 5 warheads each. No nuclear bomber.

Imaginary deterrent - 500 Titan V missiles carring a single 100 megaton warhead with 900 warheads on Trident E6 missiles housed in five or so Sea Quest DSV platforms with the remainder on a hypersonic strike bomber ;D
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
65
Oh, this sounds like fun! I'm currently writing a piece on winnable nuclear war, so this makes an amusing "deterrent" to my productivity ;D

Realistic deterrent: 100 Minuteman IIIs placed in hardened silos, 3 500kT MIRVs each. 100 more placed on mobile railcars resembling gutted-out AMTRAK passenger trains, one warhead apiece. 12 Ohio SSBNs with 24 Trident IIs apiece, 3 kiloton-range precision warheads each. 200 GLCMs fitted with either 5 megaton high-altotude airburst warheads for EMP kills or 5 kiloton warheads for precision strike. The remaining 20-30 warheads are reserved for space deployment contingent upon a treaty breakout during hostilities.

DARPA Deterrent (I should save that one): 50 Minuteman IIIs upgunned with 3x20 megaton MRVs, not MIRVs. Publicly targeted on major cities in threat nations, such as Tehran, Islamabad, and Tokyo. Warhead bus designed as a quasi-FOBS, with each warhead being released on a separate orbit. This allows maximum destruction as each blast's effects will have subsided by the time the following warhead detonates. 100 subterranean nuclear powered drills (there's a patent around here somewhere for one, I always thought it'd make a damn sneaky method of delivering wepaons or infiltrating facilities) armed with 50 megaton warheads for subsurface burst. A fleet of 20 SSTO hybrid aerospacecraft capable of delivering 6 high-yield penetrating warheads from orbit. The rest I reserve for future applications.
 

Rosdivan

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
9
4-8 Ohios with Trident D5, 6-14 MIRV on each. No ICBMs, no nuclear bombers. My views are, obviously, biased towards finite or minimal deterrence.
 

r16

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
377
Reaction score
22
only if ı will have true first strike capabilities to knock out opposition's mass destruction capabilities without global or longterm environmental consequences . Otherwise going nuclear as an instrument of defence is a total waste of time . ı can't give names of the systems . Not in the topic spirit but surely they don't exist . Aerospace has always been a better bet .
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
259
I would build a new US deterrent system from scratch based on a completely secure basing mode.

The missile would be based on the Peacekeeper and be fitted with a range of warhead options. Single warhead for global coverage from a single point and targeting of limited threats. Four warheads for lots of decoys and/or lots of range and the full 10 warhead option for targeting Russia and/or China in a full scale nuclear war.

There would be 12 launching systems, each with 40 Peacekeeper missiles and a total of 125 warheads (a mix of 1, 4 and 10 per missile). Each launching system would be a built to commercial standards, diesel-electric submarine and make submerged deterrence patrols (10 underwater at any time) and be completely invulnerable to any pre-launch detection or ASW threat.

The submarine would only be able to submerge to about 50m underwater and wouldn’t patrol at anything higher than 4 knots (though sprint speeds would be higher for displacing after missile firing). The submarines would not have any tactical underwater sensors or weapons or any acoustic silencing or self-defence systems. Crew would only need to be about 60 to maintain three shifts to operate the ship and launch the missiles. Missile launch could be from the surface if it was too difficult to modify the heavy Peacekeeper missile for underwater firing (using gas ejection this shouldn’t be too hard).

Such a submarine would be invulnerable to any threat by being deployed to Lake Michigan within US borders. Each submarine would have a patrol box of some 6,000 square kilometres making it impossible for even random intercontinental, nuclear depth charging to defeat the system. Of course there is no ASW threat and even if Canada tried to deploy one the Lake can be secured by a very small naval force across the 8km wide Mackinac Straits. It’s the ultimate bastion concept.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
If possible, and ideally, I'd have a long distance weapon based on ultrasound, like in this comic book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_Affair

Back-up plan would involve a genetically enhanced bacteria that has in its DNA a "self-destruct" code that will make sure it's off-spring is dead within one year after the original germs have been dispersed. "My" people and my allies' people would (of course) be vaccinated. No need for missiles, bombers etc as long as it's a "secret" weapon: terrorist cells could spread it. It's more like a weapon of vengeance than of deterrence.

EDIT: I just realised that I don't need germs that kill people: It's enough if it kills all "enemy" live stock and crops. Not only would the enemy have to face starvation if not seeing my way; I'd have monopoly on food exports as well.

Otherwise I'd have advanced tactical weapons (stealth -and S/VTOL-planes, remote-controlled tanks, stealth ships, etc) that I'd actually dare to use. If I felt the need for nukes it would be neutron bombs and bunker busters with clean hydrogen warheads, carried by cruise missiles launched from submarines and planes similar to B-2 Spirit. My policy wouldn't (openly) be "I kill you all if you harm my country" but rather "Your wallets will hurt if you invade my country".

But if I really was a charismatic dictator, I'd probably just use the money on Playboy bunnies, a huge mansion, blu ray discs etc and hope that my propaganda will make my people fight for their country and its leader, using guerilla tactics and cheap surplus ordnance. ;)
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
851
Reaction score
162
Website
www.alternatewars.com
800 B-70 Valkyries. If we assume they cost $400 million; like what was to be the planned cost for B-2 at 132 planes; that's a mere $320 billion, spread out over a decade; or $32 billion a year; which you know, could be paid easily with some judicious cuts in our nuclear forces, like SLBMs and ICBMs.

Oh yes, I also will spend money to place in the ground 500 GBIs.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
RyanCrierie said:
800 B-70 Valkyries. If we assume they cost $400 million; like what was to be the planned cost for B-2 at 132 planes; that's a mere $320 billion, spread out over a decade; or $32 billion a year; which you know, could be paid easily with some judicious cuts in our nuclear forces, like SLBMs and ICBMs.

Oh yes, I also will spend money to place in the ground 500 GBIs.

That's a lot of B-70's... I assume you are prepared to sacrifice some if there was a war, since your hypothetical opponent might have MIG-25 Foxbats and high speed/high alt. SAM's? ;)
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,039
Reaction score
2,466
Hammer Birchgrove said:
RyanCrierie said:
800 B-70 Valkyries. If we assume they cost $400 million; like what was to be the planned cost for B-2 at 132 planes; that's a mere $320 billion, spread out over a decade; or $32 billion a year; which you know, could be paid easily with some judicious cuts in our nuclear forces, like SLBMs and ICBMs.

Oh yes, I also will spend money to place in the ground 500 GBIs.

That's a lot of B-70's... I assume you are prepared to sacrifice some if there was a war, since your hypothetical opponent might have MIG-25 Foxbats and high speed/high alt. SAM's? ;)

Arm them with HyFlys problem solved. ;)
 

Rosdivan

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
9
RyanCrierie said:
800 B-70 Valkyries. If we assume they cost $400 million; like what was to be the planned cost for B-2 at 132 planes; that's a mere $320 billion, spread out over a decade; or $32 billion a year; which you know, could be paid easily with some judicious cuts in our nuclear forces, like SLBMs and ICBMs.

Oh yes, I also will spend money to place in the ground 500 GBIs.

A program that's thirty percent of the national procurement budget and the entirety of the USAF's procurement budget isn't going to be funded by cutting a force that's only a billion or so to operate per year.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,268
Reaction score
1,954
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
A half dozen 4,000 ton Orion "battleships." Two in low Earth polar orbit, ready to intercept ICBMs; two lurking out beyond the moon waiting to drop 500 20-megaton warheads each on anyone dumb enough to act up; and two "cyclers" in highly elliptical orbits.
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
630
Reaction score
258
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/reports/china_military_report_08.pdf P.56

China's Missile Force. China's Ballistic and Cruise Missile Inventory:
CSS-2 15-20 Missiles, 5-10 launchers, 3,000+ km
CSS-3 15-20, 10-15, 5,400+ km
CSS-4 20, 20, 13,000+ km
DF-31 <10, <10, 7,200+ km
DF-31A <10, <10, 11,200+ km
CSS-5 60-80, 60, 1,750+ km
CSS-6 315-355, 90-110, 600 km
CSS-7 675-715, 120-140, 300 km
DH-10 50-250, 20-30, 2,000+ km
JL-2 Developmental 10-14 7,200+ km

The intent is to be able credibly to delete NY+DC+Moscow, while projecting upon near neighbours. I suggest this is the most cost-effective of all the Deterrents.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
2,247
So far the clear lead goes to Orionblamblam as measured by "potential feasibility" and overall destructiveness. Orbiting nuclear weapons laden battleships can I borrow one there are a pesky fanatic to two I want to pay a visit to.
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
674
Reaction score
15
Hammer Birchgrove said:
But if I really was a charismatic dictator, I'd probably just use the money on Playboy bunnies, a huge mansion, blu ray discs etc and hope that my propaganda will make my people fight for their country and its leader, using guerilla tactics and cheap surplus ordnance. ;)

So you either want to be Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Ill or Omar Kadaffi?

In other words pretty much most of them I suppose.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
sferrin said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
RyanCrierie said:
800 B-70 Valkyries. If we assume they cost $400 million; like what was to be the planned cost for B-2 at 132 planes; that's a mere $320 billion, spread out over a decade; or $32 billion a year; which you know, could be paid easily with some judicious cuts in our nuclear forces, like SLBMs and ICBMs.

Oh yes, I also will spend money to place in the ground 500 GBIs.

That's a lot of B-70's... I assume you are prepared to sacrifice some if there was a war, since your hypothetical opponent might have MIG-25 Foxbats and high speed/high alt. SAM's? ;)

Arm them with HyFlys problem solved. ;)
Aaaaah, stand-off missiles, now why didn't I think of it... :D
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
Just call me Ray said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
But if I really was a charismatic dictator, I'd probably just use the money on Playboy bunnies, a huge mansion, blu ray discs etc and hope that my propaganda will make my people fight for their country and its leader, using guerilla tactics and cheap surplus ordnance. ;)

So you either want to be Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Ill or Omar Kadaffi?

In other words pretty much most of them I suppose.

Not Hussein, since he's dead, and Kim Jung Ill is terribly ill. Seriously, both are bad examples of leaders, even for tyrants.

Omar Kadaffi would seem to be a rather enlightened despot, if it weren't for his support of terrorists. So yeah, if (if!!!) I was a dictator, I'd probably be something like him. Not letting my people starve and such. (But I'd be even more likely as the "Emperor of America" ;) He was quite popular. :D )
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
2,247
Hammer - what you have in mind is the Platonic vision of a "wise and benevolent dictator"

You see, when we informed citizen witness the "sausage making" that is our democratic Republic and the insanity of cap and trade and healthcare socialization combined with the dearth of science and investments in key defense and space technology we contemplate different forms of government including what I mentioned above. I think a better solution would be a return to Constitution precepts that made this nation so great. The federal government could easily spend one trillion (insert Dr. Evil voice here) dollars on the DOD and NASA. We could be on the Moon, Mars and beyond. Oh and have 1000 F-22s, 200 Next Generation Bombers, Orion Obiting Battleships (for Orionblamblam ;)) and much much more.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,268
Reaction score
1,954
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
I think a better solution would be a return to Constitution precepts that made this nation so great.

While this is very quickly becoming the sort of poolitical discussion the mods frown upon, I have some *non* *partisan* suggestiosn along those lines:
1) Any bill put before the House and Senate must be read IN ITS ENTIRETY out loud before the House and Senate. Any Congressman/Senator who does not stay and listen to the entire bill - and *awake* the whole time - does not get to vote on the bill.
2) Pay for Congressmen and Senators is pro rated based on the percetage of bills that came up durig their term that they voted on.
3) Strict term limits for all Federal officeholders.
4) All laws must be re-ratified every 25 years. The entire body of law. To re-ratify a law, it must be voted on by both House and Senate with a minimum 66% approval. The President may veto any law coming up for re-ratification *before* it reaches Congress. All current US laws must be so re-ratified within the next 40 years, giving them time to catch up. Start at the beginning, move forward. If there is a backlog of old laws to be voted on, for every new law that's voted on, four of the old laws must be voted on.
5) All new spending & taxing measures must pass with a 66% majority.
6) Any measure to cut spending or taxes needs a simple majority.

#'s 1 and 4 would effectively tie up Congress, preventing them from doing too much that's entirely stupid.
 

Just call me Ray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
674
Reaction score
15
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Not Hussein, since he's dead, and Kim Jung Ill is terribly ill. Seriously, both are bad examples of leaders, even for tyrants.

Omar Kadaffi would seem to be a rather enlightened despot, if it weren't for his support of terrorists. So yeah, if (if!!!) I was a dictator, I'd probably be something like him. Not letting my people starve and such. (But I'd be even more likely as the "Emperor of America" ;) He was quite popular. :D )

I don't want to derail this topic further, so...maybe depending on what flateric and Orionblamblam think I'll just branch it off into a separate topic :)

I will just real quickly add that relations with Libya and the West, especially the United States, have vastly improved in the last five years.

Plus not only does he has a strong fetish for women in uniform, but he's able to somehow convince large numbers of them to follow him around everywhere ;)

gaddafi-1-virgin-body-guards-2.jpg
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
2,247
Orionblamblam - not to put too fine a point on it but saying you would like a return to Constitutional precepts is not really political in the sense that the Constitution is the settled law of the land. It is no different than saying I believe in freedom of speech from the Declaration. Being opposed to settled law is political while expressing support for the Constitution is patriotic IMHO. I do admit that my disparaging remark about "specific" policies is political so I apologize for that.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
bobbymike said:
Hammer - what you have in mind is the Platonic vision of a "wise and benevolent dictator"

You see, when we informed citizen witness the "sausage making" that is our democratic Republic and the insanity of cap and trade and healthcare socialization combined with the dearth of science and investments in key defense and space technology we contemplate different forms of government including what I mentioned above. I think a better solution would be a return to Constitution precepts that made this nation so great. The federal government could easily spend one trillion (insert Dr. Evil voice here) dollars on the DOD and NASA. We could be on the Moon, Mars and beyond. Oh and have 1000 F-22s, 200 Next Generation Bombers, Orion Orbiting Battleships (for Orionblamblam ;)) and much much more.

I'm - generally - more like a Canadian Liberal pre-Trudeau ;) - I want both welfare and investments in research and defence, and I think both can be achieved, however I'm not saying it will be easy.

If I could make cuts in USA's budget, I'd get rid of earmarkings and corporate welfare, including subsidizes for farmers, first hand. It may not save USA's economy alone but it's a start. Also, USA must stop spending money, especially borrowed money, on pure consumption and start investing it, may it be in roads, railways, 4th generation nuclear power plants, maths teachers, etc. Anything that will pay itself and create profit for more investments. IMHO free university education and "socialized" medicine are also vital investments, but that does not mean I for example like the pay-as-you-go system.

I hope I don't offend anyone. ;)
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
Just call me Ray said:
Hammer Birchgrove said:
Not Hussein, since he's dead, and Kim Jung Ill is terribly ill. Seriously, both are bad examples of leaders, even for tyrants.

Omar Kadaffi would seem to be a rather enlightened despot, if it weren't for his support of terrorists. So yeah, if (if!!!) I was a dictator, I'd probably be something like him. Not letting my people starve and such. (But I'd be even more likely as the "Emperor of America" ;) He was quite popular. :D )

I don't want to derail this topic further, so...maybe depending on what flateric and Orionblamblam think I'll just branch it off into a separate topic :)

I will just real quickly add that relations with Libya and the West, especially the United States, have vastly improved in the last five years.

Plus not only does he has a strong fetish for women in uniform, but he's able to somehow convince large numbers of them to follow him around everywhere ;)

gaddafi-1-virgin-body-guards-2.jpg

You've proven my point! :D
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
10
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
I think a better solution would be a return to Constitution precepts that made this nation so great.

While this is very quickly becoming the sort of poolitical discussion the mods frown upon, I have some *non* *partisan* suggestiosn along those lines:
1) Any bill put before the House and Senate must be read IN ITS ENTIRETY out loud before the House and Senate. Any Congressman/Senator who does not stay and listen to the entire bill - and *awake* the whole time - does not get to vote on the bill.
2) Pay for Congressmen and Senators is pro rated based on the percetage of bills that came up durig their term that they voted on.
3) Strict term limits for all Federal officeholders.
4) All laws must be re-ratified every 25 years. The entire body of law. To re-ratify a law, it must be voted on by both House and Senate with a minimum 66% approval. The President may veto any law coming up for re-ratification *before* it reaches Congress. All current US laws must be so re-ratified within the next 40 years, giving them time to catch up. Start at the beginning, move forward. If there is a backlog of old laws to be voted on, for every new law that's voted on, four of the old laws must be voted on.
5) All new spending & taxing measures must pass with a 66% majority.
6) Any measure to cut spending or taxes needs a simple majority.

#'s 1 and 4 would effectively tie up Congress, preventing them from doing too much that's entirely stupid.

I like #1, #2 and #3. I also agree that there should be some way to get rid of old laws that doesn't work today or are "immoral" in our view. The same should go for state level IMO.

May I add that there should be two budgets, one for spending and one for long-term investments?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,039
Reaction score
2,466
What does this have to do with building your own deterrent?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,039
Reaction score
2,466
Hammer Birchgrove said:
sferrin said:
What does this have to do with building your own deterrent?

We're discussing the financing... ;)

That was pretty smooth. You're not a politician by chance are you? ;)
 

Similar threads

Top