Conventional Trident vs. Hard Targets

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
6 August 2007
Messages
3,006
Reaction score
2,284
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996
 
The idea had circulated 15 years before during the FOFA (Follow-On Forces Attack) elaboration in early to mid-80s. The idea was to use SLBM to attack areal targets like airports with cluster and concrete piercing warheads. Search FOFA on Google and DTIC.
 
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - but they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 
Lauge said:
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - nut they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Well that's one opinion. ::)
 
sferrin said:
Lauge said:
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - nut they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Well that's one opinion. ::)

Sferrin, you obviously disagree. Would you care to elaborate your view on this matter?
 
I would agree with Lauge, if a Ballistic missile launch was detected by an opponent (I'm being politically correct), they would automatically retaliate with the launch of their ballistic missiles.

Surely this was the concept behind M.A.D.?
 
How 'bout starting a thread discussing the perceived pitfalls of conventional ballistic missiles in the bar? Isn't that the place for opinion threads?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom