Low Cost Methods of Protecting Missile Silos

E

exclaimedleech8

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
30 September 2024
Messages
826
Reaction score
1,001
The vulnerability of silo based ICBMs to a first strike could undermine the principle of mutual assured destruction. But many have considered ways that silos could be defended.

The first two come from Richard Garwin of the IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center in a 1976 essay

Bed of Nails

Screenshot 2025-06-13 at 7.42.41 PM.png
The first one was impressively basic. It consisted of metal poles surrounding each silo, sticking 5 feet out of the ground. An incoming warhead would collide with one of the poles, destroying the warhead without it detonating.

Pebble Curtain
Screenshot 2025-06-13 at 8.00.02 PM.png
The second one was a bit more complicated. It involved launching a screen of debris in front of an incoming warhead that could either destroy it or cause it to prematurely detonate without destroying the silo.

the-mozyr-active-defense-complex-kaz-a-soviet-russian-v0-qrti66pyhhp81.jpg
The Soviet Union thought along similar lines with what they called Mozyr. Some sources say this system is being deployed with the new Sarmat ICBM

Swarmjet
Screenshot 2025-06-13 at 8.08.41 PM.png

The third one was conceived by Daniel O Graham, the father of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. It was similar to pebble curtain, but instead of "pebbles" would've used unguided rockets that would launch in front of an incoming warhead in the hope that one of them would hit it. The advantage over pebble curtain was its longer range


All of these ideas seem reasonable and would strengthen what the Pentagon says is the reason we still have land-based ICBMs; to serve as a "sponge" that would absorb a large part of an enemy's warheads and sparing cities from nuclear attack. I wonder why they were never deployed?
 
Part of the issue is the march of technology. Fusing technologies have progressed, we don't rely on nose, or base, fuses anymore, but on accelerometers. Ground-penetrating warheads can shrug their way through reinforced concrete, so the reinforcing rods alone are unlikely to make much difference. And that physical hardening also makes it harder for point defence rockets and giant shotgun blasts - better to intercept high and let the atmosphere tear them apart.
 
DWG said:
Part of the issue is the march of technology. Fusing technologies have progressed, we don't rely on nose, or base, fuses anymore, but on accelerometers. Ground-penetrating warheads can shrug their way through reinforced concrete, so the reinforcing rods alone are unlikely to make much difference. And that physical hardening also makes it harder for point defence rockets and giant shotgun blasts - better to intercept high and let the atmosphere tear them apart.
Click to expand...
I wonder if microwave or laser beams could be an answer. The fact that warheads aimed at missile silos have to travel very close to the ground makes them easy, in principle, to intercept
 
Last edited:
exclaimedleech8 said:
I wonder if microwave or laser beams could be an answer. The fact that warheads aimed at missile silos have to travel very close to the ground makes them easy, in principle, to intercept
Click to expand...
Plasma could, in theory, attenuate the effect.

These days, you just dig deeper. Silos now are doom-thinking because there's a 1/million chance some trucks could be intercepted or a missile base attacked. So why afford protection? But back then, there were simply no money. 600 ships, total ground force revamp, 5th gen prototyping, and just getting lax for no reason.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Plasma could, in theory, attenuate the effect.

These days, you just dig deeper. Silos now are doom-thinking because there's a 1/million chance some trucks could be intercepted or a missile base attacked. So why afford protection? But back then, there were simply no money. 600 ships, total ground force revamp, 5th gen prototyping, and just getting lax for no reason.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how dig you deep, the enemy just needs to collapse the opening or cover it with debris.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
It doesn't matter how dig you deep, the enemy just needs to collapse the opening or cover it with debris.
Click to expand...
Sure! Dig deep, you still need a hole to craw out. I guess that's innate to every basing method that has to do with "put a spot in the ground". Though if you were confident enough in sensor fidelity, in theory LOW could be adopted and that puts away the risk of barrage suppresion. Security violations though 100% remains a primary risk, after all if a trio of grumpy ladies could do this imagine a Spetsnaz cell with MAVs!
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-apr-08-war-briefs8.1-story.html
One basing method I've read about is singular plots. Shallow Midgetman silo with fencing and a guard unit, CIWS and facilities. Pretty barebone but ticks a the checklists for cheap. Protects against everything... except inbound warheads. There were proposals for counter-RV CIWS but I don't think those went far along.
 
I believe there was a similar idea to the "shotgun" floated for use in SDI space-based interception, developed from the CASABA-HOWITZER nuclear directed energy weapon. I'd have to go dig up the reference for it, but the basic idea was something like an M18 Claymore mine in concept. Use the radiation-reflecting directional package from CASABA-HOWITZER, but dump the energy into a block of polystyrene studded with steel (tungsten?) "buckshot". The polystyrene turns into a rapidly-accelerating plasma and throws the shot pellets at considerable velocity in whatever direction you point it.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
The second one was a bit more complicated. It involved launching a screen of debris in front of an incoming warhead that could either destroy it or cause it to prematurely detonate without destroying the silo.
Click to expand...
There was allegedly a variant of this concept where instead of high explosives, you'd use pre-emplaced nuclear weapons to kick up a big cloud of debris. Sprung out of the observation that there needs to be a pretty decent gap between RVs 'double-tapping' a silo so that the debris from the first one doesn't wipe out the second.

Which is also why you can't just add RVs to guarantee a kill. At some point the rubble gets fed up of being bounced and the bombers show up.
exclaimedleech8 said:
It doesn't matter how dig you deep, the enemy just needs to collapse the opening or cover it with debris.
Click to expand...
One of the MX basing studies addressed that problem quite elegantly: if you don't have an opening, the attacker can't collapse it. The missile is emplaced on an erector/launcher, together with a tunnel boring machine, in a 'blind' tunnel excavated some distance short of the intended opening. Come the Great Day of Universal Bereavement, there's no surface features to indicate where the missiles will emerge.

Once the dust settles, the tunneling machinery is fired up, and the the missiles dig their way out. If debris has wound up covering the exit, it'll take a bit longer. If a crater has been blasted out, it'll be a bit quicker. The response time is on the order of hours or days, but it's theoretically pretty hard to kill.
 
Yellow Palace said:
There was allegedly a variant of this concept where instead of high explosives, you'd use pre-emplaced nuclear weapons to kick up a big cloud of debris. Sprung out of the observation that there needs to be a pretty decent gap between RVs 'double-tapping' a silo so that the debris from the first one doesn't wipe out the second.

Which is also why you can't just add RVs to guarantee a kill. At some point the rubble gets fed up of being bounced and the bombers show up.
Click to expand...
The obvious problem with that idea is the fallout created

Yellow Palace said:
One of the MX basing studies addressed that problem quite elegantly: if you don't have an opening, the attacker can't collapse it. The missile is emplaced on an erector/launcher, together with a tunnel boring machine, in a 'blind' tunnel excavated some distance short of the intended opening. Come the Great Day of Universal Bereavement, there's no surface features to indicate where the missiles will emerge.

Once the dust settles, the tunneling machinery is fired up, and the the missiles dig their way out. If debris has wound up covering the exit, it'll take a bit longer. If a crater has been blasted out, it'll be a bit quicker. The response time is on the order of hours or days, but it's theoretically pretty hard to kill.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is tunnel boring machines are prone to mechanical breakdowns and require a lot of labor to operate.

EDIT: A more practical version of this would put the missiles underwater, perhaps in Lake Superior. There would also be no opening for the enemy to destroy, but unlike the landmole idea, this would not require any cumbersome machinery to bring the missiles to the surface.
 
Last edited:
The first layer of the bunker where the silos are It can be made of several meters of basalt slabs.Basalt is the hardest rock on earth.

while this one, using land mortars, can disable the head of a penetrating bomb, which will reduce penetration. A similar system was used in Malta from the 17th to the 19th century to defend the island from ships.
 

Attachments

  • mortar malta.jpg
    mortar malta.jpg
    309.6 KB · Views: 118
EmoBirb said:
The irony where the narrator said that the Americans should stop bankrupting themselves, while simultaneously advertising a system that's financially not viable is not lost on me.

Cool video overall though. Although 95% seems incredibly optimistic.
Click to expand...
Indeed,its a relic from another time.
Tho rather frighteningly it does now seem slightly more relevant in todays world than it would`ve say 10-15 years ago.
 
Pioneer said:
Unfortunately A Tentative Fleet Plan, the link states it doesn't exist.
Any chance you could elaborate please?

Regards
Pooneer
Click to expand...
IIRC the original post was a reply by Pavel Podvig to a thread by Krakek on Cold War APS protection for Soviet ICBMs. The caption in the top left of the image reads something like (Google translated because I cannot read Russian, happy to defer to any Russian speakers if it is incorrect) "105-barrel KAZ-ShPU. A monument on KBM grounds". I assume it was the launcher for Mozyr, since that was developed by KBM according to Pavel Podvig's paper on Soviet responses to SDI (see footnote No.43)
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
IIRC the original post was a reply by Pavel Podvig to a thread by Krakek on Cold War APS protection for Soviet ICBMs. The caption in the top left of the image reads something like (Google translated because I cannot read Russian, happy to defer to any Russian speakers if it is incorrect) "105-barrel KAZ-ShPU. A monument on KBM grounds". I assume it was the launcher for Mozyr, since that was developed by KBM according to Pavel Podvig's paper on Soviet responses to SDI (see footnote No.43)
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Regards
Pioneer
 
EmoBirb said:
The irony where the narrator said that the Americans should stop bankrupting themselves, while simultaneously advertising a system that's financially not viable is not lost on me.

Cool video overall though. Although 95% seems incredibly optimistic.
Click to expand...
I like how they say it would destroy 95% of incoming missiles while showing an animation where all of them are intercepted. I guess it would've ruined the vibe they had going if they had shown one getting through and leaving a mushroom cloud on the American heartland
 
I wonder what would happen if we used swarmjet with guided artillery. It would still be far less expensive than a traditional missile.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom