What if America had gone ahead with Midgetman instead of MX in the 70s?

E

exclaimedleech8

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
30 September 2024
Messages
586
Reaction score
641
Recap: in the 70s, America began working on a new ICBM called MX but then it couldn't figure out where to base it and in the 80s attention shifted to a new mobile single warhead missile called Midgetman, but before it could be developed, the Cold War ended and it was cancelled.

What if they had gone down the Midgetman route to begin with?
 
IIUC the midgetman was quite small and therefore lacked the heavy MIRV payload of the MX. If the US was limited in launch numbers by SALT 1 & 2 the midgetman would limit the US' offensive capability.

Personally I don't know my the just didn't park the MX under the ABM battery for an initial deployment.
 
Rule of cool said:
IIUC the midgetman was quite small and therefore lacked the heavy MIRV payload of the MX. If the US was limited in launch numbers by SALT 1 & 2 the midgetman would limit the US' offensive capability.

Personally I don't know my the just didn't park the MX under the ABM battery for an initial deployment.
Click to expand...
The plan was for a fleet of 500 Midgetmen compared to the planned 200 MXes. Given their mobility, the Soviets would need to carpet a very large area around their bases to guarantee the destruction of just 1 missile. And even if they did that, America would still have all its submarine launched warheads.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
The plan was for a fleet of 500 Midgetmen compared to the planned 200 MXes. Given their mobility, the Soviets would need to carpet a very large area around their bases to guarantee the destruction of just 1 missile. And even if they did that, America would still have all its submarine launched warheads.
Click to expand...

Oh, the midgetman force would be more survivable, but what about it's offensive punch? ICBMs place in the triad is the powerful offensive punch; 500 midgetman would deliver 500 warheads but 200 MX would deliver 2,000 warheads. I also think the midgetman would be less accurate because of its mobility, silo ICBMs are surveyed with great precision so their ballistic trajectory can be equally precise. A mobile midgetman would not have such a precise launch location, which would throw off its accuracy much like an SLBM.

I'm aware that MX silos can be located and targetted, but they're hard targets to destroy and if guarded by ABMs they would have a further layer of protection.
 
lastdingo said:
"punch" doesn't matter at this scale.

40x 150 kt would crash Soviet society and cause 20+ million dead
40x 10 kt with 1 km CEP would crash Warsaw Pact warmaking potential and economy (by destroying almost all oil refinery capacity)

see figures:
Click to expand...

It matters politically, there can't be too much of an overkill gap.
 
Rule of cool said:
Oh, the midgetman force would be more survivable, but what about it's offensive punch? ICBMs place in the triad is the powerful offensive punch; 500 midgetman would deliver 500 warheads but 200 MX would deliver 2,000 warheads. I also think the midgetman would be less accurate because of its mobility, silo ICBMs are surveyed with great precision so their ballistic trajectory can be equally precise. A mobile midgetman would not have such a precise launch location, which would throw off its accuracy much like an SLBM.

I'm aware that MX silos can be located and targetted, but they're hard targets to destroy and if guarded by ABMs they would have a further layer of protection.
Click to expand...
By this point, the gap in accuracy between silo-based and mobile missiles was closing.

Also, accuracy doesn't matter if the enemy has used up all his arsenal trying to destroy yours.
 
40 years down the track of course it was all delusion. However, when your house is in the vaporisation radius of one of the tens of thousands of MIRVs you will demand that your country can equal or beat the number of warheads.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom