5 ms·

"It was made to aid in discussions about missile development, since the technical nature of honest-to-god 'rocket science' can make it rather impenetrable from

by sounds 9y ago

"It was made to aid in discussions about missile development, since the technical nature of honest-to-god 'rocket science' can make it rather impenetrable from the perspective of laymen, yet many of the fundamental questions are key to local understanding of geopolitical questions (e.g., 'could North Korea hit my city with their latest missile?')." And in case you're curious, here are the latest figures I could dig up on N. Korea's launch capabilities. Caveat emptor! Range: 10,000 km (Hwasong-14 aka KN-20 test successes indicate >6690km range, though the missile appears to break up on reentry) Circular Error Probable: ? Poor. Could not hit a city, especially since it breaks up before hitting the target. The fine article says 2 km is what early Chinese ICBMs could achieve, so it makes sense as a starting point. Yield: 7-8 kilotons according to seismic estimates.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Circular Error Probable: ? Poor. In a paper from a defense think tank, I read that when nuclear weapons were developed, at least one major tactical reason was that the accuracy of all munitions at the time was similarly poor (long before modern precision weapons); remember it could take waves of bombers and hundreds of bombs to destroy one building in WWII. The blast radius of nuclear weapons was a solution to that problem. They also said that precision weapons could, in that way, replace nuclear weapons. If your weapon is accurate enough to hit a building reliably, you need a much smaller blast radius, and destroying the entire city doesn't have a military benefit. For awhile, and maybe still, the U.S. was considering a system called Prompt Global Strike with that application in mind.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I don't think precision weapons could entirely replace nuclear weapons. They could to a degree, but if you want to destroy, say, every enemy military base simultaneously, the number of conventional precision weapons needed for that would be cost prohibitive. Accuracy is also a reason why nuclear weapons got bigger and bigger up to the 1960s or so, then began to shrink. It's also why the Soviets tended to have larger ones than the Americans. If your bombers or ICBMs are only accurate to within a couple of miles, then you need a big bomb to reliably destroy your target. If they're accurate to within a couple hundred feet, you can use a much smaller bomb. Prompt global strike is still being worked on, but I don't think they have it figured out yet. It would be relatively easy to stick a conventional bomb on an ICBM and do it that way, but the enemy couldn't distinguish that from a nuclear launch, so there are fears of false alarms.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > if you want to destroy, say, every enemy military base simultaneously, the number of conventional precision weapons needed for that would be cost prohibitive For the U.S. and similarly wealthy militaries, the math doesn't seem to support that statement. You don't need to destroy every base, just enough to effectively eliminate the enemy's military capability. Let's say that's even 10,000 targets - that's not a lot of munitions for a war. At $2 million a pop - rounding up Wikipedia's price for a high-end cruise missile - that's $20 billion, a pittance in war. The Iraq War, not a major one, cost over $1 trillion AFAIK (up to the first pullout, that is; it's not over yet). For poor countries, who lack international networks for targeting and communication in addition to the munitions and launch systems, I think the statement holds up. It's also cost-effective for another reason: 1 nuke aimed at Seoul or Tokyo or LA is enough to deter attackers in almost any situation.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      10,000 conventional targets doesn't seem anywhere close to enough to destroy the military capacity of a superpower. Look at the US's cruise missile attack on that Syrian airbase a few months back. That was something like 50 missiles and the base was back in service in a day.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        > Look at the US's cruise missile attack on that Syrian airbase a few months back. That was something like 50 missiles and the base was back in service in a day. Excellent point.

by sounds 9y ago

forapurpose 9y ago

> Circular Error Probable: ? Poor. In a paper from a defense think tank, I read that when nuclear weapons were developed, at least one major tactical reason was that the accuracy of all munitions at the time was similarly poor (long before modern precision weapons); remember it could take waves of bombers and hundreds of bombs to destroy one building in WWII. The blast radius of nuclear weapons was a solution to that problem. They also said that precision weapons could, in that way, replace nuclear weapons. If your weapon is accurate enough to hit a building reliably, you need a much smaller blast radius, and destroying the entire city doesn't have a military benefit. For awhile, and maybe still, the U.S. was considering a system called Prompt Global Strike with that application in mind.

mikeash 9y ago
I don't think precision weapons could entirely replace nuclear weapons. They could to a degree, but if you want to destroy, say, every enemy military base simultaneously, the number of conventional precision weapons needed for that would be cost prohibitive. Accuracy is also a reason why nuclear weapons got bigger and bigger up to the 1960s or so, then began to shrink. It's also why the Soviets tended to have larger ones than the Americans. If your bombers or ICBMs are only accurate to within a couple of miles, then you need a big bomb to reliably destroy your target. If they're accurate to within a couple hundred feet, you can use a much smaller bomb. Prompt global strike is still being worked on, but I don't think they have it figured out yet. It would be relatively easy to stick a conventional bomb on an ICBM and do it that way, but the enemy couldn't distinguish that from a nuclear launch, so there are fears of false alarms.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > if you want to destroy, say, every enemy military base simultaneously, the number of conventional precision weapons needed for that would be cost prohibitive For the U.S. and similarly wealthy militaries, the math doesn't seem to support that statement. You don't need to destroy every base, just enough to effectively eliminate the enemy's military capability. Let's say that's even 10,000 targets - that's not a lot of munitions for a war. At $2 million a pop - rounding up Wikipedia's price for a high-end cruise missile - that's $20 billion, a pittance in war. The Iraq War, not a major one, cost over $1 trillion AFAIK (up to the first pullout, that is; it's not over yet). For poor countries, who lack international networks for targeting and communication in addition to the munitions and launch systems, I think the statement holds up. It's also cost-effective for another reason: 1 nuke aimed at Seoul or Tokyo or LA is enough to deter attackers in almost any situation.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    10,000 conventional targets doesn't seem anywhere close to enough to destroy the military capacity of a superpower. Look at the US's cruise missile attack on that Syrian airbase a few months back. That was something like 50 missiles and the base was back in service in a day.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > Look at the US's cruise missile attack on that Syrian airbase a few months back. That was something like 50 missiles and the base was back in service in a day. Excellent point.