4 ms·

This is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot abo

This is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot about modern ICBM strategy?

fenk85 9y ago
We were not, these weapons (and medium range missiles) were banned under treaties, but Russia tore this up.
- evrydayhustling 9y ago
  I found a couple of recent articles with some of the details here. It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities [1]... but I don't see a mention of a treaty there, although the other article [2] mentions these new developments as a way to pressure Russian compliance with existing treaties. Is INF the treaty you are mentioning being ignored? Is Russia's announcement a direct response to the USA's? Disappointed that recent history hasn't been even mentioned in most reporting around the announcement -- it's a pretty shocking headline to wake up to without context. [1] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be-getting-2-new-nuclear-capabilities-here-are-the-details/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be... [2] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-trade-its-new-sub-launched-cruise-missile-for-russian-arms-treaty-compliance/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-tra...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities No, the US had nuclear cruise missiles deployable on subs since the 1980s or possibly 1970s (I can't find a good date for introduction of the TLAM-N, only that development began 1972 and it was announced they would be transfered to storage in 1991 and they were retired between 2010 and 2013.) What your source reports is a recommendation to introduce a new nuclear cruise missiles replacing the retired TLAM-N.
ekianjo 9y ago
Submarines with nukes that cannot be easily located is where the deterrence is. There is virtually no good defense against such capabilities, so this long range low altitude nuke changes nothing.
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  There is still however a chance of defence against SLBMs, between hypersonic anti-missile-missiles, and THAAD - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html With a SLAM spewing radiation as it goes, however, you're stuffed either way.
  - dx034 9y ago
    If you shoot it down at high altitude, wouldn't winds carry most of the radiation around the planet? Doesn't make it better for humanity but means the country (esp if it's a small one) wouldn't be as affected. For the US, if a missile coming from the east is shot down over the Atlantic, radiation would probably hit Europe and Russia rather than the US.
  - spookyuser 9y ago
    Tangential, but just wondering: who is this website for? Surely there are no private citizens buying ballistic missile defence weapons and if a nation state had enough resources to consider buying something like this, would they not also have enough resources that they wouldn't be searching for their defense armament online?
    - MollyR 9y ago
      Its for warlords.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I imagine it’s for the workers who make up a big part of the decision-making process for military acquisitions. If you ride the DC Metro through the Pentagon stop, you’ll see a lot of ads for high-end weapons systems where other subway systems might have ads for lawyers and universities and such. It’s amusing and peculiar.

This is pretty terrifying, but weren't we already living in a world where sub mounted cruise missiles could bypass most defense systems? Anybody know a lot about modern ICBM strategy?

fenk85 9y ago

We were not, these weapons (and medium range missiles) were banned under treaties, but Russia tore this up.

evrydayhustling 9y ago
I found a couple of recent articles with some of the details here. It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities [1]... but I don't see a mention of a treaty there, although the other article [2] mentions these new developments as a way to pressure Russian compliance with existing treaties. Is INF the treaty you are mentioning being ignored? Is Russia's announcement a direct response to the USA's? Disappointed that recent history hasn't been even mentioned in most reporting around the announcement -- it's a pretty shocking headline to wake up to without context. [1] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be-getting-2-new-nuclear-capabilities-here-are-the-details/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/02/the-us-could-be... [2] https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-trade-its-new-sub-launched-cruise-missile-for-russian-arms-treaty-compliance/ https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/02/06/will-the-us-tra...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It looks like USA was known to have submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) but only recently announced adding cruise capabilities No, the US had nuclear cruise missiles deployable on subs since the 1980s or possibly 1970s (I can't find a good date for introduction of the TLAM-N, only that development began 1972 and it was announced they would be transfered to storage in 1991 and they were retired between 2010 and 2013.) What your source reports is a recommendation to introduce a new nuclear cruise missiles replacing the retired TLAM-N.

ekianjo 9y ago

Submarines with nukes that cannot be easily located is where the deterrence is. There is virtually no good defense against such capabilities, so this long range low altitude nuke changes nothing.

madaxe_again 9y ago
There is still however a chance of defence against SLBMs, between hypersonic anti-missile-missiles, and THAAD - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/thaad.html With a SLAM spewing radiation as it goes, however, you're stuffed either way.
- dx034 9y ago
  If you shoot it down at high altitude, wouldn't winds carry most of the radiation around the planet? Doesn't make it better for humanity but means the country (esp if it's a small one) wouldn't be as affected. For the US, if a missile coming from the east is shot down over the Atlantic, radiation would probably hit Europe and Russia rather than the US.
- spookyuser 9y ago
  Tangential, but just wondering: who is this website for? Surely there are no private citizens buying ballistic missile defence weapons and if a nation state had enough resources to consider buying something like this, would they not also have enough resources that they wouldn't be searching for their defense armament online?
  - MollyR 9y ago
    Its for warlords.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I imagine it’s for the workers who make up a big part of the decision-making process for military acquisitions. If you ride the DC Metro through the Pentagon stop, you’ll see a lot of ads for high-end weapons systems where other subway systems might have ads for lawyers and universities and such. It’s amusing and peculiar.