3 ms·
The idea is that it is not an empty silo. The thinking is that if your opponent wants to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against you, they'll need to target
by typest 6y ago
The idea is that it is not an empty silo. The thinking is that if your opponent wants to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against you, they'll need to target all your nuclear missiles with theirs, to prevent you from retaliation. If you have lots of missiles spread out in otherwise non-strategic locations, you can make it harder for your opponent to preemptively strike you, as they'll have to destroy all these random missiles to prevent counter attack. In doing so, they would be failing to target densely populated areas, which would lower the efficacy of their attack.
Not saying I agree or disagree with it. But, that's the logic, anyway.
- jandrese 6y agoI don't think even the US has harbored the insane notion that you could strike all of the missile silos and avoid retaliation. The operating principal for nuclear missiles is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This goes double if nuclear submarines exist (they do). Plus nuclear bunkers are supposed to be hardened against nuclear strike. So they could absorb the hit and still launch. Nuclear weapons are actually pretty poor at destroying protected underground facilities. You need something completely different: a heavy piercing bunker buster bomb full of conventional explosives. Plus, even if you were magically successful in destroying all of your opponent's nukes without retaliation you've still completely wrecked the environment. Fallout and nuclear winter are still going to ruin your victory.
- chipsa 6y agoMutually assured destruction is not a policy. The actual US policy is assured destruction: use WMDs on us and we will destroy you, and e will posture or things to be able to assure that we can.