3 ms·
The big advantages of land based ICBM’s over the other are as follows. With respect to bombers, they are a lot more certain. With modern anti-aircraft systems,
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The big advantages of land based ICBM’s over the other are as follows.
With respect to bombers, they are a lot more certain. With modern anti-aircraft systems, it is uncertain how many bombers would actually make it through.
With respect to SLBM, they are less prone to destruction in normal warfare. What happens if an enemy destroys a ballistic submarine? Do you go to nuclear war over that? What about two? With land based ICBMs to destroy one, you basically need to attack it with a nuclear level weapon in the middle of the country making your intentions clear.
Finally, as mentioned in the article, the land based ICBMs absorb a lot of the enemy nuclear arsenal, since there are a lot of them dispersed over a wide geographic area.
- philipkglass 6y agoWith respect to SLBM, they are less prone to destruction in normal warfare. What happens if an enemy destroys a ballistic submarine? Do you go to nuclear war over that? What about two? The only way that I see this question arising is if there were direct, open warfare with another highly capable nuclear weapons state. But if the US has gone to war with such a NWS, I think that the logic of rational deterrence has already failed on at least one side -- even if neither side has yet used nuclear arms. Outcomes after that point can't be calculated on the basis of rational cost-benefit analysis because rationality is no longer the driving force. I find the logic of mutually assured destruction sound as far as it goes. Empirically, it seems correlated with a long period free of (direct) warfare between great powers. But I fear that this mechanism is brittle. It's one accident or leadership cognitive error away from shattering.