3 ms·
No it doesn't. Ballistic missile submarines are exclusively useful as second strike weapons: they don't carry enough warheads, nor are they accurate enough to f
by XorNot 4y ago
No it doesn't. Ballistic missile submarines are exclusively useful as second strike weapons: they don't carry enough warheads, nor are they accurate enough to first strike weapons (which have to reliably hit military targets and threaten an opponent's retaliation ability).
- trasz 4y agoNot true; subs are part of every carrier fleet.
- trashtester 4y agoThose would be Virginia class attacks subs, not ballistic missile subs, I think. An Ohio class could be added temporarily, though, to add even more cruise missile capability to the task force. (Since they, or at least some of them, are now dual purpose platforms.)
- dylan604 4y agoAnd how many of those Ohio class subs actually carry missles and have not been filled with cement ballast?
- trashtester 4y agoI expect such things to be confidential....
- dylan604 4y agoSo confidential that the information is listed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
- Retric 4y agoA treaty limited them to 20 ICMB’s on each of 14 subs down from 24. Each ICMB can hold 12 independently targeting 100kt warheads or 8 larger 0.45 MT nukes. However, it might be that less than 20 missiles are loaded and or teach ICBM is not carrying the maximum capacity of nukes, but we just don’t know.
- wbl 4y agoYou would be impressed at how good INS systems have gotten plus if GPS is still up you have just as good a fix as on land.
- robocat 4y agoIf doing a first strike, submarine launched missiles could easily be useful simultaneously with land based launches.
- XorNot 4y agoAgain: no they aren't, except in a narrow and strategically irrelevant "well it's still a missile you can launch". If you're executing a first strike, then your goal has to be to take out your opponents ability to retaliate...or you're trying to pull off a limited first strike. In both cases, submarines add no strategic value if used: in the limited strike scenario you give away a submarines location, and in the first-strike scenario you are not going to have enough missiles, with up to date enough targeting data, in order to hit targets any quicker then land-launched ICBMs are. The time you waste trying to maneuver your submarines close enough to your target to launch, the fact that it's entirely possible they get taken out before they launch their entire payload (US and Russian subs shadow each other as a matter of course to track their movements), and the inherent communications problems coordinating with submarines all make them irrelevant as first-strike weapons. The point of a nuclear ballistic missile submarine is a guaranteed second-strike capability. Your opponent might surprise you take out your bombers. They might surprise you can take out your land-based ICBMs. But there's no way they can ever be sure they got every boomer sub, and boomer subs don't target military targets: they target cities, capitals and command bunkers. They exist to ensure no useful advantage is ever gained from first-strike.