3 ms·

I guess I was factoring in how much more effective an SLBM is (in stealth of platform, short flight time, and therefore accuracy) vs something that has to fly a

by dmix 3y ago

I guess I was factoring in how much more effective an SLBM is (in stealth of platform, short flight time, and therefore accuracy) vs something that has to fly a thousand KM with plenty of time to prep your own response. But yeah no doubt the platform makes it more expensive. As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. The fear of the unpredictability and small response times via having it potentially parked next door adds to the deterrence.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
I thought similarly. The problem is an SLBM-only force is usually survivable. That opens the field to sacrificing a few bases and cities for vaporising the adversary. Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it. Not even the US? I was under the impression that the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD, so that the land and bomber-based forces were pretty much redundant.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/199307rethinkingtrident.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-...
    - tivert 3y ago
      > 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. Even if that's the correct interpretation of the capabilities, it doesn't mean MAD can't be implemented. It just means it needs countervalue targets (cities and industry) vs only counterforce targets (military).
TMWNN 3y ago
>As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. This is what the UK did, in shrinking its nuclear forces to Trident submarines.

by dmix 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

I thought similarly. The problem is an SLBM-only force is usually survivable. That opens the field to sacrificing a few bases and cities for vaporising the adversary. Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it.

tivert 3y ago
> Creating a MAD SLBM force is still so expensive that nobody does it. Not even the US? I was under the impression that the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD, so that the land and bomber-based forces were pretty much redundant.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the US had enough SLBM to implement MAD 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/199307rethinkingtrident.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-...
  - tivert 3y ago
    > 1,750 warheads, per New START [1], on a few hundred missiles. That’s enough to wreak havoc. But given missile defense and offshore basing, reality for most of our adversaries, it leaves a lot of the enemy’s fighting capacity intact. Even if that's the correct interpretation of the capabilities, it doesn't mean MAD can't be implemented. It just means it needs countervalue targets (cities and industry) vs only counterforce targets (military).

TMWNN 3y ago

>As good as ICBM MIRVs are and assuming a minor nuclear war is as bad as a bit one, if I had to choose to reduce capability on a tighter budget I'd make it about that. This is what the UK did, in shrinking its nuclear forces to Trident submarines.