4 ms·

They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that ta

by hga 12y ago

They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that targets, without even having the ability to arm their warheads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ); SLBMs are trump cards against undetectable attacks, or at least ones that can be detected in time, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment... You'd also have to be very confident in your ability to carry out a first strike. Ah, and there's a quick fix, a limited ABM deployment (we've got them and are pretty confident they work). Since you can't pick which warheads get taken out by the ABM systems, the difficultly becomes massively greater. Note also that historically only the US believed in MAD, the Soviets correctly thought it was unmitigated evil. Then again, they had to accept it....

pm90 12y ago
Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- hga 12y ago
  I didn't clearly state my case. A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan? If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.
  - cocoablazing 12y ago
    No ABM system has demonstrated success against either MIRVs or deployed PENAIDS (much less 53T6), but more to the point BM's of any sort are not a first strike weapon (given US and RF radar nets, 24/7 US launch detection capability, and part-of-the-day RF launch detection capability). If the US has a first strike weapon, it's a fleet of nuclear-capable stealth bombers employing GPS-guided laydown-capable munitions, coupled with a pretty nasty set of eyes in the sky to find mobile launchers. F-35 is also stealth and MAY get a B61 interface to replace NATO Tornados and F-16s, etc.
adventured 12y ago
Not to mention that over the next 20 years, it seems very likely our nuclear delivery options will expand to the UAV field in some manner or another. And we'll also see advances when it comes to very long range, hypersonic strike weapons that can carry nuclear payloads (Prompt Global Strike, you can bet they'll be able to slap a small nuke on it, whether they openly admit that or not).
cocoablazing 12y ago
This is outdated information. FOBS are not deployed, and there are no US/NATO aircraft on alert. I don't know who you are speaking for regarding confidence in ABM's, but it's not the community of technical professionals that analyze strategic defense and deterrence. SLBM's are not a trump card, since if they are what you are relying on for counter-strike, your nation has been annihilated.

by hga 12y ago

pm90 12y ago

Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

hga 12y ago
I didn't clearly state my case. A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan? If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.
- cocoablazing 12y ago
  No ABM system has demonstrated success against either MIRVs or deployed PENAIDS (much less 53T6), but more to the point BM's of any sort are not a first strike weapon (given US and RF radar nets, 24/7 US launch detection capability, and part-of-the-day RF launch detection capability). If the US has a first strike weapon, it's a fleet of nuclear-capable stealth bombers employing GPS-guided laydown-capable munitions, coupled with a pretty nasty set of eyes in the sky to find mobile launchers. F-35 is also stealth and MAY get a B61 interface to replace NATO Tornados and F-16s, etc.

adventured 12y ago

Not to mention that over the next 20 years, it seems very likely our nuclear delivery options will expand to the UAV field in some manner or another. And we'll also see advances when it comes to very long range, hypersonic strike weapons that can carry nuclear payloads (Prompt Global Strike, you can bet they'll be able to slap a small nuke on it, whether they openly admit that or not).

cocoablazing 12y ago

This is outdated information. FOBS are not deployed, and there are no US/NATO aircraft on alert. I don't know who you are speaking for regarding confidence in ABM's, but it's not the community of technical professionals that analyze strategic defense and deterrence. SLBM's are not a trump card, since if they are what you are relying on for counter-strike, your nation has been annihilated.