4 ms·

Nuclear ballistic missile-armed submarines are considered second strike weapons, even though there are first strike scenarios for their use. Their missiles don

by dimitar 12y ago

Nuclear ballistic missile-armed submarines are considered second strike weapons, even though there are first strike scenarios for their use. Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. Thus second-strike forces are supposed to act as deterrence. Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles.

cocoablazing 12y ago
What is your reference for this range assertion? OS intelligence says that US SLBM's can strike any target in Eurasia from either ocean. What is your reference for the assertion that Trident is vulnerable to ABM? RF has no operational ABM system capable of striking RB's entering at 8 km/s. Why do submarines have to move quickly to enable a first strike? Can't they just stealthily move into the exact position necessary days prior to launch? You should review what public data is available on Trident testing, because it contradicts every one of your assertions. The Trident equipment section has been observed conducting 14 distinct warhead release maneuvers in space. The largest warhead Trident can carry is estimated to have a 500kt yield. Trident is estimated to carry a max loadout to >7e3 km, and a reduced (treaty) loadout to >11e3km. It is also estimated to exhibit the precision necessary to guarantee kills against the latest Russian silos (envelop the silo structure within the earthen blast cavity). This means that the Trident fleet can strike and neutralize every counter-force target in Eurasia from defended waters. There is no "proper air defence to take down the missiles" in existence, and there is no indication that current ABM programs have any hope of defeating a MIRV'd fleet of solid fuel launchers.
desdiv 12y ago
Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. You're severely underestimating the range of SLBMs. The Russian RSM-56 can cover the entire continental US from both Saint Petersburg and Vladivostok.
tsotha 12y ago
>Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. This is just wrong. We're talking about ballistic missiles here, not cruise missiles. There isn't a spot on the face of the earth that can't be nuked by a sub from a safe distance. >Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Also mostly wrong. Only a handful of countries have any defense at all against an IRBM, those defenses only cover a tiny portion of their respective territory, and are both unreliable and relatively easily defeated. >Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. Why? If I launch a missile hundreds of miles from enemy ships they're not going to find me. The only thing I have to worry about is a nuclear response, which is a hazard for any platform conducting a first strike. >However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. If by "close" you mean 4000 miles. I guess it's a relative term. >Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles. Air defense that wasn't specifically designed to take down ballistic missiles won't have any effect at all. You're confusing ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. The former are an order of magnitude more difficult to deal with from a planning perspective.

by dimitar 12y ago

cocoablazing 12y ago

What is your reference for this range assertion? OS intelligence says that US SLBM's can strike any target in Eurasia from either ocean. What is your reference for the assertion that Trident is vulnerable to ABM? RF has no operational ABM system capable of striking RB's entering at 8 km/s. Why do submarines have to move quickly to enable a first strike? Can't they just stealthily move into the exact position necessary days prior to launch? You should review what public data is available on Trident testing, because it contradicts every one of your assertions. The Trident equipment section has been observed conducting 14 distinct warhead release maneuvers in space. The largest warhead Trident can carry is estimated to have a 500kt yield. Trident is estimated to carry a max loadout to >7e3 km, and a reduced (treaty) loadout to >11e3km. It is also estimated to exhibit the precision necessary to guarantee kills against the latest Russian silos (envelop the silo structure within the earthen blast cavity). This means that the Trident fleet can strike and neutralize every counter-force target in Eurasia from defended waters. There is no "proper air defence to take down the missiles" in existence, and there is no indication that current ABM programs have any hope of defeating a MIRV'd fleet of solid fuel launchers.

desdiv 12y ago

Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. You're severely underestimating the range of SLBMs. The Russian RSM-56 can cover the entire continental US from both Saint Petersburg and Vladivostok.

tsotha 12y ago

>Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. This is just wrong. We're talking about ballistic missiles here, not cruise missiles. There isn't a spot on the face of the earth that can't be nuked by a sub from a safe distance. >Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Also mostly wrong. Only a handful of countries have any defense at all against an IRBM, those defenses only cover a tiny portion of their respective territory, and are both unreliable and relatively easily defeated. >Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. Why? If I launch a missile hundreds of miles from enemy ships they're not going to find me. The only thing I have to worry about is a nuclear response, which is a hazard for any platform conducting a first strike. >However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. If by "close" you mean 4000 miles. I guess it's a relative term. >Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles. Air defense that wasn't specifically designed to take down ballistic missiles won't have any effect at all. You're confusing ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. The former are an order of magnitude more difficult to deal with from a planning perspective.