I don't live in a submarine.



Also, the Ruskies retired the high altitude EMP version of the R-36 in 2009 anyway if I remember right.



 

Obama wants a nuclear free world.  I personally like MAD.

From my understanding China, NK, Pakistan and India all have srbm and mrbm mobile launchers.

Russian mobile launch technology is FAR beyond what we have. When was the last time we test fired one of our missiles by using it to put satellites in orbit? Russia sure has.

Kinda weird to think about kids growing up now a days not even realizing that the Russians could nuke us off the map.
Sure we could hit them back, and nuke them to the stone age. But if they launched first, well.......America is going to
have a real bad day.

Weird.....it just seems so damn foreign to not realize that.


Nukes....how the frak do they work....?

And yes, they're still there.

 

Proof to backup that claim OR BAN

 

I'd like a nuclear weapon-free world, too, but I'm not so foolish enough as to actually think such a thing is possible when there are still plenty of people in the world who desire power enough to kill their fellow man for it!





I might as well wish to be 10 feet tall and hung like an elephant.    None of the above are going to happen during my lifetime!





CJ





 

Have you ever seen mobile US launchers?

We have one , it doesn't work and it's in the front lawn of Wright Patterson AFB. Russia has been selling their mobile launchers for years (remember SCUDs?) to plenty of countries. We might look down on them , but Russians aren't completely stupid.

I wouldn't like a nuclear weapon free world. I'd like to be armed with the greatest, most destructive and devastating weapons at all times, so me and mine, my country and my allies could feel safe. Even if there wasn't any obvious threat to our existence, EVEN if there wasn't another nuclear armed alliance against us in the world.

 

oops I didn't see the mobile part. I thought you meant russian missiles were far beyond us missiles. my bad.

 

Which was essential for them, because of the first point of your post.

they have the SS25 because its their ONLY real 2nd strike deterrant.  And it isn't that good.  Throw weight is shit.

yay Sylvan is here to tell us how we're all wrong

Throw weight isn't everything and only matters when you can't hit your target. And stuff.



They've got the Topol, Topol M, and now the RS-24 these days, which all comprise the 'SS25' family if that's how you choose to look at it I guess.



 

share more, if unclassified

 

                                                        "Change Has Come To Amerika"            

What anti-missile systems?  Airborn laser is dead, Star wars is on hold - other than some theater BM defense and a little Navy capability - we gots nuttin.

Right, but that particular version of the R-36 was apparently designed specifically for that purpose, with a 20 MT warhead. Theoretically this is indicative of a change in doctrine for them. Or an advance in technology.





 

Which the soviets still can't do.  the problem with a road mobile system is you are total system limited, and hence, throw weight limited.
SLBMs have a short range and a good throw weight because of that.  Because the soviets never had confidence in their submarines lasting longer than 5 minutes, they needed another retalitory capability, so they shit the SS25.  Its a horrible compromise because their submarine force was never trustworthy as a true second strike capability.

Keep swinging tough guy.

The Peacekeeper 'rail garrisons' were only not deployed due to the end of the cold war and cost, not because the doctrine of mobile ICBMs is inherently flawed. You know this.





 

Uh, GMD?  Its inventory limited, but its a lot more than theater missile defense which is what the navy system is.

we do have an ICBM defensive capability that is operational.

Its not flawed, but for us, it wasn't necesssary.  We already had a valid mobile nuclear capability.  the soviets did not.

Either throw weight matters or it doesn't. We've already determined it doesn't.
Its funny how when Russia has a high throw weight missile, its because it sucks, and when they have to compromise on throw weight, its also because it sucks.





ETA: Not much is known about the RS-24 yet, but most information suggests its MIRVs have a higher total combined yield than those of a Minuteman III, despite also being mobile.
 

Coward? How do you come up with that? I don't like him but he has done a lot of stuff others in our party didn't and said they wouldn't do. He maybe fucking up the economy but a coward he isn't.

Its funny because you can't figure out WHY throw weight matters.

A silo based system has essentially no limitations other than cost.  The soviets went big because they lacked the inertial accuracy.  Despite the fact we had the same freedom, we went with smaller warheads.  
The SS25 has shit throw weight because it HAS to.  Not because of some superior soviet technology.  Because of the cost of mobile systems over static, you want to max the capability of each system.  thats why you have 12 or more RVs on each D5 to maximize the capabilities for the cost.  we get that throw weight because our submarines can get close enough to compensate for the short range.
Soviets can't play that game because their road mobile systems are limited geographically.

do you really not get this or are you just incapable of admitting you are wrong?

The one not-shitty thing about being here in CA. Get to watch our birds on there way to the south Pacific every few months. Sometimes more often than that.

Launch dates

The amount of shit that NRO and NSA fling up there is scary. They REALLY like there birds.

My understaning, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have the capacity to stop a "rouge nation" launch - not a Russian attack.

Our capability is fairly well known, but it is between the two extremes you mention.

And the exact reason Russia is pissy about Missile Defense...it isn't mutual if we can counter their launches.

Sure...and they couldn't stop a Cessna flown from West Germany by a teenager from landing in Red Square....

as you mentioned i think this is as good as it gets for now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System


 

If Russian ICBMs are as reliable and accurate as the rest of their shit, there's gonna be a lot of dead missiles falling into the Canadian tundra when they try to nuke us.

Bring it on, Putey.

As far as I know, THAAD doesn't have the capability to counter ICBMs. Reentry speeds and all that shit, Forest could probably explain it better.

 

SRBMs and MRBMs are irrelevant to the subject here, as they don't threaten the US.
Our only ICBM counter is GMD at this point.

Nuclear weapons and you really need to read more.  Considering that our economy is teetering on the brink, then yes, they certainly have the capability to "Destroy" the US, even if only a couple hundred got through.    Would our long term prospects actually improve?   Maybe, but in the short term, The term "Destroyed" would be appropriate.



 

I got it guys!





 +    = perfect solution

What about something along the lines of a Club-K launch from near or in ports directed at high value targets? I don't see much that would defend against that sort of thing.

SM-3 and SPY-1/D

How do they work?

GO NAVY.

I don't even know where to begin.

First, MAD (as a stated doctrine) went out of style in the late 60s, as our weapons platforms got more accurate and we could afford to NOT carpet-bomb with nukes.  New doctrine is actually one of "Flexible Response."  Idea is that we will NOT go scorched-earth on our enemies, and will instead look for a minimum of escalation and respond with force that fits the threat.  The issue with MAD was one of control & escalation––there was no reason for our adversaries to hold back under MAD, since we were planning on annihilating them on contact.

Second––"Destroy the country in a half hour."  FACT:  Moscow Treaty of 2006 limited both sides to 1700-2200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons.  Defined as A) mated reentry vehicles mounted on a bulkhead attached to an on-alert ICBM; B) mated reentry vehicles mounted on a bulkhead attached to an on-alert SLBM; and C) any air-dropped weapon stored on a bomber base.  (Reason for the differences is it takes a couple of days to change the configuration of an IC or SL, but I can up/download a bomber in a matter of hours.)  START III is going to reduce that even farther to 1550 ODSNWs.  Both treaties have verification regimes in place to avoid cheating by the other side.

Third––targeting.  US and Soviet (now Russian) targeting strategies are counterforce, not countervalue.  In other words, we don't target cities, and neither do they.  We both target valid military targets in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.  As a result, we'll take a lot of hits to the missile fields, for example, but Boston Harbor's not exactly a priority target anymore––the Russians just don't have the weapons to spare, given the need to go after fielded forces, command and control, etc.

So, as I've posted in other threads, let's take the MAX # of weapons (2200) and assign an arbitrary yield of 1Mt for each (to make the math easy).  Given ideal figures for blast radius, etc., the TOTAL amount of land of the United States (as a percentage) affected would be.......



6.5%.  About 2/3s the size of the state of Montana.  Leaves 94.5% of the nation's land area essentially untouched. (Fallout's too unpredictable to figure in these kind of rough calculations.)

Not the end of the country.  Still a LOT of land, infrastructure, farmer's fields, etc. surviving intact.  Fallout's a problem for about three weeks directly, then an issue as it concentrates in the food chain.  Command and control?  Probably disrupted.  Government functions?  Federally jacked, locally no change.  Power?  Still going, for the most part.  

Plays well to the newsies, but not necessarily accurate.

About 3 a year, one from each base.  They literally pick an ICBM on alert at random from each base, pull the RVs, pull the missile, fly it to Vandenberg AFB, install range-safety and telemetry, load some concrete bombs and let fly to see if it works.

Minuteman on-alert rate is very, VERY close to 100%.  

Russian SRF is their cream of the crop. They are a stand-alone service (not part of their Army as most people believe) and are the only branch that was fully (okay, mostly) funded during the 90s and 2000s after the fall of the Soviet Union.  While the Army was going without pay for months and was selling weapons to buy food, the SRF was sitting pretty.  

Their long-range aviation has always been a medium contender as far as skill/capabilities go, but REALLY took a beating after the fall of the USSR.  

Sub forces?  Totally different story.    Then again, the Soviets/Russians have always relied on their SRF as their main and second-strike deterrent forces.

LOL



 

Thanks for that.  I always enjoy your input in the nuke threads.  The amount of ignorance that you need to correct from both ends of the spectrum is just astounding.  



To comment on what you said, even if only half of the warheads detonated, lets say 800, I think "Destroyed" would be an accurate description of the state of our Nation.    Is there any way to verify that they aren't targeting population centers any more?  



Assuming that they choose to target military installations with 90% of their warheads, that still leaves 80 cities hit- give of take.  



When you consider how badly 9/11 or Katrina effected our economy and National Debt, it's pretty easy to see that something 80 times worse would result in some very bad things.  Of course, it wouldn't result in the end of humanity or anything close to that, but it would change forever the nature and direction of our country.  



I guess the whole discussion hinges on the definition of the word "Destroyed"