User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:17:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not quite the same thing. OP was asking what a missile boat would after expending its missiles, not what they would do if the home country (or at least if BBC Radio 4,) was knocked out. As an aside, given that being a metric for the opening of the things, I wonder how much money the U.K. spent to make very darn sure BBC Radio 4 never went down? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, look at how the Brits handled it: Letters of Last Resort While I'm sure the particulars differ they do give a pretty good idea of the available options. Not quite the same thing. OP was asking what a missile boat would after expending its missiles, not what they would do if the home country (or at least if BBC Radio 4,) was knocked out. As an aside, given that being a metric for the opening of the things, I wonder how much money the U.K. spent to make very darn sure BBC Radio 4 never went down? The most interesting part to me was the indication that the Brits had considered the option of escaping to an allied country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:19:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, look at how the Brits handled it: Letters of Last Resort While I'm sure the particulars differ they do give a pretty good idea of the available options.  " />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:25:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most interesting part to me was the indication that the Brits had considered the option of escaping to an allied country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, look at how the Brits handled it: Letters of Last Resort While I'm sure the particulars differ they do give a pretty good idea of the available options. Not quite the same thing. OP was asking what a missile boat would after expending its missiles, not what they would do if the home country (or at least if BBC Radio 4,) was knocked out. As an aside, given that being a metric for the opening of the things, I wonder how much money the U.K. spent to make very darn sure BBC Radio 4 never went down? The most interesting part to me was the indication that the Brits had considered the option of escaping to an allied country. I'm still just think about an imaginary conversation in Whitehall: "Sir! We've a problem with the submarine communications system! We can't get in touch with our missile sub!" "Nothing to worry about, my dear chap, nothing to worry about." "But Sir, there's also a power outage in the West End!" "Bloody hell." ETA: Seems I jested too soon----apparently, if the Manchester Evening News is to be believed, there was a scare in '04 when Radio 4 actually went off the air for a bit. I rather doubt it was that serious of an issue, given that everything else in the world was working, but still. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:32:29 PM EDT
[#4]
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone.
the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:51:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most interesting part to me was the indication that the Brits had considered the option of escaping to an allied country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, look at how the Brits handled it: Letters of Last Resort While I'm sure the particulars differ they do give a pretty good idea of the available options. Not quite the same thing. OP was asking what a missile boat would after expending its missiles, not what they would do if the home country (or at least if BBC Radio 4,) was knocked out. As an aside, given that being a metric for the opening of the things, I wonder how much money the U.K. spent to make very darn sure BBC Radio 4 never went down? The most interesting part to me was the indication that the Brits had considered the option of escaping to an allied country. What the article references is to have them fall under the C2 of an allied country. England has to worry since they are relatively physically small having their national command authority quickly eliminated with little flight time for warning. At least here there's enough space around to spread out risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:51:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. I'd have to think AU or NZ would offer a port they could respply at. Not sure if they'd be targets by the Soviets, so they might be in danger from that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:54:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh those silly all male crews...  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
During the Cold War they were going to beach on an uninhabated island and start repopulating the world. Oh those silly all male crews... Don't be ridiculous. There would be plenty of women to pick up from the oceans after they were blown out of their countries by the nukes. That's why you want all male crews. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 2:57:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. Uh, what? 
ETA: Ok, maybe someone can tell me I'm wrong, but a UGM-133 seems to weigh 130,000 pounds, per Wikipedia. The physical dimensions of said missile, ignoring the space around the missile in the tube, are such that water, occupying the same space, would weigh nearly three times that. ETA2: I guess if they launched on the surface, then submerged with the missile doors sealed.........but even then I doubt it. In short: that's not how it works; that's not how any of this works! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:02:35 PM EDT
[#9]
So after full on exchange the other side is going to instantly know when a sub surfaces anywhere in the world and meets up with a surface ship .... really?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:20:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Irrelevant. The UFO people would have revealed themselves and deactivated all the missiles mid-flight. No high-energy weapons would work anymore, so we'd have to go back to bludgeoning each other to death.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:27:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. Uhhhh, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:32:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Go to Australia and repopulate with convict girls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:34:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So after full on exchange the other side is going to instantly know when a sub surfaces anywhere in the world and meets up with a surface ship .... really? In the event of a full exchange, will assets on either side capable of ASW continue seeking enemy subs (likely with extra vigor) until they themselves are neutralized? Most likely. Will subs be able to get reliable communications to some higher command capable of authorizing resupply missions to rendezvous with said subs in a safe environment without the possibility of interception by the other side? Not likely. Will random resupply assets cruise around looking for friendly subs to help? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:45:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sheesh, what does he know? Besides, he's obviously crazy and shouldn't be trusted, since he, you know, served on subs.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would think they are easily resupplied at sea ... then their job would be finding enemy naval forces No submarine is easily resupplied at sea. And during a shooting war, you don't want a submarine hanging out surfaced. I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Yeah god forbid you actually listen to the guy who has SERVED ON SUBS........ Sheesh, what does he know? Besides, he's obviously crazy and shouldn't be trusted, since he, you know, served on subs. Those bubblehead dudes are a little..off |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:47:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't a Boomer that has shot it's missile now just a big slow Really, Really, REALLY Quiet attack boat? FTFY :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:49:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. If you take the missiles out pierside, yes, you have to add ballast. But when you launch them, the tubes fill with water. There are comp tanks that automatically adjust for the slight diff between seawater and the weight of the missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 3:51:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. Yes they could. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:08:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes they could. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. Yes they could. What do you know? Like, dude, you were obviously a truck driver in the army or something, so you must know nothing about them fancy boats what go under the waves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:09:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would think they are easily resupplied at sea ... then their job would be finding enemy naval forces No submarine is easily resupplied at sea. And during a shooting war, you don't want a submarine hanging out surfaced. I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:11:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So after full on exchange the other side is going to instantly know when a sub surfaces anywhere in the world and meets up with a surface ship .... really? Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:12:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would think they are easily resupplied at sea ... then their job would be finding enemy naval forces No submarine is easily resupplied at sea. And during a shooting war, you don't want a submarine hanging out surfaced. I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Lol Helo transfers were always exciting. I always thought I'd rather take my chances with the corpsman and his DIY surgery videos than having to get helo'd off if I got badly hurt or sick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:15:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:19:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:20:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Once an SSBN shoots its load it becomes an SSN. And they are not that slow. Not as fast as an SSN but still not slow by any means.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:27:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Those bubblehead dudes are a little..off
Hey dude, I resemble that remark! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:29:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
During the Cold War they were going to beach on an uninhabated island and start repopulating the world. nvm 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:34:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Helo transfers were always exciting. I always thought I'd rather take my chances with the corpsman and his DIY surgery videos than having to get helo'd off if I got badly hurt or sick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would think they are easily resupplied at sea ... then their job would be finding enemy naval forces No submarine is easily resupplied at sea. And during a shooting war, you don't want a submarine hanging out surfaced. I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Lol Helo transfers were always exciting. I always thought I'd rather take my chances with the corpsman and his DIY surgery videos than having to get helo'd off if I got badly hurt or sick. Eh... you guys just don't do them enough to be confident in the ability of our rotorheaded brethren.
Seriously though, I always said the only thing that would get me on a wire voluntarily were the words "manila highline" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 4:40:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Helo transfers were always exciting. I always thought I'd rather take my chances with the corpsman and his DIY surgery videos than having to get helo'd off if I got badly hurt or sick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would think they are easily resupplied at sea ... then their job would be finding enemy naval forces No submarine is easily resupplied at sea. And during a shooting war, you don't want a submarine hanging out surfaced. I find that very hard to believe ... especially if they are out of food. Lol Helo transfers were always exciting. I always thought I'd rather take my chances with the corpsman and his DIY surgery videos than having to get helo'd off if I got badly hurt or sick. Yeah, I saw those twice in twenty years. And both times were high speed low drag types for training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 6:54:12 PM EDT
[#29]
I would imagine that a Submarine Tender would have some capacity to reload a submarine is supports...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 7:00:08 PM EDT
[#30]
They have torpedoes... hunt surface ships. Then head to Tahiti and repopulate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 7:11:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Where are the approximate areas US SSBNs patrol? For the Pacific. I'd figure it'd be south of the Gulf of Alaska outside of shipping lanes. No idea where they'd be in the Atlantic. Out in the mid-north Atlantic somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 7:56:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would imagine that a Submarine Tender would have some capacity to reload a submarine is supports... http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1987/DD-ST-87-08790.jpeg http://mscsealift.dodlive.mil/files/2013/03/USS-Frank-Cable-V.jpg If the wiki is accurate we've only got two tenders left. There's mention of them being capable of passing out tomahawks but I can't find anything suggesting they can UNREP a Trident II. 
The tomahawks look a lot easier to manage provided they're not loaded in seven at a time like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:08:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are the approximate areas US SSBNs patrol? For the Pacific. I'd figure it'd be south of the Gulf of Alaska outside of shipping lanes. No idea where they'd be in the Atlantic. Out in the mid-north Atlantic somewhere? That is one of the things that only a select few have any idea about. The ssbn patrols were one of the highest claclassifications. Yes they could possibly patrol mid Pacific closer the the western side. I know our ssns play cat and mouse with the russian ssns and ssbns but that is their primary job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:11:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With what women? During the Cold War there were no women on subs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: During the Cold War they were going to beach on an uninhabated island and start repopulating the world. With what women? During the Cold War there were no women on subs. Okay.... that was the only flaw in the plan.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:17:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At about the level of optimism involved in panning for gold in your own shower. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:20:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Does anyone else know that we (the nuclear equipped nations) have exploded something like 2100 nuclear weapons since 1945? IIRC about half above ground-granted in "isolated" parts of the world but still......
I'm not saying a full on nuke war wouldn't suck.....but I think a lot of us would survive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:22:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. Don't they naturally flood upon firing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:22:06 PM EDT
[#38]
If you do a little research from the 80's a Victor class ssn was caught in a fishing net in the Puget sound. It drug a fishing boat for a few miles befor surfacing to get untangled. That is how close they got. You van assume ours would do the same.
The statement about an ssbn being a big SLOW ssn after launch, well lets just say they are a lot faster than you might think. But yes they are a big ssn after launch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:22:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would imagine that a Submarine Tender would have some capacity to reload a submarine is supports... http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1987/DD-ST-87-08790.jpeg http://mscsealift.dodlive.mil/files/2013/03/USS-Frank-Cable-V.jpg Yes, in protected waters. The bottom pic is in Guam, I believe, and is of the tender loading a Tomahawk into a VLS tube on a 688. Neither tender supports SSBNs anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:25:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. The precise location of a launch is fixed within seconds of motor ignition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:25:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes they could. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am pretty sure the ssbn's are screwed. They cannot submerge with all the missles gone. the spook boats have to have concrete poured into some of the empty tubes for ballast. Yes they could. I find that really hard to believe. Never a sub guy around when you need one's expertise. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:30:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. Because they could easily withstand the huge shock wave of a nuke underwater even many miles away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:34:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is one of the things that only a select few have any idea about. The ssbn patrols were one of the highest claclassifications. Yes they could possibly patrol mid Pacific closer the the western side. I know our ssns play cat and mouse with the russian ssns and ssbns but that is their primary job. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where are the approximate areas US SSBNs patrol? For the Pacific. I'd figure it'd be south of the Gulf of Alaska outside of shipping lanes. No idea where they'd be in the Atlantic. Out in the mid-north Atlantic somewhere? That is one of the things that only a select few have any idea about. The ssbn patrols were one of the highest claclassifications. Yes they could possibly patrol mid Pacific closer the the western side. I know our ssns play cat and mouse with the russian ssns and ssbns but that is their primary job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:35:30 PM EDT
[#44]
All US SSBNs have an odd number of nuclear missiles. Reason being, they are to save one missile so they could steam to any surviving port and demand resupply with the threat of nuking the port if it didn't comply.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:35:51 PM EDT
[#45]
SSBNs launch while submerged. After launch they do not pop to the surface like a cork. They can submerge after launch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:41:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they could easily withstand the huge shock wave of a nuke underwater even many miles away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. Because they could easily withstand the huge shock wave of a nuke underwater even many miles away. I'm not even sure any country fields nuclear torpedoes or depth charges as they are pretty much a suicide weapon. And for a myriad of reasons, targeting an SSBN with an SLBM/ICBM seems very remote/not likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:43:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay.... that was the only flaw in the plan.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
During the Cold War they were going to beach on an uninhabated island and start repopulating the world. With what women? During the Cold War there were no women on subs. Okay.... that was the only flaw in the plan.... Convict, I mean, Australian females could be selected by computer for factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. It is an astonishingly good idea, yes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 9:02:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are the approximate areas US SSBNs patrol? For the Pacific. I'd figure it'd be south of the Gulf of Alaska outside of shipping lanes. No idea where they'd be in the Atlantic. Out in the mid-north Atlantic somewhere? Most of the crew doesn't even know where their patrol area is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 9:04:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
During the Cold War they were going to beach on an uninhabated island and start repopulating the world. Oh those silly all male crews... http://m.quickmeme.com/img/19/19e3c5963b43b35ffdbb9c2caf78ece18cf63f74bb1b39ddc5e6d7662367172d.jpg You sir win the internet for the day 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 9:07:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not even sure any country fields nuclear torpedoes or depth charges as they are pretty much a suicide weapon. And for a myriad of reasons, targeting an SSBN with an SLBM/ICBM seems very remote/not likely stupidly difficult and a waste of a strategic weapon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I asked my Pop this year's ago. His response was he wasn't worried about it, because after they launched the last one his plan was to go to his cabin and eat a bullet. He figured if it got that bad, we would all be dead and he would have no reason to go on after the launch. Launching would have given away position even long ago. Expect a nuke and the resulting pressure wave to have destroyed them. No, no SSBN would be destroyed by nuke (outside of nearby tactical nuke, like nuclear armed torpedo or depth charge.) By the time a strategic nuke could get to where a sub was when it launched its missiles, said sub would be far away, and that is assuming instant launch at the sub when it fired----factor in real life, and no, no SSBN would be hit with strategic weapons. ETA: Assuming the commander of said putative missile sub didn't decide to just hang around and do nothing after launch. Because they could easily withstand the huge shock wave of a nuke underwater even many miles away. I'm not even sure any country fields nuclear torpedoes or depth charges as they are pretty much a suicide weapon. And for a myriad of reasons, targeting an SSBN with an SLBM/ICBM seems very remote/not likely stupidly difficult and a waste of a strategic weapon. FIFY. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
