Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: RE:do we need a new ICBM to replace Minuteman III?
SB    5/17/2005 7:31:56 PM
I believe the current flavor of START treaties, and/or whatever they're called, does away with land based ICBM MIRVs. Thus the Peacekeepers are being retired, with their warheads moving to Minuteman III's as single warhead missiles. There are a number of advantages for the Nat'l Command Authority to keep land based ICBMs: - They have faster response in a crisis, no waiting around for 12 hrs. for a bomber, and much faster to get in contact with then a sub. - The bombers are generally not doing standing alert with nukes, thus there's a period of vulnerability, as well having more uncertainty as to mission success. - The subs are a pain to re-target, communications are slow (ELF), unless you want one to come to the surface for a message and I'm not sure the protocols are in place to allow the NCA to send new target data to a sub once it's on patrol, at least for the Tridents. - The land based component can be readily/quickly re-targeted. For the NCA, a land based missile can get a "message" to an enemy (China ?) quicker then SB
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest




StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy