[1] It's safe: missile silos fell out of favor once MIRVs became accurate enough to target them. But with treaty limits, the US/USSR get only 1,500 - 2,000 warheads each. If we built 3-4 "silos" for each missile/warhead, spaced well apart, destroying more than a small fraction of the US's arsenal would become effectively impossible.

 

The treaty requires periodic inspections, so they will know which silos hold the missiles.  Unless of course you are willing to go through the added expense of playing a Shell Game with the missile after each inspection.

 

The silos would have to be widely spaced requiring additional control centers, supporting infrastructure, and crews (unless you want the opposition tracking them to see which silos are in use).

I figure a number of people here will disagree with me, but I'd like to share my ideas, and will happily take any criticism aimed my way :-).

I've been reading about the SORT/START treaties, and the SSBN-X program to replace the Ohio-class subs (which is already getting started). This lead me to thinking that we could simplify the arsenal by using silo-based ICBMs for all our nukes.

Now to justify this thinking

[1] It's safe: missile silos fell out of favor once MIRVs became accurate enough to target them. But with treaty limits, the US/USSR get only 1,500 - 2,000 warheads each. If we built 3-4 "silos" for each missile/warhead, spaced well apart, destroying more than a small fraction of the US's arsenal would become effectively impossible.

[2] Cost: SSBN-X is currently estimated to cost $8B, not including operating costs. That'd be $112B (14 * 8) if we replace the Ohios 1-for-1, assuming we stay on-budget (unlikely). Building new ICBM silos may be expensive, but it'd be vastly cheaper than a new run of SSBNS. Given limited resources, I'd rather those yards kept building Virginia class SSNs...

[3] Flexibility: conventional trident missiles were scrapped because "Russia might think it was a nuclear attack." If all our nukes are on ICBMs, then we could easily say "if the missile didn't come from the central US, it's not a nuke."

[4] Backup plans: both treaties allow for "responsible reserve forces," so the US could keep a stock of bombs/cruise missiles in storage. If the arms race started back up, it would be easy to put those weapons back into service.

So... that's my thinking. I don't expect this to actually happen, but I'd love to hear your take on this.

Thanks!

and the subs. You want the enemy helpless, not sure, not us, here.

That way he will study war no more. In math speak, maximize the variables he has to solve, and do not simplify his problems.

 

His assured death is our safety and freedom. 

 

H.

     

 

Playing shells with silos strikes me as "unrealistic." Mobile launchers (like the proposed MGM-134 Midgetman) might be an alternative. Someone here posted the math on how far a launcher could travel given 30 minutes head start vs. how many nukes it would take to hit every place the launcher could reach. It was something like 100+ shots.

So gather the launchers up for inspections, then scatter them to hardened shelters afterwords. We've got literally thousands of square miles of open space available within our military bases... a shortage of open fields is not something the US will ever have to worry about.

 

That said, I'm not a fan of mobile launchers, and historically congress hasn't been either. So I doubt that idea will get anywhere.

 

No additional Virginia class SSNs will be authorized by Congress.  Even if a savings may be realized by shifting money to building more silos on land (and all the supporting infrastructure), it will be too small to cover more than 1.

 

 No offense, but I doubt this. We've got two sub-building yards, and I'm sure congress and the military will want more subs. If we don't build more Virginias, it's because we'll have switched to building whatever replaces them.

 

But no additional warheads are permitted by treaty.

 

And there goes my backup plan :-p.

 

It gets better though. Reading over new SORT on Wikipeida, apparently we're limited to 800 ICBM "launchers" (silos and SSBN tubes, I'm guessing). So if I'm "staying inside the rules," that kills my plan pretty thoroughly.

 

 So I'd say this idea is pretty solidly dead.

I figure that's the basis for MAD-style nuclear warfare: make sure enough of your forces survive to ensure an effective counterattack. If you can keep your weapons secure, the enemy won't attack for fear of retaliation.

 

In my head I rank the weapons used as follows:

 

ICBMs/SLBMS = You can see them coming but I don't think anyone has the tech. to stop a massed attack.

Cruise Missiles = They'll probably get through, but targets with effective air defense could throw of plans.

Bombs =  Need aircraft for deliver, so I imagine there are plenty of targets that just can't be reached.

 

Going one step farther, I'd guess the U.S. likes its SLBMs because we want a fast first-strike option - if we think Russia is going to launch, we'll launch first and try to take out as many of their launchers as possible. So even if cruise missiles are reliable they're not fast enough.

 

Then there's the second part of the ranking.

 

ICBMs = Cheap to build, easy to find. Some mobile launchers might survive an attack, but silos will be wiped out.

Bombs/Cruise missiles = Affordable and easy to hide/relocate. Might not be so easy to use if you've lost your carriers/runways.

SLBMs = *Really* expensive, almost impossible to find.

 

And that's the bit that ties my brain in a knot (and makes me glad I'm not actually a defense planner). SSBNs are really expensive, even in military terms, and their only purpose is to stay hidden (unlike the planes/ships that launch the missiles/bombs, which can also fight conventional wars). If SSBNs mean Russia won't attack first, they've paid for themselves... but then again it would be nice to have a cheaper/more broadly useful alternative.

 

Which (on a different tact) makes X-51/Waverider a really interesting concept to me. It'd be nice to have something with speed approaching that of a ballistic missile, but that could be launched by anything that can already carry a tomahawk.

 

So  I haven't really reached a conclusion here... but I think that's enough rambling for one post.

Trident II  is as accurate  as the most advance ICBM's so that they can be used as first strike weapons.

The US don't  need ICBM's..