Of course it is enough to counter Chinese ICBMs at the time, after a surprise first strike. Especially with THAAD radar in South Korea providing early tracking.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Of course it is enough to counter Chinese ICBMs at the time, after a surprise first strike. Especially with THAAD radar in South Korea providing early tracking.
You also have to consider the naval factor though, SM-3s can now intercept ICBMs, which is potentially quite significant with the number of them deployed.
Surprise first strike isn't on the possibilities for either party, since both have space based early warning and OTH radars. With current tech level, it's not feasible for the major nuclear powers to seriously contemplate attacks on eachother, because interceptors/other countermeasures are much harder to make work against a huge ICBM salvo. It's inevitable that 100s of missiles get through, and even if you have great defensive infrastructure, the aftermath of just several dozen nukes hitting are government collapsing. Especially for countries with no/little hardened electronics.
USA is realistically countering NK only (and Iran, but Iran isn't gonna do global launches) and likewise China's defenses can only realistically stop India.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Only as long as they are along the trajectory. The SM3 interception capability cant intercept what isn’t on its track.
You forgot the existence of Ohio class ballistic missile submarines.
They are part of why it isn't feasible to execute a surprise strike either. The chances of at least 1 surviving would be high even if US didn't have early warning.
US Army’s M10 Booker light tank begins operational testing
The 82nd Airborne started the initial operational test and evaluation of the M10 Booker today! The testing will encompass a wide-range of events, such as new equipment training, gunnery, collective training sessions for Soldiers, and force-on-force exercises.
You have the Polish and Romanian AEGIS Ashore installations right next to Russia's border. So in fact there is an eastern ABM system.
The GBI interceptors are in Alaska. Also right next to the Russian border.
The danger, to the Russians, has always been that the US would do a first strike and that US interceptors would be enough to significantly blunt the Russian second strike. Thus making a US nuclear strike on Russia viable. Not that the US interceptors would intercept a Russian first strike. Since Russia's military doctrine, unlike the US, was second strike back then. While the US has claimed it could do a first strike.
Because the system is there to mitigate a second strike. Not a first strike. And they can also use Aegis equipped destroyers as another defensive layer.
Except the system was created when North Korea had no nukes at all.
The US infringed the INF Treaty the moment they put AEGIS Ashore with Mk 41 VLS cells in Poland and Romania. The treaty says land based missiles or their launchers.
You are clearly wrong. Since Yars design was shifted towards MIRV capability after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. The Russians even said as much. They announced after the US reneged the ABM Treaty that they would add MIRV capability to their land based ICBMs. And they did.
As for the claim that Russia is reneging the treaty by making Yars based on Topol-M, even if that were true, the treaty is written that way so that you cannot surreptitiously change the last stage with a MIRV one of higher capability. But the US has the Minuteman III which was MIRV capable, then switched to a unitary warhead. They can simply switch it back to a MIRV bus whenever they want. So this is really a stupid argument on the US part. Yars is already publicly stated to have MIRV in the first place. So there is no deception where unitary warhead missiles are secretly MIRVed here. It is the US which can do that trick if they want to. As usual the US refuges itself on the letter of the law and not the spirit of it.
As for Rubezh the Russian claim was always that it is (barely) an ICBM. And thus was within the confines of the treaty. It is no IRBM.
It would still count towards Russia's ICBM arsenal limitations in the START treaty.
With regards to the SSC 8 the Russian claim was always that they were land testing a naval missile. And that they have the Iskander-K but it is short ranged and not in INF Treaty violation. The US has always been able to launch the Tomahawk from its ships. They removed the nuclear warheads from them but this is trivial to change back. And yet that is allowed by the treaty. While the Soviets had to get rid of all SS-20 and their launchers. The INF Treaty was always in favor of NATO anyway. So for the Russians the US just did them a favor.
Last edited:
I still remember to this day the endless discussions about the best way to base MX (Peacekeeper).
There were no news programs and magazines at the time, at that time, TVs, newspapers and magazines were focused on information. I vaguely remember a proposal to base 100 MX in a network of underground tunnels with more than 4000 launch points. The Soviets would have no way of knowing where the missiles were and would have to attack 4000 points, which was unfeasible.
Another proposal was to install the 100 MX all together in reinforced underground silos close to each other. They would be far enough apart to require a warhead to neutralize each missile in their silo, but close enough so that they could not be attacked at the same time since the detonation of a warhead close to another releases such a quantity of neutrons that it renders the missile useless. second warhead.
There were other proposals, such as installing the MX in silos on the edges of mountains so that the enemy warhead could not fall close to the silo and the mountain would deflect the shock wave.
In the end, they only made 50 MX and installed them in the old reinforced Titan missile silos, which together with around 900 Minutemans made up the US ICBM force, which today has been reduced to 400 Minuteman IIIs, each with one warhead.
The US remained with 1054 ICBMs for a long time. There were 500 Minuteman IIs with a 1.2 Mt warhead, 500 Minuteman IIIs with 3 MIRVs(170 Kt), and 54 Titans with a 9 Mt warhead. The Americans decided to retire the Minuteman IIs and Titans and instead deploy 50 Peacekeepers ( MX), which would have 500 to 600 warheads.
After START I, there was a reduction in nuclear weapons and the Americans dismantled the new MX, leaving only the older Minuteman IIIs. And yet they were forced to remove the MIRV warheads and installed a single warhead (SRV- Single reentry vehicle).
They could have kept the 50 MX and kept 500 warheads, but they preferred to keep more missiles (delivery means) with just one warhead. Even though in theory it would be more expensive to maintain 450 ICBMs (they retired 50 and now, it seems like 50 more, due to a new reduction imposed by START), the US would prefer it to having fewer missiles with more warheads.
Just out of curiosity, there is information from a few years ago that some Minuteman IIIs were once again armed with 3 MIRVs, which is somewhat worrying because it shows an increase in tension and mistrust between the US and Russia.
Austual USA continues to invest in expanding it's capabilities. I didn't realize the scope of the shipyard and how large it will be after all of the current work is done!
1.5 million square feet of indoor manufacturing space is huge! They will also have a Pearlson-designed shiplift featuring an articulated lifting platform approximately 450 feet long by 125 feet wide, capable of lifting and launching vessels in excess of 18,000 long tons.