Building nuclear weapons for all the wrong reasons

[Sea Skimmer]

One multi-megaton warhead – or several – on-target couldn’t “crack” it?

No, as I have stated the US plan for dealing with these things required bombers armed with multipul 9 megaton weapons to drop them into the craters blasted by pervious strikes. And even that wouldn't work against the largest bunkers. PLus the US recently retired its stock of B-53 9 megaton nukes.

And yes, I’d say they’re the best tool for the job since even the MOAB isn’t that powerful (to my knowledge).

By orders of magnitude

[phongn]

Depends on how the US wants to do it- the hit-to-kill technology is why the system is so expensive, wheras Russia's ABM system around Moscow just nukes the incoming warheads- it's easier and I'd speculate makes for a smaller launch vehicle, though I'm not sure where the ABM system makes the intercept. Ship mounted system probably wouldn't be feasible against ICBM/SLBMs- only theatre missiles (I think the USN has a program

The USN has the SM3 program which is more or less a miniature GMD. They used to have a dual SAM/ABM SM2 Block IVA, but that was cancelled since we have enough ships to carry both SM2 Block III and SM3 along with us.

The Moscow ABM system may be supplemented with hit-to-kill interceptors as well instead of the nuclear-only force they have right now. There are some major advantages, like not frying satellites in orbit. As for launch vehicles, one proposal was in the 1980s was to turn Spartan into a multiple-warhead ABM with kinetic impactors. HTK is not neccessarily larger or smaller than nuclear.

The old US system, of course, was nuclear and until MacNamara gold-plated it, was intended to be so cheap that you could plaster the country with them (as was done with the Nike SAM systems). It was actually capable of hit-to-kill, but used command guidance rather than autonomous like today's. Spartan, at least, could detonate early enough into the MIRV seperation path to get a good number. GMD is after MIRV'ing, I think.

[Axis Kast]

The phrase used on the net was "sustained" nuclear assault- one article said multiple direct multi-megaton hits in the same area would be necessary.

"Yamantau Mountain is the largest nuclear-secure project in the world... They have very large train tracks running in and out of it, with enormous rooms carved inside the mountain. It has been built to resist a half dozen direct nuclear hits, one after the other in a direct hole. It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people," ---Rep. Bartlett."

Of course, that could mean the several-hundred kiloton weapons that arm the Minuteman III force.

Which we have the capability to do – and probably would – in a nuclear exchange.

MOAB would need to be hardened significantly to make the weapon earth-penetrator capable- that would make it much heavier, perhaps too heavy to be carried by anything except a C-17.

Hence the “minis.”

I didn't think Iran had North Korean style underground faciltiies, though I suppose it's possible.

North Korea certainly does. Iran most likely, although Kim Jong-Il’s nuclear forces alone justify the new weaponry.

The old US system, of course, was nuclear and until MacNamara gold-plated it, was intended to be so cheap that you could plaster the country with them (as was done with the Nike SAM systems). It was actually capable of hit-to-kill, but used command guidance rather than autonomous like today's. Spartan, at least, could detonate early enough into the MIRV seperation path to get a good number. GMD is after MIRV'ing, I think.

The USA had an ABM system?

Any worthwhile ABM system would need to feature land-based silos, sea-going deterrents (i.e. carrier-launched supersonic interceptors as well as floating arsenals), and space-based systems if not also long-range aircraft like the F-14 to hit incoming bombers. Not to mention that we don't even have the coordination necessary to do all of this quite yet (considering that the air-traffic control system doesn't extent to sea).

[phongn]

The USA had an ABM system?

Yep. There was a plan for a huge system around CONUS with many an interceptor. Spartan was for midcourse-intercept, Sprint for terminal-defense (100g acceleration) and there was a program for an ultra-short-ranged ABM called HiBEX with 400g acceleration. All used nuclear warheads.

After the signing of the ABM treaty, a battery of 100 interceptors was built at Grand Forks to protect the Minuteman base there and was shut down 24 hours after becoming operational. The Soviets used their 100 interceptors around Moscow.

Any worthwhile ABM system would need to feature land-based silos, sea-going deterrents (i.e. carrier-launched supersonic interceptors as well as floating arsenals), and space-based systems if not also long-range aircraft like the F-14 to hit incoming bombers. Not to mention that we don't even have the coordination necessary to do all of this quite yet (considering that the air-traffic control system doesn't extent to sea).

For NMD, why do you need sea-based launchers and aircraft and such? We're plinking ballistic missiles and you counter those with land-based missiles. If you're trying to stop bombers coming in and launching that is an entirely different mission - not ABM.

[Axis Kast]

If North Korea fires, for instance, the fleets off the coast could intercept in early stages, I suppose.

Also - why did we deploy all 100 at Grand Forks instead of some around Washington? Because we thought the Soviets would throw at least 100 toward us?

And how does a nuclear airburst work to intercept without killing people on the ground?

Finally, the Minutemen were our MAD defense?

[Crayz9000]

Finally, the Minutemen were our MAD defense?

Basically. The whole idea was that neither side would be insane enough to fire off their missiles...

[phongn]

If North Korea fires, for instance, the fleets off the coast could intercept in early stages, I suppose.

Long ago the USN had a program for that (IIRC, it evolved into Sprint), but anything like this will require such high performance that it might be unfeasable for anything that could fit in VLS. Boost-phase launch is currently the province of the Airborne Laser programme.

Also - why did we deploy all 100 at Grand Forks instead of some around Washington? Because we thought the Soviets would throw at least 100 toward us?

The 1972 revision of the ABM Treaty said you could protect an ICBM base or the capital, not both.

And how does a nuclear airburst work to intercept without killing people on the ground?

They were special warheads and it was assumed people would be finding shelter rather than sit back and watch the fireworks.

Finally, the Minutemen were our MAD defense?

They were our deterrant, yes. (MAD is somewhat of a misnomer and never was the official policy of the US - Assured Destruction was, and the difference is not merely semantic)

[phongn]

Finally, the Minutemen were our MAD defense?

Basically. The whole idea was that neither side would be insane enough to fire off their missiles...

More specifically, the high reaction speed of Minuteman ensured that any Soviet first strike could not destroy our deterrant. Titan and Atlas took quite awhile to prep for launch (and still do in their heavy-lift booster descendants). Early Soviet ICBMs took so long to prep that B-52s probably could destroy them while on the pad.

[StimNeuro]

Also - why did we deploy all 100 at Grand Forks instead of some around Washington? Because we thought the Soviets would throw at least 100 toward us?

I was reading a book, Inside the Soviet Army, written by a middle/high ranking defector, who says that the Russians were thrilled when they learned that we had placed our ABM system around an ICBM base. He made an analogy between old western movies and current nuclear deterrence. In westerns, the hero and villain start by throwing chairs, pies, fists, etc. before moving to more serious attempts at harming each other, culminating in the noon-time duel. The author was confused when he first saw the order of the actions. Why doesn't the hero or villain just draw his gun as soon as the first chair is thrown? Essentially, Moscow saw our attempt to protect our missile base as a sign that we were unwilling to use our missiles. It was the equivalent of us protecting our gun instead of drawing it.

[Axis Kast]

Long ago the USN had a program for that (IIRC, it evolved into Sprint), but anything like this will require such high performance that it might be unfeasable for anything that could fit in VLS. Boost-phase launch is currently the province of the Airborne Laser programme.

How's that program coming, btw?

The 1972 revision of the ABM Treaty said you could protect an ICBM base or the capital, not both.

Which, in your opinion, was the better option?

The 1972 revision of the ABM Treaty said you could protect an ICBM base or the capital, not both.

In thier basements? I know of no nuclear shelter nearby save for a small old metal room in the bowls of my elementary school with a steel door - that can fit about a dozen people about two feet underground.

I was reading a book, Inside the Soviet Army, written by a middle/high ranking defector, who says that the Russians were thrilled when they learned that we had placed our ABM system around an ICBM base. He made an analogy between old western movies and current nuclear deterrence. In westerns, the hero and villain start by throwing chairs, pies, fists, etc. before moving to more serious attempts at harming each other, culminating in the noon-time duel. The author was confused when he first saw the order of the actions. Why doesn't the hero or villain just draw his gun as soon as the first chair is thrown? Essentially, Moscow saw our attempt to protect our missile base as a sign that we were unwilling to use our missiles. It was the equivalent of us protecting our gun instead of drawing it.

I don't follow. Weren't we actually ensuring that their first strike would not be the deathblow - at least for our arsenal?

[StimNeuro]

I was reading a book, Inside the Soviet Army, written by a middle/high ranking defector, who says that the Russians were thrilled when they learned that we had placed our ABM system around an ICBM base. He made an analogy between old western movies and current nuclear deterrence. In westerns, the hero and villain start by throwing chairs, pies, fists, etc. before moving to more serious attempts at harming each other, culminating in the noon-time duel. The author was confused when he first saw the order of the actions. Why doesn't the hero or villain just draw his gun as soon as the first chair is thrown? Essentially, Moscow saw our attempt to protect our missile base as a sign that we were unwilling to use our missiles. It was the equivalent of us protecting our gun instead of drawing it.

I don't follow. Weren't we actually ensuring that their first strike would not be the deathblow - at least for our arsenal?

Exactly. The only two ways for us to keep our arsenal from being destroyed were to defend it with ABMs or to launch the missiles. When we placed the ABMs around the missile base, it became obvious that we had dismissed the second option in favor of the first.

[phongn]

Long ago the USN had a program for that (IIRC, it evolved into Sprint), but anything like this will require such high performance that it might be unfeasable for anything that could fit in VLS. Boost-phase launch is currently the province of the Airborne Laser programme.

How's that program coming, btw?

ABL is coming along just fine. I also hear that they've been able to miniaturize some of the systems on it.

The 1972 revision of the ABM Treaty said you could protect an ICBM base or the capital, not both.

Which, in your opinion, was the better option?

Not sure.

In thier basements? I know of no nuclear shelter nearby save for a small old metal room in the bowls of my elementary school with a steel door - that can fit about a dozen people about two feet underground.

AFAIK, this was a neutron-like warhead, so a few feet of earth would protect you, at least for Sprint/HiBEX. Spartan was exoatmospheric.

I don't follow. Weren't we actually ensuring that their first strike would not be the deathblow - at least for our arsenal?

Partly, we were also trying to ensure that our cities didn't get flattened. Also, having a defensive nuclear shield would ensure that any attempt to break through would have cost an extraordinary amount of money to procure - a great stress on the Soviet Union which had just spent a goodly amount of cash building up their offensive nuclear force.

[Axis Kast]

The Soviets installed ABM around Moscow.

How would our cities not be flattened if we defended ICBMs?

[phongn]

The Soviets installed ABM around Moscow.

I am quite aware of this.

How would our cities not be flattened if we defended ICBMs?

I was referring to the widescale deployment, not the limited Grand Forks installation.

[Axis Kast]

How good a deterrent would the Soviet ABMs have been?

[phongn]

Their 100-interceptor thing? Not much of one. The British deterrant was tasked to take it down (though Moscow really isn't that important, AFAIK: it's apparently a massive deception ploy).

[Sea Skimmer]

AFAIK, this was a neutron-like warhead, so a few feet of earth would protect you, at least for Sprint/HiBEX. Spartan was exoatmospheric.

The intercept altitudes where high enough to avoid most blast damage, a few feet of dirt or a good sized building should indeed provide sufficient protection from the radioactivity. Anyway, most interceptors likely would have been over the rural US, and the country didn't have nearly as much urban sprawl as it does now. So the number of people effected would be limited.

I see nothing to indicate that the warhead was any form of neutron bomb. That simply doesn’t work with such a huge bomb; the blast and heat effects with travel much further then the radioactivity in an atmosphere.

US ABM information for those interested.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

[Patrick Degan]

A humourous interlude —Country/Western for the nuclear age:


Buildin' your nukes

For all the wrong reasons/

Droppin' those bombs

In all the wrong places/

It's Apocalype Now/

Apocalypse Now/

Hope

We'll

Meet a-gain

[phongn]

No offense, Patrick, but did you really need to revive a week-old thread for that