It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the US still need ground based ICBMs?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Why does the US still need ground based ICBMs?

They make a country more of a target. The missiles are dangerous and expensive to maintain.

Why do they keep them when they have B2 bombers and a huge fleet of SSBNs with Tridents?

I think its OK for countries like China and Russia to have them because they don't have stealth bombers like the B2 or SSBNs that can be counted on. I think I remember reading that recently 2 Russian SLBMs had self destructed when test fired.




posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
First becuase the ground based versions are usually the cheapest. There are more missiles on the ground than on subs and aircraft.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Plus, if you put all your ICBMs on their silo platforms (E.g. above ground) it looks very intimidating on the other person's satelite pictures!!



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
Why does the US still need ground based ICBMs?

They make a country more of a target. The missiles are dangerous and expensive to maintain.

Why do they keep them when they have B2 bombers and a huge fleet of SSBNs with Tridents?

I think its OK for countries like China and Russia to have them because they don't have stealth bombers like the B2 or SSBNs that can be counted on. I think I remember reading that recently 2 Russian SLBMs had self destructed when test fired.


The ICBM is needed because it is the most responsive nuclear weapon.

They are the only weapon that can reliably be launched before an offensive ICBM/SLBM attack from another country can destroy them. Both bombers and subs can take hours (or even days for subs) to be able to attack, but ICBM's can be launched in minutes - even with no advanced warning. They also traditionally have the best range and accuracy.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars50
[The ICBM is needed because it is the most responsive nuclear weapon.

They are the only weapon that can reliably be launched before an offensive ICBM/SLBM attack from another country can destroy them. Both bombers and subs can take hours (or even days for subs) to be able to attack, but ICBM's can be launched in minutes - even with no advanced warning. They also traditionally have the best range and accuracy.


Do they keep the ground based ones targeted?

I was under the impreesion that the submarines take so long to fire because they are not targeted.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
How can you ask the question why do they need ground based ICBM's cuz they will be on the enemies doorstep in 30 min and are more reliable bombers and subs can have something happen to them but once you have hundreds of nukes flying its not likely they will get shot down.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Subs have the aspect of stealth to them, they can send off a nuke that only needs about 5-10 minutes to hit it's target and get away undetected.
Stealth bombers are exactly that, stealthy, and they are extremely extremely hard to find by radar, and the can bomb pretty much anywhere (considering the B-2 can fly around the world), with no notice or anything. Just 'Boom'.
Muppet.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Subs have the aspect of stealth to them, they can send off a nuke that only needs about 5-10 minutes to hit it's target and get away undetected.
Stealth bombers are exactly that, stealthy, and they are extremely extremely hard to find by radar, and the can bomb pretty much anywhere (considering the B-2 can fly around the world), with no notice or anything. Just 'Boom'.
Muppet.


Its the old Triad approach. Land Based ICBM's are strictly there for maximum deterence. The Ultimate non bluff as it were (you either fire them or you don't) once you do, pop in your copy of "The Day After" and pick up some tips before the counterstike arrives. They are secure, and just about impossible to take out without a full on nuclear attack. At least non at thier current numbers. Bombers allows some sabrerattling to go on. They can be launched but held back to get another countries attention. ICBM's cannot be called back once launched. Subs used to be the counterstrike weapons of choice (aside form the fact that the russians could never find them) in that after an exchange, they would be used to mop up any targets missed. However the new trident with its hard kill capacity gives it a much more robust first strike capability



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by Starwars50
[The ICBM is needed because it is the most responsive nuclear weapon.

They are the only weapon that can reliably be launched before an offensive ICBM/SLBM attack from another country can destroy them. Both bombers and subs can take hours (or even days for subs) to be able to attack, but ICBM's can be launched in minutes - even with no advanced warning. They also traditionally have the best range and accuracy.


Do they keep the ground based ones targeted?

I was under the impreesion that the submarines take so long to fire because they are not targeted.


i might be wrong here, but i thought targetting these days requires no more than a few mouseclicks and replacing a coordinates file? targetting debates between east and west always struck me as odd seeing as they continued into the 90s.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Maybe the Army just does not want to give up their nuclear weapons. The airforce and navy both have theirs the army does not want to be left out. I could be wrong not sure what branch controls land based ICBMs I would think the army.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I thought that the air force controls land based ICBMs cuz doesn't the air force control anything that goes in to space also the only nukes the army might control is the tactical nuclear shells or missiles



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Yea Im not sure what branch controls could be airforce I just thought Army because Im sure during a nuclear the Army didnt want to just sit there and wait to get nuked maybe launch some of there own.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Orignally posted by ShadowXIX
Maybe the Army just does not want to give up their nuclear weapons. The airforce and navy both have theirs the army does not want to be left out. I could be wrong not sure what branch controls land based ICBMs I would think the army.


I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them



[edit on 6/7/04 by Hyperen]


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.

Before they were operated under SAC but it was shutted down and now they're run by ACC.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.

Before they were operated under SAC but it was shutted down and now they're run by ACC.

www.globalsecurity.org...



EDIT: STUPID QUESTION



[edit on 6/7/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I thought that the air force controls land based ICBMs cuz doesn't the air force control anything that goes in to space also the only nukes the army might control is the tactical nuclear shells or missiles




bingo. i work on em for the air force, or will work on them in a litle while, so ask me anything you want to know about ICBMs. ill tell you as long as it isnt topsecret



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.

Before they were operated under SAC but it was shutted down and now they're run by ACC.

www.globalsecurity.org...



there is still a stregic command though. hell i live right by offut afb here in omaha. and i see the building all the time



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
bingo. i work on em for the air force, or will work on them in a litle while, so ask me anything you want to know about ICBMs. ill tell you as long as it isnt topsecret


If you don't work on them yet, how can you know anything top secret about them? Is it the USAF's policy to release top secret information as a recruiting tool?

HMM?

BREAK

The Army used to have nukes, but then someone figured that it was too high tech for them. They have since turned in all tactical nuclear devices (that people know of).



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
what was the cobra's commander name?
sorry, it's been a while since i watched gi joes



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The short and simple reason is because others have them.

And because they can.

And yes, they are controles by usaf, always have been.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join