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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Launching ICBMs before one detonates on your country just seems very dangerous.

Didn't the Russians come extremely close to lauching ICBMs in 1995 when they mistook a scientific research rocket for a Trident?




posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars50

Originally posted by FredT
[
The silo locations are no secret (you can find the cordinates here :www.geocities.com... ). We let the Russians go out and inspect them whenever they like as a provision of START.


Yea, the US and Russian siloes are well scoped out. I think the poster who I responded to was talking about countries developing a ICMB capacity or a country maybe violating treaties etc ?



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   


And to the other poster- current ICBM's are fairly small. The only picture in this thread is of a Minuteman I, the MM III is only slightly larger. With smaller warheads and solid fuels, ICBM's have gotten fairly small.

Hmm interesting. So we're not doing the multiple warheads anymore? I knew there was a trend towards smaller and more precise weapons but I just kind of assumed there would still be multiple warheads because it would save silo space and missiles. Seemed like a good idea to me, if a little sadistic....


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
BTW, the D-5 weights in at 130,000 lbs and can cary up to 8 MIRVS, and the Minuteman III 80,000 and carry 3 MIRVS. The soon to be gone MX was 195,000 with up to 10 MIRVS

D-5 can have more of them than 8, twelve seems to be mentioned in couple pages.
www.periscope1.com...
www.naval-technology.com...

Even 14 is mentioned here for maximum payload-shorter range config.
www.designation-systems.net...
Which might be believable in this "clear deck" configuration which lacks third stage giving more room for payload... normally warheads are wrapped around third's stage fuel tank.
fas.org...


"Old workhorse": Minuteman:
www.designation-systems.net...
fas.org...

Peacekeeper
www.designation-systems.net...
fas.org... (it could carry eleven warhead basing on this)

And data about warheads can be found from here:
nuclearweaponarchive.org...


EDIT:
About these solid propellants... some of them are actually explosives.
www.globalsecurity.org...
Like this HMX which is very powerfull high explosive. (used in Octol)

Here's good info about different propellant types.
www.fas.org...

[edit on 6-7-2004 by E_T]



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by E_T
D-5 can have more of them than 8, twelve seems to be mentioned in couple pages.


The British ones can carry 12 warheads but a maximum of 48 warheads on 16 missiles are carried on Vaguard Class SSBNs because they cost too much or whatever.

I don't think they are as powerful as the American ones. If I remember correctly, the American Tridents carry 8 400Kt warheads and the British can carry 12 100Kt if they want to.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense



And to the other poster- current ICBM's are fairly small. The only picture in this thread is of a Minuteman I, the MM III is only slightly larger. With smaller warheads and solid fuels, ICBM's have gotten fairly small.

Hmm interesting. So we're not doing the multiple warheads anymore? I knew there was a trend towards smaller and more precise weapons but I just kind of assumed there would still be multiple warheads because it would save silo space and missiles. Seemed like a good idea to me, if a little sadistic....


No more MIRV's on ICBM's for us.. It allows for more flexible targeting (no need to blow up 3 places when you only want to blow up one) - longer ranges and more space for decoys/etc to counter the growing ABM threat.

Subs will still carry MIRV's. (This is also a provision of START II, if it ever is ratified by the Soviets). I agree MIRV's are a good thing to have, but having 500 single RV Minuteman III's can be handy as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars50
No more MIRV's on ICBM's for us.. It allows for more flexible targeting (no need to blow up 3 places when you only want to blow up one) - longer ranges and more space for decoys/etc to counter the growing ABM threat.


If you're going to blow up a city why use one big weapon rather than lots of smaller ones?

Did START II stop US and Russia having MIRVs on ICBMs?



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
If you're going to blow up a city why use one big weapon rather than lots of smaller ones?
[/guote]

Actually the MIRV's have decent range and could take out say ten cities. But for a sprawling city like say LA you could do the suburbs as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by Starwars50
No more MIRV's on ICBM's for us.. It allows for more flexible targeting (no need to blow up 3 places when you only want to blow up one) - longer ranges and more space for decoys/etc to counter the growing ABM threat.


If you're going to blow up a city why use one big weapon rather than lots of smaller ones?

Did START II stop US and Russia having MIRVs on ICBMs?


The single RV's that the US is going to have no more yeild than the old MIRV's.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars50
The single RV's that the US is going to have no more yeild than the old MIRV's.


Exactly its the same except just less of them. I wonder if it has any effect on accuracy or the warhead? I mean it now only has to loft the missile in position to hit the primary trager not a position to hit several. Does anybody know what kind of cross range mobility a MIRV has?



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Starwars50
The single RV's that the US is going to have no more yeild than the old MIRV's.


Exactly its the same except just less of them. I wonder if it has any effect on accuracy or the warhead? I mean it now only has to loft the missile in position to hit the primary trager not a position to hit several. Does anybody know what kind of cross range mobility a MIRV has?


The numbers are classified and are influenced by how far away the taget is (it uses fuel in the post-boost vehicle to manuever the individual warheads). On the MMIII it's probably not as far as one would think ....



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars50
The numbers are classified and are influenced by how far away the taget is (it uses fuel in the post-boost vehicle to manuever the individual warheads). On the MMIII it's probably not as far as one would think ....


I wonder. The AF is talking about adding GPS quidence to the proposed Minuteman Elite upgrade to improve its cep



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT


Actually the MIRV's have decent range and could take out say ten cities. But for a sprawling city like say LA you could do the suburbs as well.


Since the US still has its ground based ICBMs, then why sign something that stops them using MIRVs?



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Of course, ICBMs are becoming more and more useless as the nuclear threat becomes not just small third world countries but terrorists with "suitcase bombs" as well. So they are mostly there as a deterrant IMO.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
Of course, ICBMs are becoming more and more useless as the nuclear threat becomes not just small third world countries but terrorists with "suitcase bombs" as well. So they are mostly there as a deterrant IMO.


Would even the US spend that much money on a deterrant just against suitcase nukes?

This may seem like a stupid question but what does IMO mean?



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
IMO = In my opinion



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
With more countries developing missile-based nuclear forces, I think it is only prudent for the US to continue to maintain it's ICBM capability. It has a history of throwing away weapon systems just before they would really come in handy.

Kinda like cutting up the m113 apc's and then REALLY wishing they had more armored transport in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
why ihave icbms?

bombers can be shot down

submarines can be sunk.

the only way to take out an icbm is to invade that country.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
With more countries developing missile-based nuclear forces, I think it is only prudent for the US to continue to maintain it's ICBM capability. Kinda like cutting up the m113 apc's and then REALLY wishing they had more armored transport in Iraq.


Maybe more Brads than the M113. Yeah it would be stupid to get rid of our deterent. The treads about China makes me more and more concerned about the Dragons intentions everwhere not just Taiwan. We need soething to keep them in check


[edit on 10-7-2004 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Brads are better, no doubt! But the m113's were paid for.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join