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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
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.


Or lauch a preemptive strike against the silos or have a missile shield of some sort. I just think that missile silos make a country a bigger target.




posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   
They make the country a bigger target because they are so powerful and I doubt any country knows where all of the missile silos are in the US plus they would already be on the air before the enemies missiles hit.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Quote-
Or lauch a preemptive strike against the silos or have a missile shield of some sort. I just think that missile silos make a country a bigger target.

I'm afraid that isn't the way things work in this world. Any student of history will tell you that it is the weak and undefended peoples/countries that are attacked first and most often.

The best and only proven way to increase - not guarantee, that's impossible - but increase the publics safety is to have the strongest defense available.

And, of course, the best defense is a strong offense.

[edit on 7/11/2004 by Montana]

[edit on 7/11/2004 by Montana]



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
OK OK People. I can now see why the US is reluctant to give up it's ground based ICBMs. But personally, I still think all your nuclear weapons aboard ships, submarines, aircraft and any in other countries are more than enough to protect you from the dangers of a world with nuclear arms.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
OK OK People. I can now see why the US is reluctant to give up it's ground based ICBMs. But personally, I still think all your nuclear weapons aboard ships, submarines, aircraft and any in other countries are more than enough to protect you from the dangers of a world with nuclear arms.


Sub based missiles have thier own pro's/con's as well. Spreading them around between land and sea makes it a little safer than keeping all of our eggs in one basket. In thory the surface Navy removed all of its nukes years ago when they got rid of the Nuclear tipped TLAM. The AF still has gravity bombs, but no longer keeps a ready alert bomber force on standby and Im not sure how long it would take to load the B-2's and B-1 with gravity bombs. The BUFF's are still nuclear capable, but to old to penatrate any resonable air defence system and could only carry standoff stuff.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join