USA nuclear silos question

I saw this map in a /misc/ thread and I was surprised as to how buched up together most of the silos are.
Why is that?
I come from a non-nuclear EU state, so my knowledge about this is very limited but wouldn't spreading them across the USA make more sense?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because, due to lofted debris, you can't hit two silos next to each other right after one another. it takes around half an hour for the air to clear enough that a second RV can pass through the same air.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting, thank you Anon. So why did the Soviet union choose the mobile truck option?
      Because their broke commie ass couldn't afford silo infrastructure?

      Any in Hawaii or Alaska?

      Don't know, I'm fairly new to this stuff.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So why did the Soviet union choose the mobile truck option
        Silos are stationary and these things are not

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Because their broke commie ass couldn't afford silo infrastructure
        because of that, the expense of making reinforced silos, facing incredibly precise US missiles and also having vast swathes of nothingness to hide those launchers in.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And because, unlike the US, they could easily block off thousands of square miles where civilians--and potential spies--couldn't enter. The US considered road- and rail-mobile launchers, but subs were generally a superior option.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        mostly to have at least one survivable leg of their triad (their subs are garbo and they know it, their bombers are in poor repair). US missiles got so accurate so quickly that stationary silos had very low survivability with how Russia set them up (silos very far apart).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >their subs are garbo and they know it
          This is not true. Or, rather, this was not true during Soviet times.

          USSR went all in on the material sciences tech tree while US focused on electronics and sensors. This made for very potent subs and rocket engines, better than american ones at the time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >subs
            Not really. They were always a generation behind USN and RN when it came to quieting technology (for example only adopting rafting almost 20 years after it was common in both the RN and USN).

            The only thing you can really say the Soviets did better was deeper diving capability on average, but that's a function of where the Red Navy and USN were intending on operating. Where the USN was intending on fighting in relatively shallow waters (average depths in and around the North Sea is less than 100m and less than 250m in the Barents), the Soviets were designing boats to fight in the Mid Atlantic region where depths were an order of magnitude deeper. So the USSR using titanium in their subs was an interesting choice but there were many reasons why western countries didn't go that route that had nothing to do with availability of the material (notably that titanium doesn't compress and return to it's original shape under certain pressure conditions like steel and instead deforms, meaning that sections of the hull would need replaced or you just deal with your acoustic signature changing), and even then the Soviets returned to steel hull designs with the Akula class and haven't looked back.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The only thing you can really say the Soviets did better was deeper diving capability on average
              Except that's literally not true. Outside of the papa-class soviet subs couldn't dive as deep as US ones despite sometimes using titanium, having lower safety margins and despite US estimates vastly overblowing russian capabilities.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            making your sub light or fast doesn't make them any harder to detect. a titanium sub lets you go fast and deep, but it doesn't make it quiet. being titanium doesn't make a good sub.
            and that's coming from someone who has dedicated their entire life to materials science.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            USSR went all in on industrial espionage and technology theft, nothing else and they've brought virtually nothing to the world that isn't a shitty, monkey see monkey do copy of something normal people actually designed.

            Their subs are no different.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The accuracy of US ICMBs became so great that they could directly hit thier silos. So, they wantrd something mobile that was harder to locate.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Soviets didn't anon, the Soviets have tons and tons of stationary silos also. Russia mostly chooses the mobile truck option because they are too poor to upgrade and build new silos

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any in Hawaii or Alaska?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They appear a lot closer than they are at this scale. I cannot see a scale on the map, but please remember the continental US is over 4,000 km wide (depending on where you want to measure from)

      I don't know. I suspect the lack of expansive land area in Hawaii would be prohibitive of land-based silos. There's a large submarine base there, though.
      Also a large sub base/bases in Washington state

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No ICBM silos in either state, but Fort Greely, Alaska is where our ABMs are based.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are nuclear fail-safes underneath fort wainwright and fort Greeley. Likely deactivated today. But in the height of the cold war they had 2.5 megaton nukes ready to blow both bases sky high if the commies took em.

      Aside from that, no, doesn't make sense to keep nukes up here or in Hawaii. Nuclear submarines are preferred.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But in the height of the cold war they had 2.5 megaton nukes ready to blow both bases sky high if the commies took em.
        Did we think the Soviets would invade us or something?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That many near KCMO
      Weird I'm a MO Chad and never knew we had minutemen silos. Let alone decomm'd ones.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what do you mean bunched up? they're still miles apart, armored and buried so deep it takes a individual nuke of 100+ kt yield landing on top of each silo door to pop them. Also an adversary might not know how many are real or fake, so they have to commit a huge number of warheads onto the known launch sites or assume there will be a retaliation for any launch site they miss.

    https://www.waashingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/07/24/fresh-challenge-voiced-to-missile-shell-game/7b2f8ae3-0109-43e3-a6bd-2bc04c56f6c8/
    https://archive.is/r2n7M

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You need 2 direct hits on each silo to have 99% chance of destroying it. Spreading them out makes no difference, since you can't kill multiple with one hit. Since all sides know the location of each other's silos you might as well put them far away from any population centers. Also they act more as a lure that the other side has to focus on eliminating, US doesn't even use MIRVs in their ground based ICBMs. It's the SLBMs that are playing the main role in american nuclear strategy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why two?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Literal double tap, single hit leaves it at ~70% (hard to estimate) probability of elimination, which when it comes to nuclear weapons is still not enough. 2 hits guarantee that the silo is destroyed. Well, provided that it has not fired yet, which is pretty unlikely.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is the funny thing about the super fuses those two morons above are arguing about. Rather than making up worthless hypotheticals one of them could've just posted concrete numbers and it'd be the end of it. Unfortunately both of them are braindead.

          >Well, provided that it has not fired yet, which is pretty unlikely.
          Actually it's more likely than you'd think. SLBMs offer at most 10min reaction time which is not a whole lot to make the launch decision even for a nation that has a functional satelite and ground based early warning system for redundancy, which cannot be said for russia.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            for some reason the picture didn't upload, this is the objective value of super fuses

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Silos are sponges. The missiles haven't been upgraded for decades. US first strike capabilities is based on cruise missiles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US first strike capabilities is based on cruise missiles.
        Thanks for the most moronic post of this entire thread.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's easier to oversee and manage the silos when they are nearby, their underground control centers also run comminications underground to them and they're built several miles apart so that several of them cannot be taken out with a single blast.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To make sure the Soviets had to use as many of their warheads in the initial salvo as possible on strikes away from major population centers, industry and critical infrastructure.
    And since there was no way to be 100% sure if they had disabled or even hit the silos with the first salvo a large portion of a follow up strike would also have had to be used against the US silo fields.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >snowgeria
    >2000+ warheads
    hahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (also that map is really out of date, tons of those "targets" are airbases which were shut down ages ago)

    Anyway.
    >I come from a non-nuclear EU state, so my knowledge about this is very limited but wouldn't spreading them across the USA make more sense?
    Remember the US nuclear deterrence is a TRIAD, submarines and bombers are a major component. Part of the role of the landbased force is specifically to be a "nuclear sponge": you put them in clusters in the middle of fricking nowhere away from major pop centers. If the enemy just ignores them completely obviously they get obliterated much harder. If they don't that means warheads not aimed at other areas. The goal isn't merely to have them survive, and in practice early warning satellites (nuke launches are impossible to hide) and launch distances means that there'd be plenty of time to get a lot off anyway.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nuke launches are impossible to hide

      Unless you have metal gear

      (I was pretty impressed back in the day, playing MGS when it was revealed they actually had a rationale for their silly giant robot, it's an undetectable first strike launcher)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why is a giant robot undetectable though? never played MGS.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nta and it's been a long, long loooooong time for me so my recollection is very fuzzy, and I don't remember if they came up with any specific justification for the robot part specifically. But IIRC the basic concept was something that could mount a very power advanced railgun and use that to fire nuclear warheads at MRBM level ranges, and I suppose for vidya logic purposes a robot might get up into mountainous areas where one wouldn't expect a vehicle maybe. But even for just a normal tracked or wheeled vehicle, a railgun firing warheads would be very, very hard to trace back. Remember MGS came out in 1998 and I think it's set in an even earlier time period, it's to forget how quickly global sensing systems have improved. Ballistic missiles are fairly easy to detect a long distances with satellites, they have a huge ass flare visible for thousands of miles with distinct spectrum that burns for multiple minutes and the thing travels on an arc like 8000 miles high, lots of time it'll be easy to spot against horizon or space not earth background noise, and reentry vehicles are not stealthy. The whole thing is a ballistic trajectory. A railgun or coilgun would be a brief flash, much much lower angle.

          In reality there's other factors like nuclear fingerprint, it's a fun video game not super hard scifi. But yeah compared to typical mecha stuff it was somewhat better thought through, because it's a mecha that's very much not meant to fight directly at all except as a last resort in minimal capacity so the typical weaknesses don't matter the same way.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's set in 2005. MGS games are all set in the near future of their release date.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the original metal gear might as well have been a weird tank with a rail gun for all it did in the end, and the most realistic of the bunch, the rest were mech nonsense.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    (OP)
    long story short:

    You want the main target of your enemy's warheads to be so far away from your population and industrial centers that fallout concerns can largely be mitigated simply by how far away they are. US strategy is to use the silos as a warhead sink that has to be targeted and prioritized by enemy arsenals over other slightly less valuable targets.

    China has mimicked the idea with their recent missile field construction.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ....sooo russia cant afford silos is what your saying?
      WWWEEEEEW LADS BAAHAHAHAHHA
      BIG BAD RUSSIA NO SILO!!!
      BWWWAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAAHHH!!!!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Truck based launchers are better. Once you shoot your missile you can drive away before you are attacked

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The trucks are based in central warehouses and can only launch from prepared sites, their alert times are atrocious because of this. If Russia was attacked right now their mobile ICBM inventory would be almost completely destroyed in the first wave.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, worth noting that you don't even need to destroy the mobile platforms. You just need to knock them over or damage them with a blast wave. It would take them out of the fight for long enough not to take part in the main strike.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >....sooo russia cant afford silos is what your saying?

        No, I never even implied that. RS-28 is a silo based ICBM.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have to keep in mind the scale of the United States. Montana is bigger than Germany. Malmstrom Air Force Base alone is the size of the Netherlands.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically so the Russians will aim for an empty part of the country in the event of a counterforce strike. The ICBMs are a sacrificial lamb, America's primary nuclear deterrent is its SLBMs.

    Unfortunately I think we've been massively underestimating just how evil Russians are and it should be assumed that they would likely destroy the 10-20 most populated cities anyway in the event of a counterforce strike just to cripple American demography.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This was all Cold War decisions vs Soviets anon, not klepto-russians. The Soviet Union had productive countries as part of its membership (like Ukraine) and at least a theoretically positive ideology and had rational leadership for significant periods of its history. It was still evil and shitty but it was arguably mildly better then tsarist Russia and much more so than current neo-tsarist/nihilist Russia. Nuclear sponge was a rational part of the game back then. And remember that when silos were first going in SLBMs weren't a thing yet, nor MIRVs or any sort of serious accuracy, that was true on both sides. Bombers were the major initial force, and coexisted as important alongside missiles for a good long period.

      So if some of the design is outdated now can't be helped. Of course by the same token, Russia's deterrent has rotted like mad, our interception has gotten better, and so has our first strike. Superfuses made vatniks super mad for good reason. If we detected any hint Russia might actually launch, we'd stand a pretty good chance at this point with a counter-force first strike of deleting a lot of their force. Their submarines are fricking garbage by 2020 standards and thus irrelevant.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I have a hardon for superfuse.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know anything about this kind of stuff, qrd?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Superfuse is a deceptively simple, clever tech that massively boosts the practical destructive capability of nuclear warheads in counter-force profiles. Basically to destroy a very hardened target like an ICBM silo, even a nuclear warhead has to be detonated at just the right point (or manage a truly direct hit, and that kind of accuracy is insanely hard in a long range ballistic missile and can't really be done in this case even for the US) to generate sufficient overpressure. Traditional designs very easily could overfly the target, but the height-compensating superfuse effectively lets a warhead target a 3D volume of space, not a single point or line, within which any detonation will be the right overpressure to destroy the silo. Again, it sounds super simple and trivial, but all the public calculations and math indicates the MC4700 arming/fuzing/firing system now deployed on the W76-1/Mk4A provides literally like a factor of 3x performance improvement vs hard targets. As if the US suddenly multiplied it's submarine fleets by 3, for cheap.

            The vast increase in US targeting capability has been almost 100% missed by general public discourse or media, it's much less flashy and numbers then raw nuclear warhead count which has gone down a lot. But particularly given Russia's decay it's meant that since 2018 or so (plus or minus a few years, we're guessing to some extent we don't have classified info) US has had a very credible capability to successfully pull off a first strike eliminating Russia's own nuclear deterrent. At which point they'd be done, they have no ability to resist NATO in a conventional war.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >kind of accuracy is insanely hard in a long range ballistic missile and can't really be done
              >in this case even for the US
              fricking kek.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not sure what you're kek'ing about moron. The US developed superfuses precisely because it's a much much easier and better solution then trying to achieve 1m CEP with a SLBM, which are still coming in at like Mach 27 and have a range of like 7000 miles. America has long had the absolute fricking best precision guidance across the entire spectrum in existence, it's one of the core focuses of US doctrine. The inertial guidance spheres (AIRS) for the MX were under appreciated wonders, the absolute pinnacle of electromechanical engineering and effectively "perfect" within the use case (and obsoleted by cheap fiber gyros oh well). But the MC4700 is still a huge deal anyway.

                Very interesting, thanks anon

                Yeah there's a lot of interesting stuff when you dig into practical details vs reality. Another thing is that at least public reports are that Russia at this point has no effective satellite based infrared early launch warning net, they depend heavily on ground based radars limited to horizon. This gives them far, far less warning then the US has particularly vs SLBMs that can pick a depressed trajectory, and the radars are far more vulnerable (witness the one Ukraine recently damaged).

                Unfortunately unlike any POTUS has the balls to just do it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm keking because they said the US missiles weren't accurate enough reject.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm keking because they said the US missiles weren't accurate enough reject.
                And like I said you're moronic, US missiles indeed weren't accurate enough. SLBMs aren't ATACMS, there's no <1m CEP there. Again, that's literally the entire reason we developed superfuses. If we had magic perfect accuracy SLBMs it wouldn't be necessary, but we don't, and superfuses massively multiplied the real world capability by making that kind of accuracy unnecessary, just have to aim for a much bigger volume of space and get inside of that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                getting an ICBM with a CEP of less than a meter is not obviously impossible, and in fact SpaceX are targetting that with Starship and NASA pulled it off with the Space Shuttle, but they require that you come in slowly for terminal, which obviously doesn't work for a weapons system
                I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >getting an ICBM with a CEP of less than a meter is not obviously impossible
                Maybe, but it's so insanely hard we didn't pull it off and went with superfuses instead.
                >and in fact SpaceX are targetting that with Starship and NASA pulled it off with the Space Shuttle
                Those are so different it's utterly incomparable anon.
                - Yeah, slow terminal speed, but also/in turn
                - Can talk to GPS and ground radio, are specifically coming down at known locations
                - Liquid fuel is much more controllable then solid even during boost, much more precision in trajectory and orbital insertion
                - Both have active terminal control, either due to flying or active retro thrust control

                It's just a different game entirely vs "fire this from stealth underwater up to 7000 miles and have it come in at mach 27".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I agree, that's why I said it wasn't worth the squeeze

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Falcon (and Starship) uses a radio beacon at the landing site for extra precision. Russia isn't kind enough to place beacons next to their silos.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                radio beacon doesn't even help when you're doing mach jesus and have a plasma sheath

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The inertial guidance spheres (AIRS) for the MX were under appreciated wonders, the absolute pinnacle of electromechanical engineering and effectively "perfect" within the use case

                imagine having an INS that's so good that it approaches theoretical maximums for accuracy and any more time and money spent trying to improve it is functionally useless - then throwing it away

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >then throwing it away
                US did that a lot at the end of the Cold War. Remember anon it was THE END OF HISTORY, no more need for nasty peer war ever again! Everyone will just trade and magically become free democracies by themselves while we gut our manufacturing with outsourcing and generate lots of shareholder value driving American firms into the ground!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >then throwing it away
                That's not a very accurate characterization. The need for the solution diminished to the point where it was no longer worth the cost. Each unit required insanely precise components and cost millions to manufacture, and was also a fairly sensitive device. More modern solutions became practical. It's not like we threw it away though - documentation, specifications, and examples remain and you can be absolutely certain that should the need arise again well pull it back out.

                This kind of FUD is almost as bad as the bulletin of atomic scientists fifth columist tier whining about how any improvement to our capabilities is a dangerous upset to the strategic balance, meanwhile our opponents capabilities have been actively degrading and shifting the balance anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not a very accurate characterization.
                I'm specifically talking about the INS system being destroyed and not preserved in museums.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did the Hill Aerospace Museum throw theirs away?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and what about the 100+ others?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Very interesting, thanks anon

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              anyone got that webm of RV test footage hitting an atoll in the pacific somewhere from a few years ago? it was a slbm iirc, can the camera set up showed the rv hitting a like a couple feet from the target.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >10kpsi
          Geez

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It was still evil and shitty but it was arguably mildly better then tsarist Russia and much more so than current neo-tsarist/nihilist Russia.

        No one tell this man what the Holodomor, Decossackization, Great Purge, NKVD "mass operations", and Soviet-Afghan War were.

        >So if some of the design is outdated now can't be helped.

        Hence why I pointed out that SLBMs are our greatest deterrent now. They're difficult to detect, more accurate, and most importantly, mobile, meaning that even a 100% successful counterforce or decapitation strike wouldn't stop them from firing.

        There's been an increasing debate over the past 30 years as to whether the remaining Minuteman IIIs should be scrapped due to their redundancy, and each time the Air Force has to talk Congress out of it because they exist to ensure the Russians (or Chinese) won't destroy all of our cities in the first round of strikes, just some of them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Forgot to add

          >Their submarines are fricking garbage by 2020 standards and thus irrelevant.

          It's worse than that

          [...]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's worse than that
            Frick outta here with your war-tourist takes.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Dude their subs are worse than obsolete, they're literally falling apart. What you're seeing in the post I linked is the kind of damage that would get an American sub pulled from deployments, possibly even decommissioned.

              The Akula-class is their newest class of attack subs btw. The last one was completed in 2000.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What you're seeing in the post I linked is the kind of damage that would get an American sub pulled from deployments, possibly even decommissioned.
                You know fricking nothing, because you're a wartourist. Lurkmore.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No one tell this man what the Holodomor, Decossackization, Great Purge, NKVD "mass operations", and Soviet-Afghan War were.
          I know what they are. None of them are important to this conversation, Soviet atrocities have zero to do with rational game theory for MAD. The 1960s-1980s politburo still didn't desire suicide, deescalated big time following the Cuban crisis, along with the US. They played the game like the US did, keeping to proxy wars, keeping up under the table diplomacy, the red phones etc. Doesn't mean we didn't still have some close calls, but the cold war never went hot.
          >Hence why I pointed out that SLBMs are our greatest deterrent now. They're difficult to detect, more accurate, and most importantly, mobile, meaning that even a 100% successful counterforce or decapitation strike wouldn't stop them from firing.
          "Now", they've been important deterrent for a long long time dumb ass. In fact if anything they're arguably more destabilizing now as well as a deterrent thanks to above, it's the subs that would be in charge of a first strike.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that ruled by terror and eliminated whole groups of people (during the Stalin era, more selectively later on) if they were getting in the way, but they were a product of the cataclysm of World War I. Different ideologies filled the void. Fascism really rejected reason and rationality altogether (really they rejected the Enlightenment) for an ideology about overcoming cultural decadence and spiritual degradation through the power of the will. The Soviets leaned into a faith in science which would bring into being a forward-looking Jetsons civilization that would be the embodiment of the Enlightenment dream. It was almost Reddit-tier heckin science thinking. This doesn't mean they WERE living like that. A huge number of people were basically living in barracks for a significant part of that history. But China is kind of like if the USSR never collapsed. It's all modernist / futurist stuff:

          So, obviously, there are many dangers to the state claiming to represent absolute scientific Truth because you were dead meat if you got in the way. But I think there was a certain rationality to the Soviet government that could sit down with Nixon and sign arms control agreements. We and the USSR didn't actually blow up the world during the Cold War (caveat is that a big part of that was being able to blow them to hell if they got any ideas, and they had to know that, but they understood that, which is important). But some of the stuff coming out of Russia nowadays is very dark. "Death is not the end..." and they passed some bill that last year that defined the essential difference between them and the West as Russia representing spiritual values and the West representing materialism, as if we were like the Soviets. But there's all this woo stuff and magical thinking which is dangerous when combined with nuclear weapons.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Science fiction has killed more than any other idea humanity has had…save maybe religion.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We had a lot more ICBMs during the Cold War, and they were dispersed across more states than they are now. There used to be missile bases in Arizona, New York, Kansas, Missouri, Washington, and California. Probably other states too.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I saw this map in a /misc/ thread and I was surprised as to how buched up together most of the silos are.
    Our main strike package is our subs. Silos are smooth brain shit because you cant move them or hide them, a relic of the early cold war.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >when your shitty midwestern town is on a nuclear strike map
    We have a population of 10k but there is a fuel depot here.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    easier logistics and security -
    additionally spreading silos means also spreading eventual fallout?
    and spreading them does not matter for their role in case of full scale exchange - as missiles in those silos will be long gone when first incoming warheads arrive

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Minuteman III has a service life of 10 years. It’s been undergoing service life extensions continually and it’s soon going to become more costly then it’s worth vs just designing all-new missiles. Missile bodies are running out and have been out of production for ages. All the people who understood the manufacturing and tech are dead. We probably couldn’t make an INS as good any more, too.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sure thing bro

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you do know how your phone is able to do 3D scans of an object with it's cameras right? or have you used any one of those silly phone lightsaber apps back when that was all the rage on like, the fricking iTouch? the tech is well understood, and we've miniaturized it for civilian usage. if you need to make the full sized turbo-accurate shit it's not that hard. hell even ATACMS is still using the tech

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We probably couldn’t make an INS as good any more, too.
      Dumbass. A major part of the reason AIRS ultimately went away isn't just the MX program getting canned, but because as I mentioned modern solid state stuff using fiber optic gyros with lasers simply can do the job better, cheaper, more reliably, and more compactly. I fricking love the engineering that went into electromechanical, but silicon continues to eat the world.

      So no, the answer is that we not just can but do make INS that are as good or superior. Interest never went away.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Gonna call BS on that. I bet if I were to drill down on the topic the silicon units have massive performance trade-offs for the sake of cost.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Gonna call BS on that. I bet if I were to drill down on the topic the silicon units have massive performance trade-offs for the sake of cost.
          You'd bet wrong. By all means feel free to read up on fibre-optic gyroscopes, they're cool, but fact is that using the principle of light interference is a really good physics foundation to build on and get enormous precision out of in a compact package with zero moving parts. Which is awesome in a military context since it means they can handle high shock use cases as well without any need for enormous dampening and compensation systems.

          Sometimes stuff just gets better anon. Transistors are just better to compute with then vacuum tubes. Chipscale atomic clocks are just mind blowing tech themselves and far better then crystal oscillators or old mechanical designs despite being the size of a rice grain and using like 100 mW of power.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Transistors are just better to compute with then vacuum tubes.
            but mechanical relays had SOVL.

            You just watch, the clacking computer will make a comeback just like the clacking keyboard did.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >dies to ai drone swarm slop
              [COMPUTED ANALYSIS: NO PERSONAL ANTAGONISM WAS EXPERIENCED TOWARDS PITIFUL MEAT BAG]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Glad you outed yourself there. In reality crystal oscillators are still the highest standard. You probably think bits and bytes are their own phenomena.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/Zls6BqL.jpeg

              BTW I hope you’ve learned from this conversation. Probably not though.

              >crystal oscillators are more accurate than atomic clocks guiz that's why they use them for GPS and other high precision applications
              Holy shit the complete and absolute state of /k/.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >bytes
              what do you call half a byte?

              a nibble.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            BTW I hope you’ve learned from this conversation. Probably not though.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This graphic suggests strategic missiles use mechanical gyros, which the AIRS is an example of one. However, Draper website indicates IFOG is used for Mk6 re-entry vehicle on Trident II, as well as SSBN inertial guidance.

              Perhaps this image is not the final word on the subject.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fresh out of the lab, Trident upgrade procured in 2023 https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/ifog

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We probably couldn’t make an INS as good any more, too.
      No one is building mechanical gyroscopes not because we can't, but because they are useless garbage in a world where we have learned to make laser gyroscopes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would we want to build more of a 60-year-old design?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't the minuteman III replacement already lined up?
      https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/sentinel/about-sentinel

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I come from a non-nuclear EU state
    Odds are your entire country is smaller than any of the nuclear silo clusters on that map. The USA is as big as the entire continent of Europe, including Russia (but not Asiatic Russia, obviously).
    Additionally, the point of clustering your nuclear missile silos in the least-population-dense areas of your country is to make sure the enemy wants to target those with his missiles, in order to avoid being struck by nukes, than wasting his bombs against high-population areas which cannot harm him. If the enemy has, say, enough missiles to strike 100 targets, and we have 200 potential targets, of which 50% are missile silos and 50% are cities, then he's probably going to invest in making sure he can't be nuked back. If you put a missile silo close to a city, like China does, then you're in deep trouble.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >targets Fond Du Lac, WI which nothing more than Little Milwaukee Jr. with all the increase of Dindus
    >no direct hits to Oshkosh, WI which builds the JLTV and many other .mil support vehicles

    Based.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the idea is in a nuclear war there's likely to be peace after the initial strikes... because you know, burgertown just packed it up and went home after 9/11.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My advice to you would be to quit going to /misc/

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    fellow eurogay
    you need to hit those bunkers pretty much right on so all you have to do is build them far enough apart that you can't get two with a single nuke.
    you put them all in the same region because then only the most bumfrick middle of nowhere regions get absolutely nuked
    it also makes maintaining/guarding and manning them a lot easier since you have all the sites relatively close together.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody will bother with silos anyways, you got to hit large population centers like LA, NY, Moscow,...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sine they will focus all their missile defense on those mega cities, you got to hit each of them with 50 Mirved warheads or so

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tbh silo destruction seems like an actual useful mission for "rods from god" or some other form of non-nuclear FOBS. Stage weapons in orbits over silo fields and plan to hit them with precision bunker busters rather than wasting nukes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Exact same precision challenge, except worse because now you really do need a really tiny CEP. Hyperkinetic impactors definitely could have excellent hardened shelter penetration, but that purely comes from their speed and the fundamental difficulty of making something going 7-8 km/s hit a tiny target is still hard. The nuke doesn't have to hit exactly, because it's a fricking nuke, it can generate enough overpressure from a certain amount of distance. RfG under certain scenarios could be useful but not that one. And also anon what the shit:
      >rather than wasting nukes.
      >wasting nukes
      There is literally no higher purpose or value for a nuke then preventing multiple enemy nukes (ICBMs are all MIRVs, one silo is worth 8-16 enemy nukes) from ever taking flight in the first place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There is literally no higher purpose or value for a nuke then preventing multiple enemy nukes (ICBMs are all MIRVs, one silo is worth 8-16 enemy nukes) from ever taking flight in the first place.
        Yes fair play I guess, I was just thinking every nuke that isn't employed blowing up other nukes is freed up for countervalue targeting (TZD, total Chang death, etc.). Regardless, the fundamental problem of precision remains, you're right.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a waste. They will hit you anyway with submarines and all people die, no need to bother with hitting enemy silos

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and all people die
          did you get lost on the way to the drudge report comment section? what the frick

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          frick off you moronic tourist

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *