Why doesn't the US have any mobile ICBMs?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We were building some when the USSR decided to collapse and then we said "Oh. Well, hell with that then". I think the main part of it was supposed to be a rail-mobile (and launched) peacekeeper

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That’s what submarines are for.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Air force

      Also this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Air force
        Very low quality post.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are pretty dumb as a concept? You get zero upsides of using a silo based system other than flexibility that you don't need, while not having the layered defence of a launch site, being susceptible to capture and sabotage, and showing up on fucking osint.

    What benefit does it have? It can drive in a parade. Ergo, any military using one just gave themselves away as a posturing paper tiger who intentionally hobbled one of their most valuable strategic assets just so some braindead plebs can be awed into forgetting they live in a repressive shithole under leadership that would be flayed alive in a just world

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This

      https://i.imgur.com/MqqzoFp.jpg

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      LARP. Midgetman's Hard Mobile Launcher prototype did undergo road (and off-road) testing but it never carried a nuke. The USA has never had a land mobile ICBM reach operational capability.

      Proves you are a fucking idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I knew some officers who drove around with the mobile icbms. Some funny stories but mostly just hauling giant wastes of money.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Dont leave us hanging anon, even if they are most likely made up

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spill it gay.

        Being opfor in a civilian vehicle, random clothing and armed like mad max while getting pulled over by civilian cops. Show them your fuck off paperwork and they fuck off.
        Having a breakdown or just parking somewhere and that land suddenly became a national nuke security zone. Local cops loved that too.
        Just crap like that. They were driving around with nuclear weapons so shit was real if it needed to be.
        There is one really good story and I gotta be a dick and not tell it since I probably should not have been told it. People got fired but I do not think anyone went to jail.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah clearly larping, last 2 sentences gave it away for sure

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Spill it gay.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And like much of US prototype nonsense it was a feverdream reaction to something the soviets pulled, only for everyone to internally realize that all the axioms it's based on are false and quietly ask for the project to be scrapped.

      Because again, even against contemporary nukes, by the time the truck is piloted, unparked and manauvred outside of a base with traffic outside it, the incoming ICBM would be minutes from striking. And its a MIRV; you know, the very thing he design documents proposed to be a hard counter

      Past that point it either gets the choice of crawling through a road network distinctly not made for such behemoths requiring road blockades you dont have even a fraction of the time to institute, or drive a 50 ton wheeled vehicle off road and pray for god that you dont get stuck within the next mile.

      And again, all of this to maintain retaliation capabilities. Which you also would've maintained had you just launched the fucking thing the second you got the launch warning

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My apologies, tagged the wrong post. Meant to reference the one talking about the hard mobile launcher

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The launchers are kept in an area that is already very remote. So traffic is not a concern for them. However, because of their size and a few other restrictions they did not all have the ability to set up at random locations. Rather they might each have a half dozen or so predesignated launch locations. This is still incredibly valuable though in that each would be outside of the damage area of another being hit, so you would need to strike perhaps six or more locations to take out one launcher (and you would want to use more than one warhead each). Which makes the entire thing less than practical.

        However, it was not really practical on the Russia side to expect your launchers to escape their hangers prior to destruction. USSR did not then (and Russia certainly does not now) have the ability to detect a sudden attack and respond that quickly. Mobile launchers will be caught in their hangers prior to deployment if they are on the defense.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We do, they're just in the ocean.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because we already have hundreds of missiles in literally every country that's friendly to us

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most of russias tech tree decisions in this Civ VI match like heavy focus on SAMs and truck ICBMs were due to them being poor

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong. The USSR was heavily dependent on silo-based ICBMs. They didn't even start developing a land-mobile ICBM until the 1980s. You must be thinking of IRBMs/MRBMs. The Soviets had lots of those in EE.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they did start developing them back in the 70s but this ended poorly so they only managed to adapt the tech to a MRBM in 1976. Their first mobile ICBM appeared in the 1982 and used railway wagons, while the first wheeled one came into service around something 1988.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We don't like aesthetic weapon systems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only good answer ITT.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Democrats. They block as much military spending and innovation that they can.

      The only correct answers (and they are unfortunately underrated).

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the whole point of an icbm is it can hit anything from anywhere on earth, why would it need to be mobile. For shorter range nukes you have subs and bombers
    only use case is for 3rd world countries to parade it around on state tv to cope

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russians were incredibly wary of how quickly their silos we're located by US spyplanes despite their best efforts to hide them, which lead to their desire for something mobile. Inferior compared to submarines of course which is why it's largely unneeded by the US, but under the circumstances it's a fine enough solution for a very Soviet problem.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the orbital early warning system gives you enough time to launch missiles from silos before they're hit anyway
        these icbm trucks are still mostly propaganda pieces

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They do, I will not say any more.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I knew some officers who drove around with the mobile icbms. Some funny stories but mostly just hauling giant wastes of money.

      Dont leave us hanging anon, even if they are most likely made up

      Spill it gay.

      LARP. Midgetman's Hard Mobile Launcher prototype did undergo road (and off-road) testing but it never carried a nuke. The USA has never had a land mobile ICBM reach operational capability.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Industry parlance is "warhead sink". And land mobile ICBMs make excellent warhead sinks because the enemy would have to devote 3 or 4 times the amount of warheads than they would for an ICBM silo.

        Isn't the entire point of Silos to be resistant to nuclear blastwaves in a way exposed missiles aren't? Sure, having a mobile launcher reduces hit probability, but what the hell is the point if the missile can be disabled from a nuclear detonation within a dozen kilometers as opposed to two or three? Not to mention the effects of the complex hydraulic/electrical systems needed to orient and fire the missile being even slightly damaged by overpressure or radiation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          First of all, how would the enemy know where the mobile ICBM is? They would have to go on satellite imagery or intel on the ground, all of which will be outdated in a state of DEFCON 2 or even 3 because the thing would be moving around.
          Second, the Small ICBM (aka "Midgetman") was designed to be carried by a "Hard Mobile Launcher (see

          https://i.imgur.com/MqqzoFp.jpg

          [...]
          [...]
          [...]
          LARP. Midgetman's Hard Mobile Launcher prototype did undergo road (and off-road) testing but it never carried a nuke. The USA has never had a land mobile ICBM reach operational capability.

          ) that was safe from chemical, biological, and radiological threat. It was also blast-proof up to 30 PSI.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that was safe from chemical, biological, and radiological threat. It was also blast-proof up to 30 PSI.

            Aha, that explains the strange low silhouette and the sloped sides, it was meant to survive strong blast waves without flipping over.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes. Furthermore, the trailer could be hydraulically lowered into the ground. The tractor would then pull forward to use the trailer's plow function to dig itself into the ground in preparation for launching or nuclear attack.

              https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/06/05/icbm-hard-mobile-launcher/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They would have to go on satellite imagery or intel on the ground, all of which will be outdated in a state of DEFCON 2 or even 3 because the thing would be moving around.

            The TEL is accompanied by a few hundred people, support vehicles and only operates on predesignated routes. In the US, these are the Interstate Highway Network. It would be trivial to figure out where all the TELs are at any given point, if only because of the freeway shutdowns that would accommodate them. This already happens with existing TELs and nuclear waste transporters, most of which are moved at night but their movements are known to locals due to the noise. For example, I know exactly when our nuclear weapons get upgraded because they shut down the roads until the convoy moves through. I also know if they're receiving parts delivered for assembly/testing or delivering parts for flight to Texas based on which roads are closed. I made a few posts about this to /n/ but nobody cares.

            Also, since I'm a memer I also bothered to collect all the radio whenever they put it by train, because all of that is available publicly and it's very easy to figure out when/which trains have special cargo going to special places. This is another failed /n/ thread btw.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the US focused on firing quickly
    relocation not necessary if you fire before impacted

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All these posts are garbage. The answer per ICBM generation:
    First gen ICBMs couldn't be mobile so no surprises there.
    Minuteman: There was in fact a plan to make a (rail) mobile version of Minuteman. It got cancelled because it was too expensive, versus modest and then heavy silo hardening which could give the needed surivability.
    MX: Many types of mobility were examined from conventional rail and road to fucking dirigibles. None of them actually provided the needed survivability, for that you needed deceptive basing which was chosen and then died to political pushback. Rail mobile was eventually selected as the backup, but died due to the end of the Cold War.
    Small ICBM: was road mobile, note that it was chosen specifically because it was a single warhead missile, because that was baraging it down would never give a positive exchange rate.
    GBSD: Mobility was ruled out from cost.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't they air-launch an ICBM once, too?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just to dickwave to show that they have that capability when dickwaving was needed

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Meant this for you:
        >Yes

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They can air launch SRBM, IRBM, and MRBMs from the C-17 the same way. They just use it to test BMDSs against target missiles of whatever range they're testing against at the time.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't need it.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we have subs

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why not just get rid of the triad and give our entire nuclear arsenal to the gays in the navy?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because a fully effective triad including stealth bombers pisses off libs, chinks, and Russians

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2/3rds of it is already up there and land based ICBMs are excellent enemy nuke magnets.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Industry parlance is "warhead sink". And land mobile ICBMs make excellent warhead sinks because the enemy would have to devote 3 or 4 times the amount of warheads than they would for an ICBM silo.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is getting even more nonsensical. are you a serb?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this is getting even more nonsensical. are you a serb?

            No, I'm not a Serb. Are you?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm not a Serb
              [ X ] DOUBT

              However, you should probably apply for honorary citizenship or something. Your IQ is substantially below the maximum allowable threshold, so your application should be a mere formality.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm not a Serb
              [ X ] DOUBT

              However, you should probably apply for honorary citizenship or something. Your IQ is substantially below the maximum allowable threshold, so your application should be a mere formality.

              I hear Wagner is hiring.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Moving nuke is a bitch and the idea of having to provide security for a mobile nuke would be a major bitch.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Submarines are vulnerable to detection and attack

    Not by Russia. They can’t even create a right enough cordon around their airbases to prevent saboteurs from blasting their attack helos apparently.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then WTF do the Russian Navy's attack subs do every day?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Definitely not controlling the entire pacific and Atlantic oceans, that’s for sure

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t.my herpes and monkeypox-riddled ass
          Nice source.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wherever a vatnik goes, he must project and talk about asses

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Take your meds, schizo.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wait, you unironicly believe that a few dozen kilos, each with a month and a half effective endurance, are providing a complete screen against ballistic missile subs?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              anon, you're talking with a guy who thinks 50 ton and 20 meter long trucks are impossible targets

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, idiot. And
                >50 ton and 20 meter long trucks traveling at 40 MPH are impossible targets
                FTFY

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                just like i said, absolutely delusional

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the Scowcroft Commission and Reagan are "absolutely delusional".
                OK, waterhead.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you are absolutely delusional and incredibly dumb

                there is no end to your stupidity

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How much of your time do you want to waste lobbying insults with me, pole smoker? I have all the time in the world.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                about 10 seconds worth

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/3FbxJXZ.jpg

                just like i said, absolutely delusional

                https://i.imgur.com/HzURLfo.png

                wherever a vatnik goes, he must project and talk about asses

                PrepHole believes that Russians are behind every post like 4chan believes that trannies are behind every post. lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                to be fair russians and trannies are both equally disgusting creatures

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/7AxpTb5.jpg

                about 10 seconds worth

                whiter and blonder than you martinez

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's what they'll say when they send you to be bombed

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whiter than you Ahmed

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Reagan was more than delusional

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >BY AZURA, BY AZURA, BY AZURA!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        trying very hard not to leak, i j

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It involves enormous amounts of anal rape and semen guzzling on an hourly basis. We can't really discuss what happens in the russian navy on a family friendly board.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          USN is the same. Like Churchill said, sodomy is a naval tradition.

          Post your security clearances.

          >t.neverserved
          Security clearances aren't badges. And even if they were, nobody would post them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Then WTF do the Russian Navy's attack subs do every day?
        Sit docked in port rusting away and leaking radiation

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rust on a beach mostly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        just chillin wyd?

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Submarines are vulnerable to detection and attack
    >mobile ICBMs are impossible to target
    brain damage

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not an argument.
      How would a land mobile ICBM be targeted?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you are not mentally developed enough to use arguments, scram

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t.brainlet who will say ANYTHING except an argument
          w/e, gay.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you won't get anything but mockery because of the sheer stupidity of the opinions you present

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Post your security clearances.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Missile moves fine on its own, double handling of the work, truck could be used for something more frequently done (logistics, personnel transport); overall, more money spent for less value.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Submarines are vulnerable
    Well I'm sure YOU'RE smarter than all those boomer drivers out there anon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ah yes, the famed boomer captains of PrepHole...give me a break.

      [...]
      Satellites, spy planes, nuclear treaties that lets others fly above and observe.

      Drumpf pulled the USA out of the open skies treaty.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >attack subs trail attack subs
        Where did you get that idea? They are designed to hunt subs and ships.

        >autistic ESL screeching
        is this one of those eternally butthurt hapas i keep hearing about

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's ESL about those posts? I'm 100% white, btw.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            definitely a hapa

            even moron women look at you in disgust

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Adjust your HAPADAR and go see a shrink. lmao.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i've been found out
                imagine being a chinkcell

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you're trying to bait me into posting my BWC using reverse psychology, then it's not going to work. Fuck chinks, btw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                most women would puke if they saw your yellow "BWC", even the asian ones

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets only went to road mobile ICBM launchers when their intel indicated that the US's warheads were accurate enough for direct hits on their ICBM silos with a MIRV bus. If the Soviets weren't able to detect the launch soon enough, or their SAMs failed to intercept the warheads, the silo would still have its ICBM. They feared the US would be able to spam accurate nuclear warheads and destroy their easily located silos. So, they put them on wheels and drive them around, making them harder to keep track of. The US went with silo based ICBMs covered by SAMs (land and sea), and accurate SLBMs. Russia just recently may have matched the accuracy of US warheads in the 80s.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      US doesn’t use MIRV anymore on land-based silos since, given treaty limits on warhead counts, that increases the total number of individual silos Russia has to hit. The silo fields act as a sponge for soaking up a good chunk of a counterforce attack, far from sense population areas. It’s also for this reason the ICBMs in the silos are not in urgent need for modernization, as they need to be just good enough that a counterforce strike can’t ignore them

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >sense
        dense*

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >individual silos Russia has to hit
        The Soviets and Russians never attempted to develop any real counter force capability for three main reasons:
        1. They knew that their accuracy wasn't good enough.
        2. They knew that US detection was comprehensive enough to detect any attack.
        3. Their detection network wasn't seen as that reliable, and geography (i.e. through low angle SSBN strikes) basically gave them no warning anyway.
        Soviet strategy (and Russian strategy when they used to talk about it) was to try and weather an attack then launch a revenge strike with whatever they had left.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually, in lieu of poor accuracy they simply used higher yield

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They feared the US would be able to spam accurate nuclear warheads and destroy their easily located silos.
      You are missing the part where if the US attacked first it wouldn't matter at all, that the mobile 'hanger' would be destroyed even more easily. Mobile launchers are not deployed on a constant basis. They are kept in a 'hanger' until ordered to deploy, prior to launch. There are not dozens of mobile nuke launchers just hanging out at any given random time throughout Russia. That may be a source of misunderstanding here.

      >individual silos Russia has to hit
      The Soviets and Russians never attempted to develop any real counter force capability for three main reasons:
      1. They knew that their accuracy wasn't good enough.
      2. They knew that US detection was comprehensive enough to detect any attack.
      3. Their detection network wasn't seen as that reliable, and geography (i.e. through low angle SSBN strikes) basically gave them no warning anyway.
      Soviet strategy (and Russian strategy when they used to talk about it) was to try and weather an attack then launch a revenge strike with whatever they had left.

      >was to try and weather an attack then launch a revenge strike with whatever they had left.

      In effect. Back in the 70's they basically said that if you US did attack them that USSR had so many nukes/silo that whatever survived the attack would in fact be a larger number than what the US had used in the attack. In reality they never really developed a plan to create an assured retaliation strategy. Just relying on the fact that they did not believe the US would ever do it as the US would likely see any level of retaliation as being unacceptable - and it was likely that someplace at least one missile would survive and that would deter the US.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It was publicly known all the way since early 90s US Senate appropriations debates for defense funding that targeting mobile launchers was part of the justification for the B-2 development. Perhaps you’re an cretinous imbecile enough to think counterforce strikes can only be by inertially guided ballistic missiles? You gnomish moron gay you

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because ICMBs are easily detectable and have zero tactical use. Standoff weapons meanwhile, are dual use and can be made much less detectable than a fuck off big rocket burning through a fuck off big booster motor.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >nuclear submarines are easy to detect and destroy
    >100ft long trucks going 15 mph towing a gigantic missile are impossible to target
    what huffing glue in a chinese sweatshop does to a mfer

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Satellites, spy planes, nuclear treaties that lets others fly above and observe.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they're all under the water, doesn't get much more mobile than 70% of the earth's surface

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >nuclear submarines are easier to track than 100ft trucks
    Are you serious? The US probably has satellite imagery of every launch vehicle Russia has.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >probably
      for at least the last few decades US could track such vehicles real time, primarily via SAR imaging

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Proof?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There isn't really a way to get 24/7 real time satellite imagery of anything that isn't right near the equator because true geostationary orbits are only possible at 0 degrees of inclination. They'd probably be able to image them every hour or so if they really wanted to though.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you just need to use more satellites
          I believe SpaceX have done the math on how many are required (publicly available in their Starlink FCC filings)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you could theoretically have an endless chain of thousands of spy satellites passing over the area you want to image, though that would be a bit impractical for tracking the many hundreds of launch platforms Russia has.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don’t need that many. You just need enough that you get a second pass before the truck can go very far. If you wanted a 2 minute revisit rate you’d need at MOST 45 satellites in a LEO orbit. Probably way less considering each of these has a 200km field of view.

              And 45 is not that much when you consider Starlink has thousands of satellites.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                this is wrong, because:
                A. you can look at the earth from more angles than directly overhead, you can get visual for a while depending on your orbital altitude
                B. orbital inclination is a thing, your train of satellites will not be over your target on their next pass because the target will have rotated out from underneath them

                if you need a realistic minimum for this sort of thing you should look at the number of OneWeb satellites or the number of Iridium satellites
                note: these are all extremely visible objects

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the best way is combining multiple types of satelite sensors to fill in the gaps left by each of them being away as well as to cover for different atmospheric conditions, angles and other things that impede visibility. For such stupidly big trucks this is less relevant but for smaller targets having SAR scan the area and then optical sensors clear up most probable objects.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the best way is combining multiple types of satelite sensors to fill in the gaps left by each of them being away as well as to cover for different atmospheric conditions, angles and other things that impede visibility. For such stupidly big trucks this is less relevant but for smaller targets having SAR scan the area and then optical sensors clear up most probable objects.

                Yeah you’re right I was thinking of geosynchronous orbit where your ground track always returns to the same point cause you match rotation. In any case, you don’t necessarily need precision if you’re gonna nuke the trucks. And if you’re gonna take them out some other way, you just need a general location for a ground (or air or sea) based sensor to go search

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the nice thing about trucks is that you don't need nukes to destroy them

                ignoring very real concerns of a sudden undercover attack during any of the multiple times when the truck is most vulnerable, like moving from one place to the other or even how its wait location is still nowhere as secure as even unhardened concrete underground complex, the truck can be easily destroyed using conventional means like cruise missiles and non nuclear ballistic missiles which can both have range to reach them without getting too close.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and the undercover attack issue would be most stringent to an open society like US or UK, who aren't surrounded by closed off and unreachable areas and ever present air of secrecy and surveilance like the soviets were.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Starlink satellites are far smaller and cheaper than spy satellites, and remember, you're still only talking about imaging one target. There are hundreds of ICBM carrier vehicles.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                planet labs have a surface imaging constellation up right now btw

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USA uses solid rocket fuel. No reason or need to be mobile.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If there's a Russian sub within 100 miles of an American boomer when the USA decides to launch, the American attack sub that's been trailing the Russian one since the Black Sea will take it out beforehand

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >attack subs trail attack subs
      Where did you get that idea? They are designed to hunt subs and ships.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They are designed to hunt subs and ships.

        Yes. Like enemy attack subs. In fact, those are among the targets at the top of the list.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they are designed to hunt subs

        Did your programming malfunction or did you not even reread what you posted once before doing so?

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine travelling through uninhabitable russian wilderness on a mission to hunt down their cope tubes with your trusty .50 cal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Imagine travelling through uninhabitable russian wilderness on a mission to hunt down their cope tubes with your trusty .50 cal.

      You dont need a 50 cal, a 9 mm magnum with subcaliber tungsten APDS would do. All you need to do is to puncture the missile body. This regardless of it is solid fuel or liquid fuel.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why doesn't the false premise in my fantasy world have any proofs that the negative doesn't not exist? Why has nobody unproved the toddler-tier LARP in my head?
    Another vatmoron slide thread. Again.

    It's entirely possible that you don't have the necessary security clearances ..?

    Also, fuck you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing in the OP is about Russia, you deluded schizo. The picrel is a Chink ICBM. Go back to jacking off in Ukraine thread.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        obsession with ineffective and overrated crap is very much russia related

        that's probably why you react so painfully to being called out

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, I'm in so much pain chilling on my front porch in Coastal California passing out candy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what a shitty LARP

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Wanna pic of my porch and candy bow, gay?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i want you to have a nice day, you AIDS ridden shill

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not going to, gay.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, you're just gonna spam your cum slurping threads over and over like a bitch you are

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Spam? This is the first time I posted it. lmao, get a new line (and a life).

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                as if there's a difference in your vatnik template threads, moron

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >vatnik
                Do you say that word in your sleep? Maybe to you wife when she tells you that she has a "headache"?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                play vatnik games, win vatnik prizes, moron

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, I live in California and am 100% white (Northwest European).

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It just fucking struck me that ABATAP probably already died in Ukraine. And with the new movie just coming out.
                War is hell, truly.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bottom center isn't even in Russian.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >every thread I don't like is a slide thread
      Dude chill

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The USN has more active Boomers than Russia has active SSNs.
    >but muh SSKs
    They're irrelevant.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Did you know? poccyia haz ATTACK SUBMARINES! Scary.
    >See our newest highly technology addition to submarine fleet. At least 600 semen on top sekrit huntings of Americans mission. Big OPSEC, is why families have not heard from any of them in half a year. Much OPSECs, many wunderwaffels.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That thing with the drone reminded me of that one sniper comic where two snipers get distracted by a butterfly reminded of their childhood... but one snapped out of it first and shot the other one.

      Anyone have that comic?

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US is a maritime power, with a large bluewater navy it spends a disproportionate amount on. The Soviet Union in contrast was a land power, with large hinterlands and huge land armies. While through-ice arctic SLBM basing is pretty compelling money tends to keep going to where it used to go to.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    German ancestral need to dig holes is too strong so lots of silos amount to the same result.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because silos are better at tying up enemy warheads, and subs are better at moving around undetected.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are a large variety of advantages using mobile ICBM launchers, yet for the US being decades behind in development, it is too late now.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yes anons those things are very small and easily hidden from satellites. No fucking way anyone could know where they are.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And moving something so broad you have to put roadblocks in effect, with everyone and theor mum gawking out of the window, taking pics, absolutely wont mean your enemy instantly give themselves away.

      Again, the UD quietly buried their project for this because they understood the underlying presumptions to be retarded, even more so in the age of the internet and an age where the default icbm is the exact kind that counters an icbm truck

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Democrats. They block as much military spending and innovation that they can.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    shit thread

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I want some of the crack they were on when they came up with some of the ideas in the report your pic related is from. I have to admire the effort the USAF went through to make their golden child of MX in Multiple Protective Shelters option the best option. I'm a particular fan of their "SSBN but retarded", "Hovercraft driving around the Mojave" and "Fuck it just set the missile adrift in the ocean" proposals.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter

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

            What is the "Van Dorn effect" referred to in the screencap?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Van+Dorn+effect

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This one is my favorite just because it got far enough for demonstrator testing

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/eUSV9Wd.png

      I want some of the crack they were on when they came up with some of the ideas in the report your pic related is from. I have to admire the effort the USAF went through to make their golden child of MX in Multiple Protective Shelters option the best option. I'm a particular fan of their "SSBN but retarded", "Hovercraft driving around the Mojave" and "Fuck it just set the missile adrift in the ocean" proposals.

      https://i.imgur.com/bwuzr1M.png

      https://i.imgur.com/w8jdYbo.png

      What book are these from?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "ICBM BASING OPTIONS: A Summary of Major Studies to define a survivable basing concept for ICBMs" It's a 1980s report to the public trying to justify the Multiple Protective Shelter scheme. The TL;DR for is that you have a bunch of shelters for each missile and you shuffle the missile between them at random. Idea is that Russia has to attack multiple shelters to destroy one missile.

        This is way outdated. The idea of putting the MX on the road was scrapped from the get go because it was too big. A decade later when the Midgetman was considered, it was more feasible because it was about 10% the weight of the MX. This allowed the Hardened Mobile Launcher (the vehicle carrying the Midgetman to travel at top speeds of 55 miles per hour on paved surfaces (an almost 30% increase in speed over the road mobile MX)
        One of the plans considered to deal with the public interface/security issue was to ONLY have it roam large defense installations (such as Fort Irwin, White Sands, and the Nevada Test Site. Also, the Midgetman was designed to be a lower targeting priority for the Soviets, aside from its mobility, due to it being a non-MIRVable ICBM; it only could handle one warhead. It would intended to supplement the land/silo-based leg of the triad, not replaced it

        The paper is from 1980 and isn't actually seriously suggesting that they should put MX on the road. As you've said that idea had already been written off well before then. The general idea with the report is that the USAF is laying down a bunch of ICBM options and explaining the pros/cons of each. At the time it was written the USAF was fully onboard with MPS and the report essentially exists to justify the choice to the public. All of the options besides MPS are either terrible (e.g. Dirigible basing) or written up as if they were terrible (The awful submarine). MPS on the other hand is written up as almost perfect.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Interesting, thank you. You might be interested in the 1981 publication MX Missile Basing by Congress's Office of Technology Assessment. One of the authors is future SECDEF Ash Carter.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is way outdated. The idea of putting the MX on the road was scrapped from the get go because it was too big. A decade later when the Midgetman was considered, it was more feasible because it was about 10% the weight of the MX. This allowed the Hardened Mobile Launcher (the vehicle carrying the Midgetman to travel at top speeds of 55 miles per hour on paved surfaces (an almost 30% increase in speed over the road mobile MX)
      One of the plans considered to deal with the public interface/security issue was to ONLY have it roam large defense installations (such as Fort Irwin, White Sands, and the Nevada Test Site. Also, the Midgetman was designed to be a lower targeting priority for the Soviets, aside from its mobility, due to it being a non-MIRVable ICBM; it only could handle one warhead. It would intended to supplement the land/silo-based leg of the triad, not replaced it

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what is submarine

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has to do with your over all nuclear strategy, how you see your nukes being used. If you expect to be attacked, you invest heavily in silo/sub/etc - but not mobile. The reason is that mobile is best used for an offensive use of nuclear weapons.

    A mobile launcher has no advantage, and usually a lot of disadvantages, if you are receiving an attack. The transport will not be able to leave its hanger quickly enough to avoid damage and its hanger is going to be larger and less sturdy than a silo can be. But on the offense, where you expect to be the one who attacks, a mobile launcher has a lot of advantages.

    Key to understanding this is to understand that nobody would launch ALL of their missiles. Rather any side would hold back a certain number for a variety of reasons, not least of which is to deter a continued retaliation (if you have no nukes, they just one shot you at will one after the other until you surrender). With mobile launchers you can launch from your silo and then move the mobile launchers to a random location. Making an enemies ability to strike the mobile launcher with their retaliation (they will want to disarm you of your remaining ability to do harm) very difficult.

    In this context mobile launchers perform the same task as a sub, but at a fraction of the cost. However, they are disadvantaged on the defense while be advantaged on the offense.

    When you understand this a large portion of Russia's legacy USSR nuclear strategy starts to make sense in those areas where they don't seem to. The USSR always expect to be the one, regardless of claims, whom initiated nuclear exchange. They never really thought the US would do it. Mobile launchers are just one of the indicators of this. A system that makes no sense on the defense, but a lot of sense on the offense.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we found a weapon to surpass Metal Gear.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pertaining to subs, i wonder if anyone explored the idea of keeping one in a large lake or sea that's contained within the territorial landmass so that the sub is inaccessible to enemy vessels and protected by the water.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we don't need them.

    The whole reason the USSR made them was because we had the range and OCONUS bases to perform precision strikes on stationary Nuclear silos, so they had to create a mobile system that would be a fuck-ton harder to hit.

    The US on the other hand was pretty much completely protected by distance and two big fuck-off oceans. Which was also why Cuba was such a big fuckin' deal, but only one spot across an entire surface area of the US

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why? Already have SSBNs

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    VGH, what could have been.

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