G.Heinig%CS.UCL.AC.UK%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (05/13/89)
From: G.Heinig%CS.UCL.AC.UK%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
I would like to ask this newsgroup a question to
which I have to date not received a straight answer.
A while back ('81-'84) while the cruise and pershing
missiles were being installed here in Britain there
was a lot of talk along the lines of:
"Assuming each side fired n warheads (n usually some
absurd 32-bit quantity) the world would be wiped out
m times (m some equally absurd 16 bit quantity) ...
etc.. etc"
Now, all well and good ASSUMING THEY ALL GET THROUGH...
My question is: are there any figures out on the
mechanical reliability of ballistic missiles, rough
estimates, guesses? Also, is there any data available
on the chances of some of these missiles being destroyed
by enemy action/sabotage etc?
I'm not talking about star wars or anything like that -
simple sabotage of launch installations by special forces
and such like.
Knowing my luck all the info is classified, but any guesses
would be most welcome.
cheers
GERALD
mail: g.heinig@cs.ucl.ac.uk
gheinig@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Gerald Heinig IIIrd year CS at University College London
About to be floored by finals ...gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) (05/15/89)
From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) To the best of my knowledge, the USAF claims a 95-98% readiness/reliability rate for the Minuteman III forces. (This despite the fact that they've never actually launched one from an _operational_ silo.) I don't know what the professed rates for the MX, Titan, or Trident birds are, but I would say that overall a 50-60% delivery rate would be about right. -Paul -- Paul E. Robichaux, Undergrad Peon | Internet: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology | BITNET: gt0818a@GITNVE2 GT PO Box 30818; Atlanta, GA 30332 |============================================
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (05/16/89)
From: att!ihlpm!dcn (Dave Newkirk) I have read that Soviet missiles are not as reliable as ours, and their success rate may be 70-80% where ours might be 80-90%. Also remember that no one has tested an ICBM in an over-the-pole flight path. -- Dave Newkirk, att!ihlpm!dcn --- Dave Newkirk, att!ihlpm!dcn
cdr@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Carl Rigney) (05/19/89)
From: amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM!cdr@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Carl Rigney)
In _The Threat_, Andrew Cockburn suggests that perhaps 10-20% of our
ICBMs would make it to Russia; whether they would hit what they're
aimed at ... obviously we've never fired one over the poll to see if
the guidance models are accurate.
Note that the US has *never* fired a missile from an operational silo -
they move them to a special test silo and (I believe) spend a month or
two going over them very carefully before launch.
The Russian missiles are almost certainly much less reliable than
ours. Isn't liquid fuel fun? (Especially on those Russian boomers!)
I'd be interested in other people's sources. I find Cockburn
convincing (his other comments on the Soviet army match well with
Suvorov and other sources I've seen), but I'm willing to have my mind
changed.
--Carl Rigney
cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
{ames decwrl gatech pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdrcramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (05/20/89)
>I'd be interested in other people's sources. I find Cockburn >convincing (his other comments on the Soviet army match well with >Suvorov and other sources I've seen), but I'm willing to have my mind >changed. Cockburn functions as an apologist for the Soviet Union and other left-fascist regimes. Speaking of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he said the Afghans "deserved to be raped." He called human rights campaigner Anatoly Scharansky a CIA agent, and has been involved in attempts to smear Cuban human rights activists. Hardly what I'd call a reliable source.
phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) (05/20/89)
From: phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone) In article <6567@cbnews.ATT.COM> gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) >To the best of my knowledge, the USAF claims a 95-98% readiness/reliability >rate for the Minuteman III forces. (This despite the fact that they've never >actually launched one from an _operational_ silo.) I don't know what the >professed rates for the MX, Titan, or Trident birds are, but I would say that >overall a 50-60% delivery rate would be about right. Less than that. If the big one goes up, all kinds of last minute targeting info gets loaded into ~10% of the Minutemen. These carry no warheads, but transmitters. They are launched (generally first I believe but I have no knowledge of doctrine) and then retransmit the info. So right off the bat, you have up to 10% of your missile forces with no warheads. This used to be very secret, until some unknown asshole Congressman leaked it to Aviation Leak (8-10 years ago?). +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Philip K. Ronzone, Apple Computer, 10440 Bubb Rd, MS 58A, Cupertino, CA 95014| |{amdahl,decwrl,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft,...}!apple!phil | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | All "IMHOs" disclaimed and copyrighted. | Self defense is a human right ... | +-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (05/20/89)
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Heck - we have trouble launching missles with instruments connected and hundreds of scientific and technical people watching closely every aspect of the launch. I am suppose to believe that hundreds of missles sitting in silos with a couple of watch officers checking that it is still there are going to launch just fine? Who cares enemy action? Will the sucker work in the first place? And the soviet missles are donbe by the same crowd that can't keep cars going, right? BFHD.
dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) (05/20/89)
From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) In article <6706@cbnews.ATT.COM>, amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM!cdr@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Carl Rigney) writes: > > Note that the US has *never* fired a missile from an operational silo - > they move them to a special test silo and (I believe) spend a month or > two going over them very carefully before launch. You should note that this applies to land based ICBMs, although I don't know how close the silo at Vandenberg is to operational silos. The Navy has always had an ongoing program to do test launches of SLBMs using both East Coast and West Coast missile test ranges. These are carried out from the operational submarines, and in some cases use production, operational missiles (obviously with nuclear warheads removed. ) The data collected is probably as close to actual wartime data as can be collected within the constraints of test ban treaties and public safety. Dean dfkling@cs.washington.edu
hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) (05/22/89)
From: hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp (Howard J. Scrimgeour) In article <6551@cbnews.ATT.COM> G.Heinig%CS.UCL.AC.UK%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: > >I would like to ask this newsgroup a question to >which I have to date not received a straight answer. > >A while back ('81-'84) while the cruise and pershing >missiles were being installed here in Britain there >was a lot of talk along the lines of: >"Assuming each side fired n warheads (n usually some >absurd 32-bit quantity) the world would be wiped out >m times (m some equally absurd 16 bit quantity) ... >etc.. etc" While I can't answer your main question, I'd like to respond to that bit about "the world would be wiped out m times", because it crops up with such regularity. I recommend doing one's own calculations on this. The last calculation I ran came up with less warheads than enough to devastate the land area of the world ONCE, by three orders of magnitude. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M. | | hjsdvm@ziebmef.uucp CIS:75126,2744 | | uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!hjsdvm | | "We also walk dogs..." | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (05/23/89)
From: ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) In article <6747@cbnews.ATT.COM> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: > >Who cares enemy action? Will the sucker work in the first place? >And the soviet missles are donbe by the same crowd that can't keep cars >going, right? > >BFHD. Um, wrong...they're done by the same crowd that has a launch a month or so and keeps men in orbit for a year. Were I a betting man, I'd take one of those low-tech, steel Soviet candles over one of our super-sophistcated, titanium birds any day. National pride and wishful thinking aside, the Soviets build a better missle than we do. They have many times the experience. Now I have a question about accuracy. In the 'real' world of nuclear conflict, how useful is a nuclear weapon that has 50-yard accuracy outside of a few, specific missions (taking out a silo or underground bunker)? I guess the deeper question is: Given a confligration where multi-megaton devices are being lobbed about, does precise accuracy buy you anything? After all, what good is a deep communication bunker when all your means of production and a substantial portion of your population is gone. Put another way, does buying a few expensive, accurate weapons beat more in-expensive, lesss accurate weapons. N.B.: I AM NOT trying to start a 'why is nuclear war bad' discussion, etc. I am interested in what the tactical advantage of highly accurate ballistic missles. ...ken seefried iii ken@gatech.edu ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (05/23/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) In article <105868@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) writes: >Cockburn functions as an apologist for the Soviet Union and other >left-fascist regimes. Speaking of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he >said the Afghans "deserved to be raped." He called human rights campaigner >Anatoly Scharansky a CIA agent, and has been involved in attempts to smear >Cuban human rights activists. >Hardly what I'd call a reliable source. With due regards for your viewpoint, I would like to point out that a: sci.military is not a political forum and b: these are political, not technical defeciencies in his writing. He may still be perfectly competent to talk about the technical aspects of military science, no matter what you feel (or I feel, and i agree with your assesment...) about his politics. Remember, the bullets don't play political favorites. george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu [ mod.note: In self defense 8-) I'd like to point out that, for reasons unknown to me, Mr. Cramer's posting did not come to me, but was instead posted directly to the group. I don't think this was a deliberate act on his part; perhaps overly-intelligent news software is to blame. This is the first and, hopefully, last time anything like that has happened. - Bill ]
mr-frog@fx.com (Dave Pare) (05/24/89)
From: mr-frog@fx.com (Dave Pare) In article <105868@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) writes: >> Cockburn functions as an apologist for the Soviet Union and other >> left-fascist regimes. > With due regards for your viewpoint, I would like to point out that > a: sci.military is not a political forum and > b: these are political, not technical defeciencies in his writing. As we have seen in both Soviet Military Power, and Whence the Threat to Peace, politics has a great impact on how facts on weapons systems are presented. When talking about such a speculative subject as the reliability of a full-scale ICBM launch in a nuclear war environment, it becomes even more critical to ascertain whether or not the author is not perhaps exaggerating his claims because of some bias. When studying history, or reading a report from a think-tank, or reading an article in the newspaper, it is important to note the slant that the source places on the facts it presents. I found the extra bit of data provided by Sam Cramer as enlightening, simply because I felt it explained in part why the author's numbers seemed to me to be so extreme. As they say on all those TV court dramas, "Goes to credibility of the witness, your honor..." Dave Pare
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (05/24/89)
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) }From: ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) }Now I have a question about accuracy. In the 'real' world of nuclear }conflict, how useful is a nuclear weapon that has 50-yard accuracy }outside of a few, specific missions (taking out a silo or underground }bunker)? I guess the deeper question is: Given a confligration }where multi-megaton devices are being lobbed about, does precise }accuracy buy you anything? After all, what good is a deep }communication bunker when all your means of production and a }substantial portion of your population is gone. Put another way, does }buying a few expensive, accurate weapons beat more in-expensive, lesss }accurate weapons. I think the idea is something along the lines of proportional counter attack. You threaten a military target as a counter-attack against attacks on military targets. While a missle silo for the Air Force may be miles away from anything, Navy piers and bases have this tendency to be right next to (or insdie of) heavy residential areas. A small nuc carefully placed could put most of SURFLANT out of action. A small nuc not so carefully placed toward the same target could wipe out Virginia Beach and REALLY escalate things. Ibid taking out the Pentagon while leaving the Congress intact to surrender...
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (05/26/89)
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <6799@cbnews.ATT.COM>, ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > Now I have a question about accuracy. In the 'real' world of nuclear > conflict, how useful is a nuclear weapon that has 50-yard accuracy > outside of a few, specific missions (taking out a silo or underground > bunker)? I guess the deeper question is: Given a confligration > where multi-megaton devices are being lobbed about, does precise > accuracy buy you anything? ``Both'' sides have been moving away from a strategy of lobbing big multi-megaton jobs around; they have little or no military value. The strategy today is indeed to take out silos, bunkers, command posts, etc.; cities and the like are not targeted. It's possible, I suppose, that there are backup missles aimed at enemy means of production, in event of a long war, but for the initial nuclear exchange the targets are strictly military. I recall hearing of an interchange during the Carter administration, when someone asked if it was true that that was how our missles were targeted. The response was something like ``since one MIRV'ed Trident submarine has enough bombs to take out every large and medium city in the U.S.S.R. (note: I haven't checked that number), I would certainly hope so.'' If I recall correctly, the last U.S. missles equipped with megaton warheads were the Titans, and they've all been decommissioned now. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb smb@ulysses.att.com
wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) (05/27/89)
From: wolit@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Jan Wolitzky) In article <6904@cbnews.ATT.COM>, smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) writes: > If I recall correctly, the last U.S. missles equipped with megaton > warheads were the Titans, and they've all been decommissioned now. The Minuteman II (LGM-30F) is equipped with a single 1.2 Mt W56 warhead in a Mk-11C RV. 400 of these are deployed, I believe. (A few - 8? - carry Emergency Rocket Communications System transmitters rather than warheads.) -- Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/27/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>And the soviet missles are donbe by the same crowd that can't keep cars >>going, right? > >Um, wrong...they're done by the same crowd that has a launch a month >or so and keeps men in orbit for a year... Talk about underestimates... It's not a launch a month, it's typically two a *week*. Much of that experience is probably not directly relevant to operational missiles, since the major Soviet space booster is long obsolete as an ICBM, but the general technology is pretty thoroughly shaken down all right. More generally, one should bear in mind that Soviet consumer goods and Soviet military/space hardware are very different stories. The split between those two parts of their industry is much more radical than in the West. The military/space industry suffers from similar limitations on technological sophistication, which is why it never builds anything fancier than necessary, but when it matters they do it right. The Energia assembly building at Baikonur looks a bit shabby from the outside, but on the inside it's clean, and the hardware that rolls out of it works. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (05/31/89)
From: dg-rtp!gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) In article <6799@cbnews.ATT.COM> ken%prism@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >Now I have a question about accuracy. In the 'real' world of nuclear >conflict, how useful is a nuclear weapon that has 50-yard accuracy >outside of a few, specific missions (taking out a silo or underground >bunker)? I guess the deeper question is: Given a confligration >where multi-megaton devices are being lobbed about, does precise >accuracy buy you anything? After all, what good is a deep >communication bunker when all your means of production and a >substantial portion of your population is gone. Put another way, does >buying a few expensive, accurate weapons beat more in-expensive, lesss >accurate weapons. > >N.B.: I AM NOT trying to start a 'why is nuclear war bad' discussion, >etc. I am interested in what the tactical advantage of highly >accurate ballistic missles. > > ...ken seefried iii I can't give an answer on exact accuracy of current ICBMs--my information is several years out of date. But your point, Ken, is well taken (IMHO). When you put two 100-megaton warheads on a city like San Antonio, TX, who cares if your CER is 1.0 or .6 nautical yards. With warheads of this size, nothing in San Antonio remains (and probably a good chunk of the corridor between San Antonio and Austin). Highly accurate missiles really do matter when taking out a silo or underground military facility--but otherwise..... With a few exceptions, I don't think anyone believes an all out nuclear war benefits anyone. Despite what people think about US and USSR missiles, I don't think problems, like fratricide, have been resolved. But I could be wrong--I've been out of the defense industry since 1980. Gene