giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (06/17/84)
This may be a dumb question, but what is wrong with going over entirely to sea-based missile systems? Before I get a megabyte of mail -- let me explain. In a war, the prime objective *should* be to prevent the other side from hurting you anymore. Therefore, military targets *must* take precedence over civilian targets during a war. Now, where are our current *military* targets? Look at the triad: ICBM silos (the mountain states and north prarie), submarines (the open seas and major seaports), and military airbases (frequently near major cities). If we switch to sea-based missiles, then there will be no targets in the mountains and prarie, and a number of large cities will drop to secondary target status. Major seaports will still be primary targets, but it is far better to lose *only* large coastal cities than large coastal cities *and* large inland cities *and* large segments of farmland *and* .... The largest benefit? It is possible to monitor the position of submarines, take a guess on their size, etc. Also, if nuclear weapons are limited to sea-based launchers only (by treaty ,verified by satellite (Why have those siloes not been filled with concrete yet, comrade?)) their size will also diminish. Not just physical size, but the equivalent tonnage as well. And that will also be a major benefit as well. You won't take out the entire city along with the shipyards. Granted, there may be a warehouse outside of Moscow filled with 10,000 nuclear warheads, but *how will they get them to the US or Europe?* By launcher? -- Too large, satellites would either pick them up directly, sitting around, or their major components. By cruise missile? -- If a submarine launched c.m., displaces another missile If air-launched, improve air defense system. By airplane? -- Improve air defense system. By mail? -- With our postal service? :-) Overall, I would rank up a triad/sea-based comparison as shown: triad sea-based +---------------+---------------+ Warning time | 10 to 30 min | 10 min | (after launch) | | | | | | Number of warheads | ~8000 | 1000 (?) |(50 sub * 20 missiles) | | | Ave. Megatonnage | 5-10 (?) | 1 (?) | | | | Total Throwweight | 60 (?) | 1 (?) |(NOTE RATIO!!!) (in bevatonnes) | | | | | | Targets | all cities | seaports | | farm belt | high seas | | high seas | | +---------------+---------------+ So -- Is it insane to switch to submarines *only*? Yes, they are less accurate than land-based missiles (using inertial techniques, but now we have `smart' techniques with radar & optical signal processing nullifying this point), and there is less warning; but the total throwweight will drop dramatically, both the number of warheads, and their power will decrease, and inland areas will gain a measure of safety. Finally, this will force a new emphasis on anti-submarine techniques, but is this any different than (1) the first military use of the airplane, (2) the first military use of the missile, (3) the first .... As the wheel turns, at last a chance for it to turn toward safety. Bruce Giles {decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (06/25/84)
<I will be posting all subsequent articles to net.politics (yech),
perhaps USENET needs a net.arms)
When I posted my previous article, I had not had the opportunity to
research the actual number and strength of the various warheads. I
appreciate the mail I received concerning various technical errors,
and they will affect this proposal in the long run.
However, it appeared several individuals mis-understood what I was
suggesting. Specifically, I was proposing to ban outright all
land-based missile systems. If necessary, this ban would be enforced
by a space-based ASAT system.
Submarine based ICBMs would be allowed, but once again, they would
be subject to interception by the ASAT system.
The main deterence force would become submarine-based *cruise* missiles.
While we would be forced to pay a stiff price (very little warning),
we would gain several advantages: (1) limited number of incoming
missiles, (2) limited warhead capacity, and (3) the avionics would
pinpoint the target, permitting use of smallest yield warheads possible.
These missiles could still be used for retailiation/damage control
(destroy enemy military bases near oceans) but would not be powerful
enought to destroy entire cities. The fact that the US has more targets
within striking distance of its coasts would be offset by the lack
of numerous winter ports in the USSR.
Overall, the effect would be to move *closer* to a knife edge, but
drastically reduce the distance one would fall if the edge was passed.
Finally, I think that such a treaty could be made workable without
requiring explicit and complete mutual verification. As I pointed
out in the previous article, a warehouse of warheads doesn't do you
a bit of good if you can't transport them to the target.
Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay