Search this Topic:
Feb 10 17 3:51 PM
Feb 10 17 9:24 PM
Cody2How about replacing the ICBM system with a ABM system?
SLBMs have come a long way from their introduction. Open sources now claim the missiles have sufficient accuracy to serve as counter force weapons. If ICBMs are no longer needed for their previously unique counter force abilities, then why not move to a more SLBM heavy force?
At the same time ABM systems appear to be coming of age. A durable ABM system would have the advantage of making it very very difficult for a nation like Iran or North Korea to develop an "assured destruction" deterrent. If 300 warheads delivered is the minimum requirement for assuring the destruction of the US and an ABM system can destroy ~90% of incoming warheads, then an opponent would need ~3000 warheads to assure the US's destruction. That is 10 times harder than building 300.
Feb 15 17 6:24 PM
Feb 25 17 5:35 AM
Feb 25 17 3:23 PM
mhansen2 wrote:Trump: US must be 'top of the pack' in nuclear weapons capability
Could these comments start a new nuclear arms build-up with Russia? How would Trump react if Putin said the exact same thing?
Mar 3 17 7:28 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.