Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Even without being MIRVed, 12 of these missiles are fully sufficient to guarantee a fully believable second-strike capability. 12 such missiles could wipe out Paris, London, Berlin, New, Washington, Los Angeeles, Bejing, Tokyo...
Tracking the glider in flight and concluding on its target, is impossible, since it can change flight path while being enroute. Existing missile interceting technology cannot keep up with it due to tracking problems and the immense speed.
Right now, if its tehcnology works reliable, Putin is eright, This beast currently is invincible. And I think it will stay this way for long time. Laser weapons in space, a whole network of these, are still a long time away.
And I wonder if we really want to go this way. Its all madness, and its not as if on earth we already are running short in supply for madness.
|
There is a bit more of nuance here. In order to work as a second strike weapon it needs to be launched on early warning data (so called LoW stance) before the enemy attack arrives, because with 12 silos it is not unlikely that the enemy may destroy them all in one go. If this is indeed the method that they are operating under then there is a trade off - the same booster can carry 6 independent RVs with penetration aids package, which present more targets to the enemy, have better destructive capability and so on.
My hypothesis is that those specific weapons (two regiments of six for total of twelve) are there to ensure the LoA stance (attacking after detonations are confirmed on home soil) for the rest of the force (surviving silos, mobile launchers, submarines and so on) by being on LoW stance themselves and taking out key missile defense enabling targets in US, which would allow other surviving missiles to pass through the now dead missile defenses.
Moreover if the attack is not confirmed (via detonations on the home soil) they, unlike ICBMs, may, in theory atleast, be recalled if proper measures are taken (ie comm gear on the gliders themselves) before striking their targets and thus removing the most significant problem with LoW stance - launch on false warning.
There is some circumstancial evidence towards this being the case but nothing conclusive so far that I am aware of.
In any case - this is a low scale (12 vs 1200) early adoption type deal - to work out how the new technology works, how it should be employed and so on.