Conventional Trident Missiles Will Aid Terror War

[NavyLonghorn]

I'm guessing ADCAP? Those things are just scary. And who the hell uses realPlayer? Hey, Yahoo, welcome to the 21st century.

What that picture doesnt show is the boat sinking in less then a minute.

 

[Fly Navy]

Ballistic missiles aren't exactly my area of specialty, so I want to ask the more knowledgeable--Is there any advantage in a submarine launch over a land-based missile? The time-to-target can't be more than a few minutes difference. Also, we would have to notify nuclear states of an impending launch and even if that alone didn't kick of an arms race, it would definitely be an intelligence bonanza for them. Land-based...Well, they already know where our missiles are. No offense to any submariners, but this sounds like a rather last-ditch attempt to justify a boomer program that people are increasingly recognizing as not being worth the cost.

ICBM... 20 minutes flight time or so. SLBM... could be as low as 8 minutes. Not only that, but SLBMs are mobile. They are one of the strongest legs of the nuclear triad, the bad guys don't know where they are and they can launch a hell of a suprise if need be.

 

[Flash]

In which case, they would say. ohhhhh, ok, and not worry about it...

What makes you so sure? Among the people we would have to notify would be China and Russia, you think they are above screwing with us? "You launch any ballistic missile and we will consider it a threat...."

 

[Fly Navy]

What makes you so sure? Among the people we would have to notify would be China and Russia, you think they are above screwing with us? "You launch any ballistic missile and we will consider it a threat...."

I think he may have been being sarcastic, meaning China and Russia would love to see where our boomers are.

 

[NavyLonghorn]

What makes you so sure? Among the people we would have to notify would be China and Russia, you think they are above screwing with us? "You launch any ballistic missile and we will consider it a threat...."

Sorry.. I'll try to be more obvious with my sarcasm next time.

 

[DanMa1156]

For this also pretty cool when they do this

That's great and all, but that is still "using" the sub... My point is, why not use them if we have them, as some were saying it'd be stupid as it would give away the subs' positions... if our subs aren't in a threatening Naval Situation (ie: honest Naval Threats hunting them) then why not use them?

 

[Kycntryboy]

(Feel free to correct me if I'm making an a$$ out of myself) but... the way it was put to me is that those running in deep water are our last line of retalliation if the United States get "blown off the map" we still have the capability to cause a sh!t load of damage with those subs. My guess would be to use them as strategically as possible, we could use the Stealth every bombing mission but we don't... don't want to play the trump card until the right time.

 

[Flash]

Sorry.. I'll try to be more obvious with my sarcasm next time.

I am not called Flash for nothing.......

 

[BigRed389]

(Feel free to correct me if I'm making an a$$ out of myself) but... the way it was put to me is that those running in deep water are our last line of retalliation if the United States get "blown off the map" we still have the capability to cause a sh!t load of damage with those subs. My guess would be to use them as strategically as possible, we could use the Stealth every bombing mission but we don't... don't want to play the trump card until the right time.

Maybe it would work better if some SSBNs were designated to specifically carry conventional ballistic missiles instead?

I see your point, but as long as you keep the nuclear packing boats hidden till Doomsday you can have the conventional warhead armed ones firing away as needed.

Not sure if the numbers/$$$ on that works out though.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Wouldn't it also be relatively expensive to delivery a small payload via ICBM? Those aren't cheap....

 

[onedge]

Wait! Who said killing ants with flame throwers is a bad idea?

 

[Birdman]

?

Our Tomahawks and other current arsenal aren't enough to take out bad guys who's main weapons are AK-47's, RPG's and IED's? Come on. Someone needs to slap some sense into Washington.

You don't prepare for the current war; you plan for the next war

 

[webmaster]

And give away the position of the SSBN that launches it?

Hahahahaha....

 

[webmaster]

That's great and all, but that is still "using" the sub... My point is, why not use them if we have them, as some were saying it'd be stupid as it would give away the subs' positions... if our subs aren't in a threatening Naval Situation (ie: honest Naval Threats hunting them) then why not use them?

Hahahahaha....

 

[webmaster]

No offense to any submariners, but this sounds like a rather last-ditch attempt to justify a boomer program that people are increasingly recognizing as not being worth the cost.

Hahaha... god, you guys are killin me...