Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It's not true deterrence, because while the enemy can't be completely sure he'll knock out all your launchers, you can't be sure enough of your launchers will survive either.

Unless you have subs.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Jul 15th, 2009 at 11:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Its still deterrence, it's just not MAD enough.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jul 15th, 2009 at 11:26:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could a cruise missile actually lift the weight of a MIRV warhead?
by Xavier in Paris on Thu Jul 16th, 2009 at 06:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tomahawks were built to carry a single 200 kT warhead. Or to put it another way, the conventional Tomahawk carries a 450 kg ordnance while a single warhead in a MIRV weighs a few hundred kg. So in short, no. You could of course build a bigger cruise missile with a higher range and payload, but then you might just as well get an ICBM.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 01:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
this is what i was thinking. Furthermore, i believe that nuclear warheads are quite sizeable, which would mean that a cruise missile based detterrence would not really be considered serious.

I remember some information on the topic during the north corea crisis: they have missiles, they have nuclear bombs, but they don't have (seemingly) nuclear bombs on missile.

by Xavier in Paris on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 02:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series