Advertisement
by Kanugues Wed » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:10 pm
by Hayo » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:18 pm
by Kanugues Wed » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:35 pm
by Gallia- » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:00 pm
Hayo wrote:For states that can't afford a full nuclear triad, what represents the most effective/bang for buck alternative?
by Hayo » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:08 pm
Gallia- wrote:Hayo wrote:For states that can't afford a full nuclear triad, what represents the most effective/bang for buck alternative?
Nothing. No triad is no stability. The optimal is something like a land-based TEL force, a VLO bomber force, and SSBN force.
Anything less means that you cannot have a proper replacement/readiness cycle.
by Gallia- » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:10 pm
Hayo wrote:Gallia- wrote:
Nothing. No triad is no stability. The optimal is something like a land-based TEL force, a VLO bomber force, and SSBN force.
Anything less means that you cannot have a proper replacement/readiness cycle.
What if you don't have the funding or expertise to design and operate VLO bombers?
by Austrasien » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:22 pm
Hayo wrote:For states that can't afford a full nuclear triad, what represents the most effective/bang for buck alternative? Let's ignore any of the idiosyncrasies of arms limitation treaties.
If I had to guess:
For a monad: Ballistic missile submarines (?)
For a dyad: Missile subs + land based ballistic missiles (?)
I think the sub-based monad is fairly uncontroversial, but maybe not.
Land-based missiles probably have more utility than bombers (purely for deterrence, anyway), since you can keep large numbers of them dispersed and on alert pretty cheaply/safely. There's no need for risky Chrome Dome style bomber patrols.
Maybe the ability to use bombers for conventional strike makes them more attractive than missiles, I dunno. What do you guys think?
by Republic of Penguinian Astronautia » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:41 am
by Gallia- » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:52 am
Questers wrote:For a monad it’s definitely subs, for dyad I think sub plus alcm via conventional tactical air
by Tule » Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:40 pm
Hayo wrote:For states that can't afford a full nuclear triad, what represents the most effective/bang for buck alternative? Let's ignore any of the idiosyncrasies of arms limitation treaties.
If I had to guess:
For a monad: Ballistic missile submarines (?)
For a dyad: Missile subs + land based ballistic missiles (?)
I think the sub-based monad is fairly uncontroversial, but maybe not.
Land-based missiles probably have more utility than bombers (purely for deterrence, anyway), since you can keep large numbers of them dispersed and on alert pretty cheaply/safely. There's no need for risky Chrome Dome style bomber patrols.
Maybe the ability to use bombers for conventional strike makes them more attractive than missiles, I dunno. What do you guys think?
by Austrasien » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:25 pm
by Kampala- » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:36 pm
Tule wrote:Hayo wrote:For states that can't afford a full nuclear triad, what represents the most effective/bang for buck alternative? Let's ignore any of the idiosyncrasies of arms limitation treaties.
If I had to guess:
For a monad: Ballistic missile submarines (?)
For a dyad: Missile subs + land based ballistic missiles (?)
I think the sub-based monad is fairly uncontroversial, but maybe not.
Land-based missiles probably have more utility than bombers (purely for deterrence, anyway), since you can keep large numbers of them dispersed and on alert pretty cheaply/safely. There's no need for risky Chrome Dome style bomber patrols.
Maybe the ability to use bombers for conventional strike makes them more attractive than missiles, I dunno. What do you guys think?
Depends. How far away is your rival nuclear state? How long is your coastline? How large is your country in terms of area? What's your GDP and how developed is your nuclear program?
All these factors will determine your nuclear posture.
If you are a small and densely populated island close to your rival, land-based missile silos aren't a great idea for instance.
Questers wrote:For a monad it’s definitely subs, for dyad I think sub plus alcm via conventional tactical air
by Halfblakistan » Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:37 pm
The Daily Pioneer:Profiles in Solidarity: Marsello Doje, Former VCR Gang Leader, Now Runs Youth Center in Kindred
The Cornerstone Sentinel:Cornerstone State Rolls Back Curfew From 20:00 to 18:00 in Bid to Curb Youth Violence
by Prosorusiya » Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:17 am
by Connori Pilgrims » Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:59 am
Prosorusiya wrote:Why not have a triad with both tactical & strategic levels of deterrence? So Land based tactical nukes- tactical nukes for fighter bombers- strategic bombers with nukes
by Zhouran » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:36 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:On the nukes: “strategic” and “tactical” as far as nukes are concerned are essentially arbitrary distinctions more defined by the intended use of the country in question for the weapons classified as such. “Tactical” nuclear weapons are intended for battlefield uses, but as nuclear weapons, can easily become strategic when used against critical strategic infrastructure or population centres of nearby enemies. By the same token, very long-range “strategic” weapons have been considered for tactical purposes (the “sub-strategic” option on RN submarines)
Prosorusiya wrote:Why not have a triad with both tactical & strategic levels of deterrence? So Land based tactical nukes- tactical nukes for fighter bombers- strategic bombers with nukes?
Prosorusiya wrote:So, I’m contemplating a doctrinal question here:
If one is dealing with a terrorist/gangster riddled state, with potential transnational implications, and is looking to clean house a bit, would it make more sense to have a small dedicated unit try and deal with the threats as they come/are revealed, or to try and assemble a big task force to deal with the issue?
I’m contemplating wether or not it makes sense for me to try a develope a special police unit ala SOBR to deal with such an issue, or just try and assemble a larger task force from already existing units. The big problem I see with the latter solution is that it might be difficult to pull off given the bad blood between all of the different Soviet security forces, it has the potential of involving corrupt service members as well as clean ones, and I’m not sure the Soviet Union would have allowed such an op to be run under the command of a Union Republic level MVD. On the other hand, involving multiple services might result in having more manpower and equipment on hand to deal with terrorists or organized crime, and involvement of the Army’s MP units would also give us foreign jurisdiction and a way to arrest corrupt service members. But om the other hand, a small In house unit would be easier to command, equip, and vett.
Thoughts?
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:31 am
Zhouran wrote:Would a "nuclear duo" be fine instead of a nuclear triad? The only nuclear weapons my navy has would be low-yield nuclear warheads fitted on both torpedoes and AShMs, other than that my navy lacks SSBNs and SLBMs. Instead my main strategic nuclear weapons are silo-launched heavy ICBMs and road-mobile TEL-delivered ICBMs, backed by road-mobile IRBMs along with air-delivered cruise missiles from the air force. My navy isn't willing to spend funds on SSBNs, SLBMs, and the infrastructures needed to support the SSBNs.
by Zhouran » Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:55 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:To some extent this can be dealt with by having multiple types of silo-based ICBM and/or multiple types of road-mobile TELs. But from the perspective of actually threatening an enemy, the more delivery methods you have, the harder it is for them to try to ensure their own security against a strike.
by The Akasha Colony » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:12 am
Zhouran wrote:Actually my nation does operate a lot of different model types of silo-lunched heavy ICBMs and road-mobile ICBMs. While my nuclear force lacks SSBNs, they make it up by having ICBMs with high throweights and large amounts of warheads and decoys, along with a policy of first strike and full-spectrum overwhelming firepower. Excluding SSBNs, road-mobile ICBMs would be the most survivable compared to silo-launched ICBMs.
As for warheads, each of my nation's nuclear weapons (ALCMs, ICBMs, etc.) use different warhead types from various manufacturers.
by Gallia- » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:57 am
Prosorusiya wrote:both tactical & strategic levels of deterrence?
Zhouran wrote:As for warheads, each of my nation's nuclear weapons (ALCMs, ICBMs, etc.) use different warhead types from various manufacturers.
by The Dolphin Isles » Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:30 am
by Zhouran » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:04 am
The Dolphin Isles wrote:Is there a point to having modern subs run together in pairs or groups of some type? I know that there is the benefit of extra firepower, but it comes at the cost of reduced stealth and greatly reduced spread of patrols.
Gallia- wrote:You should just have one Atomic Arsenal that produces all warheads.
by Gallia- » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:13 am
by Austrasien » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:24 am
The Dolphin Isles wrote:Is there a point to having modern subs run together in pairs or groups of some type? I know that there is the benefit of extra firepower, but it comes at the cost of reduced stealth and greatly reduced spread of patrols.
Is it all just based on doctrine of whether you want super sneaky and lonely underwater cigars or more powerful and brazen packs of subs? Is there a good hybrid in grouping subs together only when they are taking on larger targets? I know the old days of the wolf packs are long over, but would temporary groupings well before combat occurred hurt radio silence too much? Or is this all just crazy talk and subs should remain singular assassins trying to do hit and runs without anyone noticing?
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Eskaai, Independent Republic of Boldonia, Terra da Cinza, UMi-NazKapp Group, Vadrana
Advertisement