NationStates

Here's the flag of my army. It's intentionally meant to look like a shitty, rushed revolutionary hack-job that had enough acts of heroism done under it, so now they can't change it.

https://i.imgur.com/Z3AUu9t.png

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?

monad is definitely subs.

dyad, I'd say bombers and subs just for the political value of the bombers being able to drop conventional bombs too, so they don't get kicked out of service when you're government is feeling less threatened.

Really I think the main advantage of land-based missiles is that you can disperse and harden their shelters to no end, and they aren''t limited by space on subs, which means you can make more for a lot cheaper. Land-based missiles are better if you need to blow up a heavily dispersed country like the USSR or the US.

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.

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.

What if you don't have the funding or expertise to design and operate VLO bombers?

Are older bombers or even multirole fighters with nuclear tipped cruise missiles a viable stand in?

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-Sol_M ... ort%C3%A9e

The futuristic optimal cruise missile is something like HyStrike with a 150 KT warhead.

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?

The best monad options are:

• Submarines. Highly survivable but requires a large investment both in the submarines themselves and sufficiently survivable command and control system for submarines.
• Ballistic missiles on mobile launchers. Reasonably survivable for a reasonable cost.
• Launch-on-warning ballistic missiles. Cheap and technically simple but strategically risky.

Bombers are kind of superfluous as strategic weapons and only really add value to tactical missions. Ground launched cruise missiles are a potential option for nearby opponents.

Edit: It is also important to consider if you really need weaponry with extreme range. Middle and minor powers probably only need intermediate range weapons for a credible deterrent force. This expands your options a lot, especially when resources are limited.

For a monad it’s definitely subs, for dyad I think sub plus alcm via conventional tactical air

If you really need to, just use subs.

Questers wrote:For a monad it’s definitely subs, for dyad I think sub plus alcm via conventional tactical air

Land-based TEL is the most efficient. Minor powers' SSBNs are literally remnants of long abandoned triads so they're sunk costs, which is literally the only reason the UK has its deterrent force on boats instead of trucks.

Israel has nothing but TELs and a handful of cruise missiles. It is the highest IQ (literally) deterrent force in the world.

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.

A major appeal of land-based missiles for small states with limited resources is the command and control system is very and relatively easy to harden.

The ELF transmitters needed to communicate with deep submarines are large, expensive and their survivability is a real concern especially in a small country. The UK never bothered to invest in their own and needs to use the letters of last resort to guarantee its subs will receive orders - which serve their purpose but are extremely inflexible and of questionable value in a multi-polar environment. In Israel, for example, any ELF transmitter would potentially in the range of their opponent's artillery and air power from the beginning of the war which would be a critical vulnerability in a nuclear deterrent.

I guess my point is more about the sunk costs of development of an SSBN force, while objectively the most survivable and swolest of nuclear deterrents, is also sort of like going for a Mars Shot a few months after you've entered orbit with your Sputnik. Or a Jovian Shot. It's a bit extreme and only the most serious and swolest contenders would have a chance of producing anything useful. "TELs in a garage" is more like a Mercury capsule I guess. You go from Sputnik to orbiting the Earth a few times. Difficult but not insurmountable.

Even for a country like UK which is away from artillery threat (besides IRBMs) of attack on ELF transmitters would be better served by a TEL force TBH.

Canada OTOH could effectively build a SSBN or silo-based force. Sask Silo Fields when? 'Berta Ballistic Missile Men when? Rampant leafposting from 500 ft underground.

e2: I'm a bit drunk atm so I'm just saying what you said but like...worse.

e3: UK should have put Blue Streak on a train TBH. Mb then it would have a good rail system to support the National Defense Railroad Network and be swole. Blue Streak train >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trident. Choo choo motherfucker. Strategic Steam Reserve get.

e4: Wasn't UK ELF supposed to live in Scotland? Or like Yorkshire or something? Yorkshire is really the best part of England TBH it seems nice and post-industrial depressing like my home country/staat.

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.

Moands are gross and dyads are uggo. I'm sitting on a triad tablestool thing (is that the word?) so it is the best.

Three is king since there is no fourth domain unless you build rocket silos on the Moon or something like Frank Tinsley.

Questers wrote:For a monad it’s definitely subs, for dyad I think sub plus alcm via conventional tactical air

It goes:

SSBN > TEL > Plane in terms of effective.

TEL > Plane > SSBN in terms of money.

Since the rocket you are shooting is already a sort of airplane/bomber it doesn't really matter the airplane's primary purpose in the atomic war is to suppress air defenses and destroy missile sites or maybe large area targets (read; eocnomic-population centers) while the silo ICBM and the SSBN attack counterforce elements like ICBM and maybe the plane hunts TELs if it has time to loiter.

But the point is the plane is the weakest in the link he is the icing on the cake the primary deterrent is the most survivable/hard system which is either the road-mobile TEL or SSBN rocket sub but SSBN rocket sub requires a lot of supporting investment/infrastructure to support and he is sort of annoying that way.

TEL is really the best way to go for min-max. He is cheap and almost as hard to kill as SSBN as Desert Storm prove. Just imagine if Saddam had nukes.

Thoughts on this brigade group loadout?

Brigade HQ
Armored Battalion
Motorized Infantry battalion in IMVs
Artillery battalion (105mm howitzers and 107mm MLRS) towed by IMVs
Sapper Battalion
Aviation (Alouette II & III or HAL Chetak helicopters)
Logistics & Support battalion (medics, supply, etc.)

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?

~~~
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?

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

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)

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.

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)

Not to mention, if a nuclear weapon had dial-a-yield capability, then the lines between "strategic" and "tactical" would be blurred.

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?

So basically a mix of low-yield land-based nuclear weapons (nuclear-armed tactical/theater ballistic missiles), low-yield short-range air-launched cruise missiles (like Pakistan's Hatf-VIII), and what I'm assuming to be high-yield long-range air-launched cruise missiles like the Kh-55?

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?

I'd go with creating a special police unit, but the question is: is corruption really that bad in your union republic to the point of needing a dedicated special police unit?

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.

One of the big problems with monads and dyads is that they provide very little in the way of redundancy. If one element needs to be taken out of service temporarily either due to newly-discovered technical faults, or for replacement, or for refurbishment, that leads to a much more significant percentage of the nuclear arsenal being taken out of action than if a wider variety of delivery mechanisms were available.

This is one of the reasons why the US has historically preferred to have at least two different warhead types available for each delivery system (W76 or W88 for Trident II, W78 or W87 for Peacekeeper, B61 or B83 for gravity bombs, etc.). Any faults that took any of these warheads out of service would not take any leg of the US strategic deterrent out of service completely.

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.

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.

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.

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.

High throw weights don't really address the lack of SSBNs. In part because the use of SSBNs means that nuclear strikes could potentially come from any direction, whereas an enemy can safely assume that silo-based and even road-mobile TELs will come from a fairly specific direction and take steps to address this threat. Heavy ICBMs slightly offset survivability issues but at higher cost, and a similar result could be had from greater dispersion of regular ICBMs.

I'm not sure why you'd bother with two distinct waves as part of the same launch plan, since if the goal is to overwhelm enemy defenses, then the objective should be to launch as many missiles as possible in a single wave. It's not much of a strategy either because it's just the last resort case of pretty much every nuclear arsenal: launch en masse in a huge counterforce and countervalue strike with whatever coordinates are on hand.

The actual strategy element is unaddressed: what conditions would actually trigger such a response in the first place? How does this posture fit into the nation's strategic objectives?

As for warheads, each of my nation's nuclear weapons (ALCMs, ICBMs, etc.) use different warhead types from various manufacturers.

Given the need for security, there is hardly much of a need for "various manufacturers." Even the US designed its warheads in-house at the national laboratories and produced them in government facilities. The more companies (and the more people) working on a given program, the greater the potential for security breaches.

Prosorusiya wrote:both tactical & strategic levels of deterrence?

Why are 1950s memes in such vogue?

Zhouran wrote:As for warheads, each of my nation's nuclear weapons (ALCMs, ICBMs, etc.) use different warhead types from various manufacturers.

You should just have one Atomic Arsenal that produces all warheads.

And rockets. And motor designs. And fuel development.

Actually just have an arsenal that specializes in each arbitrarily defined "field" of weaponry.

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?

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.

One sub would be enough to sink an enemy warship, assuming that the enemy doesn't know your presence.

Gallia- wrote:You should just have one Atomic Arsenal that produces all warheads.

Excluding nuclear warheads, the ICBMs are all made by the same manufacturer: The same state-owned entity that produces my nation's fighter jets, tanks, warships, missiles, satellites, and pretty much any military equipment (excluding guns), 'cos state monopoly, socialism, and bureaucracy are fun.

You literally just said they're all made by "various manufacturers".

Real nuclear states hoard their secrets.

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?

Until covert underwater communication over non-trivial ranges is perfected there is no value in massing subs. They cannot coordinate their attack and will probably do more to hinder each other than anything. There is a not insignificant chance one would end up killing the other by mistake. Especially if hostile if a hostile sub appears during the battle. It is not a coincidence wolfpacks dates to an era when subs spent most of their time on or near the surface where they were able to coordinate.