Why isn't the US doing this? The advantages are all there:>not clustered around a known silo location that will 100% be targeted>can move around aka survivable>DEFCON 4-5? Just park them outside the silos to plug them into the hardwired cables>muh C3! Who cares, if they can talk to submarines and bombers 10000 miles away if it goes hot they can talk to a fucking truck within CONUS.Worried about security? Hide them at literally any airbase within the country like in an aircraft shelter or hangar. All the USAF security you need right there.Oh but the silos are useful missile sponges? Great. put the same missile in there and play a shell game of which silo is full, which TEL is full and where they are at any given time.Bonus points if we get to a point miniaturization wise where this thing is the same weight and size like a typhon launcher.
Made invalid by the strategy of just nuking the area around one hoping you hit it.
The Army needs ICBM's, so I approve
>>65114328The US need to do this and base them on Taiwan and Japan and watch Chang seethe
>>65114328Because we have submarines
>>65114365NTA > "we dont need X when we already pay 1000x more for Y which does the same thing"victory disease is insane atm
>>651143951000x more places to hide in an ocean1000x more targets in range too
>>65114365And I like submarines. specifically because they are very survivable in a nuclear war. But obviously more hydrophones, more tech will eventually make the ocean less opaque. And while I'm sure submarine tech will keep getting better too I understand why a nuclear triad is better than all eggs in one basket.Point is the TEL strategy makes the land based ICBM part more like submarines in terms of survivability and mobility.
lel, usa can't into 12x12 or 14x14 launchers
>>65114328>Worried about security? Hide them at literally any airbase within the country like in an aircraft shelter or hangar. All the USAF security you need right there.Okay but what if, and this might sound a little crazy, but what if we put an aircraft inside that hangar and then we put nukes on the aircraft?
>>65114328I always figured the concept of mobile launchers loses ground when you consider warhead saturation. Mobile launchers need much more space between each unit to avoid losing multiple to a single nuke. Silos on the other hand at almost at the point of needing a direct hit and even then two direct hits is an even safer bet. A mobile launcher wouldnt have that level of protection and therefore would need more room and a larger network will only get more expensive. >tldr room for three silos is less work than room for three TEL
>>65114446TELs are just worse submarines, and you misunderstand the point of silo nukes, which is to provide a hardened target that requires the enemy to throw multiple warheads into the middle of nowhere to try and destroy them on the ground, which is multiple warheads that aren't being thrown at actually important targets.
>>65114446And satellite radar tech also gets better so you can’t hide TELs in forests any more.
>>65114395Normally I'd agree but in this case it's valid since the strategic use is virtually identical, but greatly superior. Any advantage from TEL is just about numbers, and if it's about numbers, the US response would just be to produce more submarines (which we're arguably doing, by expanding submarine shipyard capacity)
>>not clustered around a known silo location that will 100% be targeted>>can move around aka survivableOk, and then for security...>Worried about security? Hide them at literally any airbase within the country like in an aircraft shelter or hangar....you park it at a location that's going to have a few nukes thrown it anyway, and in a building that's almost certainly far less hardened than a silo.And keep in mind that the closer you get to full nuclear war the keener the enemy will be on sabotaging them, meaning the need for security increases. So don't get any funny ideas about driving off towards the horizon at DEFCON 2 without a different security solution there waiting for them.
>>65114754>TELs are just worse submarinesDepends if you have advantage at sea or not. 3 Russian submarins trying to deploy against 50 SSN will have a very bad day.
>>65114876> Depends if you have advantage at sea or not.Which the US does
We were going to use rail based MX at one point but it never happened.
>>65114328The Soviets were big on TEL based ICBMS because their vast interior was so sparsely populated. The Continental US does not have the same volume of basically empty steppes, forests, and deserts the Soviet Union did. Yes, the Continental US is very big and has low population density compared to Europe, but the vast emptiness of the Soviet interior was on a different level. It's much harder to get away from prying eyes who might deliberately track or inattentively leak the location of missiles in the United States.
>>65114961Also,>lol Soviet Navy
>>65114328>>65114956>rail based MXThis. OP is a brainlet and like all videogamers (<--majority userbase of /k/) doesn't know anything.
>>65114997It is just utter smooth brained laziness for OP to not even check to see if he's being retarded.
>>65114446>But obviously more hydrophones, more tech will eventually make the ocean less opaqueJust make a 1000 knots supercavitating submarine powered by antimatter outrunning everything. There, problem solved. >inb4 supercavitating sub doesnt existThe problem is merely scaling up from supercavitating torpedo, it's just that nuclear reactor isn't powerful enough to fit into a submarine. You can make a hybrid electric-antimatter propulsion that should be silent most of the time.
>>65114333And why would you wait for the enemy to nuke places at random before you launch them?
>>65114328I like silos. There doesn't seem to be an understanding in US strategic planning that a modern solid fuel missile in a canister can be launched and clear on response times of single digit seconds. And such time can practically be guaranteed with fine-grained radar and isolation of about 100 kilometers. Meanwhile if there are only 2 submarines out on patrol (because costs) but both have been tailed and are positionally known the whole submarine deterrence is gone at that point . China is doing it, get with the new hotness mutts stop being 1960s.
>>65118046>. And such time can practically be guaranteed with fine-grained radar and isolation of about 100 kilometers.wow, this totally eliminates the threat assessment and launch decision steps that are essential to deploying nuclear weaponschinkmutts sugoi implessive for finally catching up to 60 year old technology
>>65114365>>65114435not really, China can put an ocean going fishing boat, with salty crew, every 10 miles across entire ocean's surface.>>65114446this guy gets it.Soviet TEL has all the advantages of each of the "triad" with none of the advantages.USA's attempt with "race track" was retarded.PS-not only can you play shell game and decoy up the ass with off-road TEL, you can carry TEL on random commercial ships, under cover.
>>65118063>threat assessment and launch decision stepsthere's that fag talk we talked about Anon.Seriously though those things should have already happened and everything been flipped to automatic by whoever did them if he was doing his job. Highest level alert conditions etc.
>>65114328>>not clustered around a known silo location that will 100% be targetedThe whole point of the silos is to be targeted and draw warheads away from populated locations. But they won't be, because everyone in the world knows that the US can trivially launch the missiles from targeted silos before they're destroyed.
>>65118123crying about it won't make it go away and chinks aren't so retarded that they'd play with nuclear annihilation over an unreported Japanse satelite launch or something.
>>65118074>not really, China can put an ocean going fishing boat, with salty crew, every 10 miles across entire ocean's surface.not this deluded chinkshit again
>>65118074>not really, China can put an ocean going fishing boat, with salty crew, every 10 miles across entire ocean's surface.Absolutely not. Most of China's fishing boats are not at all capable of crossing an ocean, most of the world's oceans aren't accessible for a boat based in China without crossing an ocean, and China has no way of fueling and supplying the boats in all the places to get them on station, let alone to keep them there.
>>65118074>you can carry TEL on random commercial ships, under cover.until someone puts together the pieces of why you have several containers that never come off your ship and always travel together
>>65118164retard, they are KNOWN for going all over the fuck and "strip mining the ocean"they got "mother ships" and supply EVERYTHING because like Peru wont let them dockChinese fishing boats chug from China to Atlantic and back without ever touching land, withOUT using any canal short-cuts.China also owns a shit ton of random cargo ships of all types and crews for them.>>65118168more like big tents on 1000 different ships and you got no idea if all or any are packing TELs.
>>65118252+20 social cledit scole
>>65118074> not really, China can put an ocean going fishing boatThat may have been relevant in 1944, but unless they’re putting extremely expensive sonar gear in every one of those boats (spoiler alert: they aren’t) it’s utterly useless
I would personally like for our land leg of 400 ICBMs to have 350 warheads in silos then the other 50 atop TELs. This would reduce the “use it or lose it” pressure if we’re under attack and we still have some ICBMs in our land leg to lob back at the enemy if our silos are destroyed before we can launch
>>65116685Why would you need portable nukes to begin with if you have early warning systems?
>>65114961Any road big enough to carry a mobile icbm is going to have regular commercial truck traffic, even in bumfuck MT/WY/NM
>>65114961TEL's aren't first strike options though, you pull them outta a clandestine underground facility for 2nd/3rd strike packages.By the time you need to move TEL's - ie DEF CON 2 at minimum, you should have already killed the enemies satellites and severely hampered their capability to see what's going on in CONUS conventionally.You can also put a TEL (or a decoy) on an Island openly and long term at lesser DEFCON's - ensuring the enemy is going to to have to either:A: waste more warheads on OCONUS targetsOrB: Have risky conventional attack plans in place at the extreme distance of their capability, far within range of your defensive capabilities.TEL's on Guam, TEL's in the Marianas, TEL's in Okinawa, TEL's in Puerto Rico, TEL's in Diego Garcia and US Virgin islands, TEL's in Guantanomo make em waste ICBM's and SLBM's on OCONUS
>>65119378>TEL's on Guam, TEL's in the Marianas, TEL's in Okinawa, TEL's in Puerto Rico, TEL's in Diego Garcia and US Virgin islands, TEL's in Guantanomo make em waste ICBM's and SLBM's on OCONUSI like this idea. Why do the ICBM threads have measured discussion then anything about China, Russia, or gun control gets derailed to shit?
>>65119378There's zero point for TEL's for US because of USN's dominance and submarines so your entire suggestion is totally moot.russian mobile ICBMs always sit in groups of threes, sometimes bunching up several of those into a group of up to 9, all around a single command vehicle that is also the crews' living quarters. Any nuke against those will take the other two also because of that. So at the very minimum just to break even with silos you need to have two decoys for every live ICBM, potentially up to 8 more depending on the deployment. That's a lot of decoys and running this amount of machinery while making the decoys believable in their function and activies would be quite demanding and costly, more so compared to silos that are paid for upfront. Road mobile ICBMs are also depreciated by having proper intel about their location, either from satelites or just from stolen comms data or spies and are today nowhere near as secure as they used to be in the 1980s already. If you're up against US then hardened silos aren't really a viable viable option either due to the accuracy and lethality of the US warheads but against other options it's not really worse than others.>>65119481>Why do the ICBM threads have measured discussion then anything about China, RussiaSome "people" just cannot accept just how hopelessly outclassed they are in nuclear warfare, to the point that they'd be largely to completely inept against a US-initiated first strike had they decided to do it, with little chance for any proportionate retaliation. This realization leads to walls of angry childish fantasies to cope with that, despite neither russia nor china being retarded enough to implement ideas this stupid.
>>65119250because russia occupies roughly 23% of the norther hemisphere TELs makes perfect sense for them
silos were relevant back when ballistic missiles were extremely inaccuratesee: russian missiles currentlyNowadays your silo will take a direct hit and be destroyed
>>65114395>which does the same thingBut better.
>>65114355Did you see how them cunts at the air force got em, then the navy fucks went and made an ecuse and got nukes... by fucking god the Army will have nukes and a hearty fuck you about it. Everything started with the Army. Army Air Wing, Continental Fleet was UNDER the continental army, marines were just more army. Everything is really Army.Army should get all the funding and R&D, tradition.
>>65118168US has nuclear numbers to cover Wing Chong Ding fishing fleet #3. China doesn't even have counter force parity.
Mobile nuke launchers are really cool and useful, that's why we have them in the air and the sea. Given our proximity to those we think we might fling nukes with sometime in the future, a sneaky land based launcher has little advantage to stationary ones since either one will be empty before the enemy strike hits even if they have the exact GPS coordinates.
>>6511487650 subs hunting you in the entirety of the fucking atlantic is not that much.Now of course, Russian submarines are notoriously not that hard to detect for the US, but if they could actually get their shit together and make them less noisy they could hide pretty much indefinitely.
>>65124150what if we park all the launchers in canada?
>>65124150Timing is what will determine whether or not our ICBMs will leave the silos, not how exact the incoming nuke is. Everything has to be relayed and verified to the National Command Authority (POTUS) before any launch can be authorized. How willing the President is to retaliate with nukes, trust the presented data, consider other options, and even their mental fortitude will factor into how soon they can be launched or be destroyed in the ground. The President also has to be evacuated. Then there’s adding on where they’re coming from which can reduce response time
>>65124424>50 subs hunting you in the entirety of the fucking atlantic is not that much.It is when you have to leave your specific ports and pass very obvious choke points to get to the atlantic.> but if they could actually get their shit together and make them less noisythe only reason russians have subs that aren't readily tracked by SOSUS is because John Walker leaked them the data about the utter depth of the shit they were in and the means to fix it.>they could hide pretty much indefinitelynot even Ohios can do it against such a large US SSN fleet, let alone anyone else.
The reason we didn't build SICBM was environmentalists and Democrats. There was no way to get enough patrol area given the environmental impact assessments etc. that had to be done combined with NIMBY Democrats who hate the military and freedom.SICBM was a tits system. Sadly, the only all-up hardened TEL (the one in OPs picture) was taken from Wright-Pat a few years ago and scrapped. Fucking sucks.
>>65114328Because the odds of the Warsaw Pact launching a first strike have dropped ever so slightly?
>>65114610>14x14At a certain point, you really have to ask yourself whether your country should be prioritizing building ICBMs or basic road infrastructure. Like maybe get a scraper first and even some gravel if you're feeling ambitious. Then you won't need seven powered axles.
>>65118046>a modern solid fuel missile in a canister can be launched and clear on response times of single digit seconds.So the Minuteman I minus positive control?>And such time can practically be guaranteed with fine-grained radar and isolation of about 100 kilometers.So BMEWS?
>>65124137The Army had plenty of nukes. For god's sake, low-yield warheads were considered a battalion-level fire support asset in the early 60s.
>>65114362The US can just give the Philippines/Japan a bunch of money to stack BrahMos missiles and do the same thing.
>>65118074>China can put an ocean going fishing boat, with salty crew, every 10 miles across entire ocean's surface.no, they can't, because fuel.
>>65126003>BrahMos missilesfuck off jeet
>>65114328>not clustered around a known silo location that will 100% be targetedThat's the point. There is no more valuable target for a nuke than another nuke. If your nuclear force is too concealable, then the enemy has nothing to shoot at but your cities.
>>65114328Because you can track those easily through satellites and if you drive them around too much or use unconventional roads the fuckers will shake the missiles into pieces.
>>65114328US doesn't have the hidden topography to hide them, without locals noticing. Russia has a huge uninhabited land mass where they can be hidden.>Hide them at literally any airbase An airbase is not a hiding location. It will be one of the first targets in a nuke exchange.
>>65114328Why hide your nukes in a truck painted like a bush when you can hide them under the sea in a sneaky boat.
>>65126334this desu
