It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hyperen
Why does the US still need ground based ICBMs?
They make a country more of a target. The missiles are dangerous and expensive to maintain.
Why do they keep them when they have B2 bombers and a huge fleet of SSBNs with Tridents?
I think its OK for countries like China and Russia to have them because they don't have stealth bombers like the B2 or SSBNs that can be counted on. I think I remember reading that recently 2 Russian SLBMs had self destructed when test fired.
Originally posted by Starwars50
[The ICBM is needed because it is the most responsive nuclear weapon.
They are the only weapon that can reliably be launched before an offensive ICBM/SLBM attack from another country can destroy them. Both bombers and subs can take hours (or even days for subs) to be able to attack, but ICBM's can be launched in minutes - even with no advanced warning. They also traditionally have the best range and accuracy.
Originally posted by browha
Subs have the aspect of stealth to them, they can send off a nuke that only needs about 5-10 minutes to hit it's target and get away undetected.
Stealth bombers are exactly that, stealthy, and they are extremely extremely hard to find by radar, and the can bomb pretty much anywhere (considering the B-2 can fly around the world), with no notice or anything. Just 'Boom'.
Muppet.
Originally posted by Hyperen
Originally posted by Starwars50
[The ICBM is needed because it is the most responsive nuclear weapon.
They are the only weapon that can reliably be launched before an offensive ICBM/SLBM attack from another country can destroy them. Both bombers and subs can take hours (or even days for subs) to be able to attack, but ICBM's can be launched in minutes - even with no advanced warning. They also traditionally have the best range and accuracy.
Do they keep the ground based ones targeted?
I was under the impreesion that the submarines take so long to fire because they are not targeted.
Orignally posted by ShadowXIX
Maybe the Army just does not want to give up their nuclear weapons. The airforce and navy both have theirs the army does not want to be left out. I could be wrong not sure what branch controls land based ICBMs I would think the army.
Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.
Originally posted by E_T
Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.
Before they were operated under SAC but it was shutted down and now they're run by ACC.
www.globalsecurity.org...
Originally posted by WestPoint23
I thought that the air force controls land based ICBM�s cuz doesn't the air force control anything that goes in to space also the only nukes the army might control is the tactical nuclear shells or missiles
Originally posted by E_T
Originally posted by Hyperen
I'm pretty sure the land based ICBMs are run by the USAF since if you look at the missiles, the have USAF painted on them.
Before they were operated under SAC but it was shutted down and now they're run by ACC.
www.globalsecurity.org...
Originally posted by KrazyIvan
bingo. i work on em for the air force, or will work on them in a litle while, so ask me anything you want to know about ICBMs. ill tell you as long as it isnt topsecret