Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles
From: giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs
Message-ID: <1328@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Jun-84 03:43:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1328
Posted: Sun Jun 17 03:43:58 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 02:27:31 EDT
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 74

This may be a dumb question, but what is wrong with going over entirely to
sea-based missile systems?

Before I get a megabyte of mail -- let me explain.

In a war, the prime objective *should* be to prevent the other side from
hurting you anymore.  Therefore, military targets *must* take precedence
over civilian targets during a war.

Now, where are our current *military* targets?  Look at the triad:  ICBM
silos (the mountain states and north prarie), submarines (the open seas and
major seaports), and military airbases (frequently near major cities).

If we switch to sea-based missiles, then there will be no targets in the 
mountains and prarie, and a number of large cities will drop to secondary
target status.  Major seaports will still be primary targets, but it is
far better to lose *only* large coastal cities than large coastal cities
*and* large inland cities *and* large segments of farmland *and* ....

The largest benefit?  It is possible to monitor the position of submarines,
take a guess on their size, etc.  Also, if nuclear weapons are limited to
sea-based launchers only (by treaty ,verified by satellite (Why have those
siloes not been filled with concrete yet, comrade?)) their size will also
diminish.  Not just physical size, but the equivalent tonnage as well.
And that will also be a major benefit as well.  You won't take out the
entire city along with the shipyards.

Granted, there may be a warehouse outside of Moscow filled with 10,000 
nuclear warheads, but *how will they get them to the US or Europe?*

By launcher? --  Too large, satellites would either pick them up directly,
		 sitting around, or their major components.
By cruise missile? -- If a submarine launched c.m., displaces another missile
		 If air-launched, improve air defense system.
By airplane? --  Improve air defense system.
By mail? --	 With our postal service? :-)


Overall, I would rank up a triad/sea-based comparison as shown:

			      triad	    sea-based
			+---------------+---------------+
Warning time		| 10 to 30 min  |    10 min	|
(after launch)		|		|		|
			|		|		|
Number of warheads	|    ~8000	|   1000 (?)	|(50 sub * 20 missiles)
			|		|		|
Ave. Megatonnage	|    5-10 (?)	|     1 (?)	|
			|		|		|
Total Throwweight	|      60 (?)	|     1 (?)	|(NOTE RATIO!!!)
(in bevatonnes)		|		|		|
			|		|		|
Targets 		|   all cities	|    seaports	|
			|   farm belt	|    high seas	|
			|   high seas	|		|
			+---------------+---------------+


So -- Is it insane to switch to submarines *only*?  Yes, they are less
accurate than land-based missiles (using inertial techniques, but now we
have `smart' techniques with radar & optical signal processing nullifying
this point), and there is less warning; but the total throwweight will
drop dramatically, both the number of warheads, and their power will 
decrease, and inland areas will gain a measure of safety.

Finally, this will force a new emphasis on anti-submarine techniques,
but is this any different than (1) the first military use of the airplane,
(2) the first military use of the missile, (3) the first ....


As the wheel turns, at last a chance for it to turn toward safety.
Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay