And implicit assumption that even if NK could, it will only (!) be the 10kt variety and not thermonuclear, in the near future at least 3/
Show this thread
-
Also, what exactly would be the target for 50-100 MT? "Colorado?" I mean, it was a bomb in search of a use.
CIA argument was about compensating for poor accuracy. You would need far fewer 100 Mt warheads than, say, 7 Mt, to get same results:pic.twitter.com/U1QWFd5Obq
-
-
If your imagine Soviet ICBMs have low accuracy (e.g. 5 km CEP), and need high pressure (e.g. +200 psi) to destroy Titan II silos,
-
then increasing yield reduces missiles needed. Even w/100Mt there is still only ~37% chance of hitting a silo:http://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/?&s=52.4807%2C82.7363&t=31.9027%2C-110.9994&p=ru_r-36m_(ss-18_mod_1)&sp=ru_aleysk&yp=psi200_sb&kt=100000&c=5000&r=11200&wr=1&td=200&mc=31.8817%2C-110.8834&z=10 …
-
And if silo-crushing pressure is higher than 200 psi, then SSPK drops a lot (10000 psi = 9%):http://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/?&s=52.4807%2C82.7363&t=31.9027%2C-110.9994&p=ru_r-36m_(ss-18_mod_1)&sp=ru_aleysk&yp=psi10000_sb&kt=100000&c=5000&r=11200&wr=1&td=200&mc=31.9004%2C-110.9853&z=13 …
-
Of course, what Soviets *actually* did was make more accurate missiles, like the USA did. Which is better approach all around.
-
To get 70% chance of destroying a silo with 200 psi at 5km CEP you need to aim at least 7 missiles at that silo. Expensive!!!
-
Why to bomb a silo as it's likely to be empty by the time the missile reaches it's location?
-
That's why you should only attack if you have a damn good of catching 'em with their pants down
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.