2 years, 8 months ago
How will a submarine shield protect Poland and Western Europe from Russian occupation?
The missile shield will be replaced with a submarine shield. How will the submarine shield work?
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
Ohio class submarine launching Trident ICBM´s
.jpg/800px-Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg/800px-Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg
The whole missile shield has a first frontal line: the nuclear missile submarine. In reality the submarine shield has always been present whether or not a ground missile shield of any kind has been fielded in the past. Technically, there have been no replacements of ground missile shields in favor of submarine shields of any kind.
Submarine based missiles that could protect Poland or Western Europe will be able to reach great part of the whole intercontinental ballistic umbrella. Inside, some of the European ground missile shields of different sizes coexist. First introduced in the early 60s, the ballistic nuclear submarine was seen as the guarantor of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. It was thought that way because submarines were hard to detect and destroy, thus guaranteen counterstrike capability.
According to "parallaxbrief.wordpress.com":
---Quote---
In practice it was the opposite. Because the submarines could close the distance between the launch and target by sneaking close to the enemy’s coast, they raised the spectre of a countervalue strike (a strike against a nation’s industrial, commercial and transport infrastructure, as well as against population) that could disable an enemy before it had time to react.
Instead of 30 minutes between launch from, say Krasnoyarsk missile fields to impact on Central Park, a submarine could ghost onto the US continental self and turn the Capitol into rubble within three minutes of launch. Too little time for decision makers to react before being vaporized; likely too little time to launch missiles before they are destroyed in their silos. It’s a potential game over.
Russia is concerned about whether a missile shield makes a first strike viable by mopping up the few missiles not destroyed in a US first strike. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is potentially skewered by the missile shield, which at the end concerns both sides.
---/Quote---
Underwater launch of a Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
http://www.noahshachtman.com/images/Trident_missile_image.jpg
The whole missile shield has a first frontal line: the nuclear missile submarine. In reality the submarine shield has always been present whether or not a ground missile shield of any kind has been fielded in the past. Technically, there have been no replacements of ground missile shields in favor of submarine shields of any kind.
Submarine based missiles that could protect Poland or Western Europe will be able to reach great part of the whole intercontinental ballistic umbrella. Inside, some of the European ground missile shields of different sizes coexist. First introduced in the early 60s, the ballistic nuclear submarine was seen as the guarantor of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. It was thought that way because submarines were hard to detect and destroy, thus guaranteen counterstrike capability.
According to "parallaxbrief.wordpress.com":
---Quote---
In practice it was the opposite. Because the submarines could close the distance between the launch and target by sneaking close to the enemy’s coast, they raised the spectre of a countervalue strike (a strike against a nation’s industrial, commercial and transport infrastructure, as well as against population) that could disable an enemy before it had time to react.
Instead of 30 minutes between launch from, say Krasnoyarsk missile fields to impact on Central Park, a submarine could ghost onto the US continental self and turn the Capitol into rubble within three minutes of launch. Too little time for decision makers to react before being vaporized; likely too little time to launch missiles before they are destroyed in their silos. It’s a potential game over.
Russia is concerned about whether a missile shield makes a first strike viable by mopping up the few missiles not destroyed in a US first strike. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is potentially skewered by the missile shield, which at the end concerns both sides.
---/Quote---
Underwater launch of a Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
MAD seems to be replaced with the doctrine of localized warfare and low intensity conflict.
omicron analysis was very good and convincing. Omicron logic for selection of Poland as a land shield seems feasible. The purpose of a missile shield as a deterrence against land policy breaks down. The purpose must have been more macro in scope, (Russia or Iran) However, the power move has to be Russia. Iran's potential actions are not independant Russia's superpower consent.
Yes. MAD used to guarantee that a first strike from any nation didn´t mean a total destruction of their forces and that a second strike was possible.