During the process of development of the MX missile during the late 70s and early 80s, there was IIRC discussion of mounting some 100 missiles on trains in Nevada and Wyoming, which could be stationed in a no. of different underground locations, in order to provide the US nuclear deterrent with some means of mobility to survive a Soviet 1st strike. AFAIK, these plans weren't implemented, but WI SAC and the Pentagon actually did decide to maintain trains equipped with MX missiles ? How would the Balance of Terror and US strategic nuclear responsiveness have been affected ?
MX missile trains POD
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
The MX trains were designed to be mobile and survive a nuclear first strike. The Sovs didn't launch one in OTL; with extra incentive not to (the prospect of more surviving nukes landing on their heads), they probably would not in this ATL. Unless of course, the construction of mobile, survivable missiles butterflies into something worse...
Hmm...perhaps this could lead to restructuring of America's nuclear forces. Instead of being in fixed, easily-targeted locations, they could be in more mobile delivery systems (nuclear submarines, MX-trains, bombers, etc). Most of America's fixed nuclear forces are sitting in the middle of the Farm Belt; in the event of even a limited nuclear exchange, the radiation would screw up the US food supply.
Hmm...perhaps this could lead to restructuring of America's nuclear forces. Instead of being in fixed, easily-targeted locations, they could be in more mobile delivery systems (nuclear submarines, MX-trains, bombers, etc). Most of America's fixed nuclear forces are sitting in the middle of the Farm Belt; in the event of even a limited nuclear exchange, the radiation would screw up the US food supply.
Raymann said:
Because it's not necesary that one side will fire all land based ICBMs and you can take out some part of second strike capability. Of course, seing which ICBM bases are targeted will amke side that is under attack fire exactlly those missiles as they would be gone anyway....
So much things in nuclear/deterrance doctrine don't make sense that I stoped bing bothered by one more.
"I always wondered about this, if each side can detect a launch within minutes and launch their own, why bother targeting silos at all, after all when you reach them wouldn't they be empty?"
I think if the early-warning systems were compromised somehow, or one side developed means of evading detection altogether (our cruise missiles flew under the radar, and I've heard noises from Russia about something called "plasma stealth"), having some trick like mobile MX up your sleeve might make sense.
I think if the early-warning systems were compromised somehow, or one side developed means of evading detection altogether (our cruise missiles flew under the radar, and I've heard noises from Russia about something called "plasma stealth"), having some trick like mobile MX up your sleeve might make sense.
"Aren't these just corollaries to the Soviet mobile SS-20 or whatever launchers ? Those hide in forests, these hide in underground caves."
Basically. The MX proposal had them rolling around on train tracks; the Sovs would have to target every inch of rail track to be sure they got all of them.
Basically. The MX proposal had them rolling around on train tracks; the Sovs would have to target every inch of rail track to be sure they got all of them.
Grey Wolf said:
I might be wrong, but I think that the SS-missiles are medium range missiles not ICBM's.
Regards!
- Mr.B.
The MX missile was originally developed for deployment in railcars based in a pupose build tunnel system. The plans to deploy thme or any other ICBM`s died with the SALT treaties since you couldn`t verify how many there were.
Mostly for cost reasons they ended up in reinforced Minuteman silos.
The SS-20 (Nato Code, I do not remember their actual WP designation) was an IRBM as in Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. The got developed from a mobile ICBM which got the ax because of the very same treaties. The Soviets simply shortened by one stage and presto-new weapon.
The replacement of the old SS-4 and SS 5 weapons with the SS 20 caused NATO to station Pershing 2 missiles and Cruise Missiles in several NATO countries if the WP wouldn`t withdraw the SS20. Which didn`t happen and the stationing caused quite a stink in many European Countries back then.
These weapons were there for only very few years, with the new and improved management in Moscow a new agreement was reached.
Targeting fixed ICBM`s makes sence since the US had a policy of launch-on-impact rather then lauch-on-detection. While this held the ICBM`s at risk it was a far safer policy for all concerned considering the number of false alarms which cropped up from time to time. The USSR developed two missiles for just that job (SS-9 and SS-18) big liquid-fueled monsters with high accuracy and 18 Megaton warheads. This threat influenced the plans for the MX.
Before the USSR went the way of Atlantis the US solved that problem with improved submarine-based missiles which take an ever-increasing role in the US deterrent.
A ATL with rail based (or road mobile-the air force tested even off-road capable tractor-trailer combos) would indicate a world where the SALT treaties didn`t work out and/or submarine based missiles weren`t the sucess they are in OTL . (Just have Captain Rickover die heroically in the Pacific-that woukld slow them by maybe a decade)
All in all this is a world where a nuclear war was even more likly-not good.
Mostly for cost reasons they ended up in reinforced Minuteman silos.
The SS-20 (Nato Code, I do not remember their actual WP designation) was an IRBM as in Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. The got developed from a mobile ICBM which got the ax because of the very same treaties. The Soviets simply shortened by one stage and presto-new weapon.
The replacement of the old SS-4 and SS 5 weapons with the SS 20 caused NATO to station Pershing 2 missiles and Cruise Missiles in several NATO countries if the WP wouldn`t withdraw the SS20. Which didn`t happen and the stationing caused quite a stink in many European Countries back then.
These weapons were there for only very few years, with the new and improved management in Moscow a new agreement was reached.
Targeting fixed ICBM`s makes sence since the US had a policy of launch-on-impact rather then lauch-on-detection. While this held the ICBM`s at risk it was a far safer policy for all concerned considering the number of false alarms which cropped up from time to time. The USSR developed two missiles for just that job (SS-9 and SS-18) big liquid-fueled monsters with high accuracy and 18 Megaton warheads. This threat influenced the plans for the MX.
Before the USSR went the way of Atlantis the US solved that problem with improved submarine-based missiles which take an ever-increasing role in the US deterrent.
A ATL with rail based (or road mobile-the air force tested even off-road capable tractor-trailer combos) would indicate a world where the SALT treaties didn`t work out and/or submarine based missiles weren`t the sucess they are in OTL . (Just have Captain Rickover die heroically in the Pacific-that woukld slow them by maybe a decade)
All in all this is a world where a nuclear war was even more likly-not good.
Raymann said:
Two reasons: Back in the 70`s, before GPS et al, a land based missile was more accurate then a sub launched one. The later Trident missiles had not been deployed so that the boomers had to be a lot closer to their targets and at greater risk.
The lack of accuracy meant that the SLBM`s were considered second-strike weapons targeted at cities and the like. The ultimate in deterrent.
There was some concern that nuclear subs could be detected from space in the forseeable future (they expected more from the blue-green lasers then they got, and then there is infrared) It didn`t happen, at least as far as we all know, but that influenced things back then.
Second, and far more important, at least to some: SLBM`s are not Air Force. MX missiles are. If you remember that the nuclear role meant that the Army Air Force could finaly drop the Army from it`s name then it`s easy to se why MX was important to them.
There may also have been some of the old "They got it so we have to have it too" in there.
The MX also had MIRVs, 10 per missile AFAIK
Last edited:
I concur with Roland; the SLBMs of the day were not accurate enough for "counterforce" (anti-military) tasks. There was a widespread fear in the late 1970s that the Soviets would get off a successive counterforce strike and all we'd have left are the SLBMs. We'd retaliate against their population and industrial centers b/c they weren't accurate enough to use against command centers, missiles silos, and the like and they'd bomb our population centers.