No ICBMs, More or Less Stable World?

[Berra]

I'v been rereading some Tom Clancey books and it got me thinking. It features a world where Russia and the US got rid of their ICBMs. Still, it features some pretty strange wars. I dubt any of those will happen, nukes or no nukes.

Let's say the US and Russia do get rid of their ICBMs for whatever reason post cold war. Would such world be more or less stable?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Not if all the other nations won't follow suit.

 

[The Red]

Do you mean Universal Nuclear Disarmament or just getting rid of ICBM's because if it's the latter then it's pretty pointless, both sides still have a enough translatlantic bombers which can deliver enough nukes to send each other back to pre-industrial times.

 

[Berra]

No ICBMs but I don't mind a discussion on total disarmament either...

 

[Thande]

I don't think it can be enforced: the whole point behind ICBMs is that they're much harder to intercept, so why would anyone stick to the treaty when they can save a lot of money by using ICBMs instead of getting into a massive arms race over numbers of bombers and AA defences?

Also a Crapsack World, as ICBM development is at the heart of most space launchers' development.

 

[MacCaulay]

I don't think it can be enforced: the whole point behind ICBMs is that they're much harder to intercept, so why would anyone stick to the treaty when they can save a lot of money by using ICBMs instead of getting into a massive arms race over numbers of bombers and AA defences?

Also a Crapsack World, as ICBM development is at the heart of most space launchers' development.

Precisely.

Besides, no news station's bothered trumpeting this to the sky in awhile, but it's alot cheaper to buy a bomber force that can bomb your neighbours than it is to deploy an IRBM or ICBM force.

ICBMs aren't the most common type of ballistic missile. InterMediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) are. Iran, India, North Korea, etc. all have them. And if they replaced them with bombers they may be more likely to use them as the bombers are weapons systems which can be adjusted to deliver conventional payloads rather easily.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

I don't think it can be enforced: the whole point behind ICBMs is that they're much harder to intercept, so why would anyone stick to the treaty when they can save a lot of money by using ICBMs instead of getting into a massive arms race over numbers of bombers and AA defences?

Actually since they follow a predictable path and don't take evasive action they are easier to intercept than bombers. And before anyone says that ABM systems don't work the Americans were able to get skin to skin interceptions of ballistic missiles back in the '60s.
Conversely bombers can use jamming, take evasive action when attacked, hide behind terrain, or weather and approach from unexpected directions, none of which a ballistic missile can do.

Even without land based ICBMs there are still lots of sub based SLBMs, cruise missiles that can be nuclear armed, not to mention all of the strategic bombers that the USAF and the Russian Air Force still have.

 

[MerryPrankster]

In the Jack Ryan-verse, an incident of nuclear terrorism nearly started WWIII and consequently, everyone abandoned their ICBMs.

A bomber can be recalled if it turns out a mistake has been made. An ICBM can't.

Problem is, if you go with an accidental near-WWIII leading to everyone abandoning their ICBMs, the fact there was nearly a nuclear war would probably be the primary factor affecting world stability, not whether or not there are ICBMs.

 

[machine3589]

Well, this may not be the most realistic example, but look at Endwar`s plot. No ICBM`s meant just more emphasis on conventional warfare, and another Great War was inevitable there without M.A.D. Generally, a lot of people think M.A.D. is the only reason there want a WWIII in the Cold War era. I think this assesment is too simplistic, but two Nuke-packing nations have never went to war with each other, and it is dubious if they ever will in the near future.

But back to your original question; neither. Just removing ICBM-s wouldnt make the world any more stable. ICBM-s stop ICBM-capable countries from declaring war with each other. But since no war to date has triggered a ICBM launch, its questionable if the world would be less stable. The ICBM-capable countries have retained all the power of their conventional armies, and can still wage a succesfull conventional war.

 

[The Red]

Well, this may not be the most realistic example, but look at Endwar`s plot.

Umm Endwar isn't a shining beacon of plausibility either.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

A bomber can be recalled if it turns out a mistake has been made. An ICBM can't.

Plus bombers can be launched to their Fail-Safe points as a form of sabre-rattling. If an agreement is reached with the potential enemy they can be recalled.
Can't do that with an ICBM, it either sits in its silo, or flies. An increased level of readiness cant be seen, unlike bombers taking-off.

 

[CalBear]

Actually Debt of Honor showed why it was a bad idea (even though the elimination of the ICBM was Reagan's lasting dream).

It is virtually impossible to uninvent something.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Actually since they follow a predictable path and don't take evasive action they are easier to intercept than bombers. And before anyone says that ABM systems don't work the Americans were able to get skin to skin interceptions of ballistic missiles back in the '60s.
Conversely bombers can use jamming, take evasive action when attacked, hide behind terrain, or weather and approach from unexpected directions, none of which a ballistic missile can do.

Even without land based ICBMs there are still lots of sub based SLBMs, cruise missiles that can be nuclear armed, not to mention all of the strategic bombers that the USAF and the Russian Air Force still have.

Well, the fact that no one in the world has deployed a big, viable ABM force while people have been intercepting bombers almost since they were designed points against that...not to mention that missiles can and, but for the fall of the USSR and various treaties, would take evasive action...look up "MARVs" if you don't believe me. Or is screaming in at high Mach numbers less than a few thousand feet over the ground after reentering some distance from your target not evasive action?

Beyond that, of course, there are penaids like chaff, decoy warheads, jammers and the like, or FOBS, which can deploy weapons into LEO to hit the enemy from any direction...modern ICBMs also have a long enough range to just go over the South Pole (or take other unexpected action) to hit their targets, too, rather than having to go via the North Pole. So, it is just not true to say that ICBMs, unlike bombers, must march methodically towards their destination, taking no evasive action whatsoever or attempting stealth, and are thus easy to intercept.

 

[machine3589]

Umm Endwar isn't a shining beacon of plausibility either.

It is, however, an example of "No ICBM-s". It may be a pure work of peak oil fiction, but removing ICBM`s = more emphasis on conventional warfare sounds very plausible to me.

 

[The Red]

It is, however, an example of "No ICBM-s". It may be a pure work of peak oil fiction, but removing ICBM`s = more emphasis on conventional warfare sounds very plausible to me.

Hardly, if they can have space marines then they'll be able to build a nuclear bomber capable of evading AA defense also tactical nukes would be used if either side suffered a serious setback.

 

[machine3589]

Hardly, if they can have space marines then they'll be able to build a nuclear bomber capable of evading AA defense also tactical nukes would be used if either side suffered a serious setback.

Space Marines? Who said anything about space marines?

 

[The Red]

Space Marines? Who said anything about space marines?

In the game the Americans have a team of marines that can be projected anywhere around the world via space station.

 

[Thande]

In the game the Americans have a team of marines that can be projected anywhere around the world via space station.

That's not so ASB, there are people at DARPA working on that right now. Although it'll probably end up as being some form of robot drones rather than living soldiers as it avoids all the complications to do with safe human reentry.

 

[Astrodragon]

That's not so ASB, there are people at DARPA working on that right now. Although it'll probably end up as being some form of robot drones rather than living soldiers as it avoids all the complications to do with safe human reentry.

Its not so much the reentry issue, as the inability of the system to extract the troops after the drop & combat....

 

[The Red]

That's not so ASB, there are people at DARPA working on that right now. Although it'll probably end up as being some form of robot drones rather than living soldiers as it avoids all the complications to do with safe human reentry.

The idea's not exactly impossible but it's so uneconomical that it's pointless, even if you can instantly get them back up there like the game.