undefined | Better HN

0 points_0w8t8y ago0 comments

The deployment of submarines is rather orthogonal to the coverage by early detection warnings. Detection is not helpful if the flight time of missile is less then reaction time. So one wants to deploy close to US coast line irrespective of detection coverage. Besides, launching from South Pacific means US will have plenty of time to detect the warhead with normal radars.

0 comments

cocoablazing8y ago

Both RF and US operate FBM forces as deterrent second-strike forces. This is not only the operational reality but also the treaty-regulated deployed configuration.

Optimizing deployment in the manner you describe is not aligned to the current mission of these forces / our deterrence relationship.

cameldrv8y ago

That's not necessarily true anymore. The Russians have deployed the Sineva and the Layner SLBMs which have GLONASS supplemental guidance. This makes no sense in a second strike scenario. The Trident II is also plenty accurate for a counterforce first strike and allows less reaction time than ICBMs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 points_0w8t8y ago0 comments

0 comments

cocoablazing8y ago

Both RF and US operate FBM forces as deterrent second-strike forces. This is not only the operational reality but also the treaty-regulated deployed configuration.

Optimizing deployment in the manner you describe is not aligned to the current mission of these forces / our deterrence relationship.

cameldrv8y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse