Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search:
[Google]
761KB, 3000x2272px
During the 80s while developing the MX "Peacekeeper" missile, the intention was to arrange the silos in a "dense pack" configuration. The system would work where the silos would be far away enough from each-other that one warhead couldn't kill two or more silos, but close enough that the ground burst from one warhead would blast abrasive dust into the air which would destroy additional warheads targeted at nearby silos.
The plan was eventually abandoned because the Soviets would only need to make an "easy" modification to their targeting where every warhead targeted at the field would detonate simultaneously.
To me this statement seems incredibly dumb for several reasons:
Firstly is the fact that multiple warheads must be targeted at silo to reliably kill it. Given that warheads would be required to detonate only hundreds of feet from each other the warheads would need to detonate within microseconds of each other. Prompt neutrons from adjacent detonations would possibly cause weapon fizzles at those ranges let alone the issue of the weapons being vaporised.
Second is timing. How the hell do you get your missiles to arrive within seconds of each-other let alone microseconds? Slight variations between missiles (even down to how much paint it has on it or slight temperature variations in the fuel) mean that the travel time between launch at impact will vary slightly between missiles. This problem also can't be solved with MIRVs either as MIRVs can only release warheads sequentially due to the nature in how the MIRV bus aims warheads.
Were the critics of dense pack talking out of their asses?
>>
>>32917728
bump for interest
>>
>>32917728
>Were the critics of dense pack talking out of their asses?
Yes, but that's not the point. All nuke critics talk out their asses.
That said.
By the 80s, everything about the nuclear weapons programs was primarily intended as treaty bait. You say dense pack. They say easy mods. You say something else. They counter. It's not about what was actually viable. It's about what they believed they needed to have an answer for, either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table.
And by the time the MX came around, most of these battles were being fought at the negotiating table. Dense pack didn't need to work. It just needed to look plausible enough to force a counter-move.
>>
>>32919225
Except that no treaties regarding dense pack basing were signed?
>>
>>32917728
Have they not tested nuclear detonations on re-entering RVs?
Would they need an actual nuclear-armed RV to confirm that another nuclear blast would stop it detonating or could they just look at the wreckage or remotely monitor it?
Is there some law or safety rule why they can't use a nuclear-armed RV for testing?
>>
>>32920423
Above ground nuclear tests are illegal. That said, they have conducted underground tests where they tested the effect of one blast on another warhead.
>>
File: 1428681978284.jpg (58KB, 640x560px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 640x560px
would abrasive dust really kill a warhead?
I mean if they can easily withstand the massive shock heating of steep re-entry will a sandblasting really kill them?
>>
>>32917728
I seem to remember that MX was going to ride around on a rail system to various launch sites, thus the Soviets would never know where the missiles were. I suppose Wikipedia could sort out the question, but I don't care enough.
>>
>>32921159
That idea was proposed after dense pack basing was abandoned.
>>
>>32920706
Early reentry heatshields were made out of cork. Structural integrity isn't really that much or a concern there, they just need to stay together until they've done their job.
Yes, flying through earth debris at what, 20.000+km/h, may really fuck a reentry vehicle and its warhead up.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2