Why are we not funding this?

No, sounds like a stupid idea.

>submarine

File: SHIP_SSBN_Ohio_Class_Tubes_Open_and_Full_lg.jpg (89KB, 568x852px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 568x852px

>>34737879
>The US should start investing in mobile rocket launchers with nukes in them,
*cough**cough*

>>34737912
Submarines are extremely expensive to maintain. How much do you think it costs to fuel a truck?

>>34737912
>>34737909
Why not by plane too?

>>34737922
>Submarines are extremely expensive to maintain

good thing we can afford to do expensive things.

Gotta pay the lobbysts with bribery money for overtechnical shit that could be done much simpler and still do the same shit as the want to.

>>34737922
We're talking about nukes, not pizza deliveries.

>>34737922
The only roads in America that can withstand the weight of one of those things are the interstate highways, and no way in hell they will allow them on there.

>>34737959
>>34738001
>>34738004
Ok whatever. Russia, North Korea, basically every country with nukes except the euros uses those truck launcher things. While America does not share land borders with anyone, it does have plenty of allies that grant it military access, and moving around some trucks is much faster, cheaper, efficient and has higher strategic impact than deploying entire submarines. Also, what will the US do when someone else nukes its airports, harbors and silos?

>>34738041
The US used to have this sort of thing, you do know that dont you?

>>34738057
Yes, iirc it was a 60s/70s thing.

>>34738071
I think the last ones went out of service in the early 90s.

>>34737980
You mean like a bomb dropped from a plane? Why use poorfag shit when you can use something way more effective.

>>34738080
And retiring them was a very bad move.

>>34738041
>except the euros uses those truck launcher things.
That makes me think, where do the French keep their nukes?

Subs?

>>34738094
Yes, all of them

>>34738090
The MGM-52 Lance was pretty old, and it would have made more sense to develop something new (perhaps a nuclear variant of the MGM-140) then to keep them.

>>34738094
>>34738101

And air launched cruise missiles.

>>34738094
They also have the nuclear Mirage 2000N. Gravity bombs and cruise missiles I assume.

>>34737879

We have a limited number of warheads and missiles by treaty. You expect us to waste some of them on a land based, defensive posture instead of a nearly perfect first and second strike platform like SLBMs?

Plz revive project pluto

File: 2006_0306_b52_2lg.jpg (42KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x520px

>>34737936
The bomber is still rated to carry the AGM-86B nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The B-52 can carry up to 20 of the subsonic, low-flying missiles, releasing them at their maximum range of 1,491 miles to avoid enemy airspace.

>have capability to hit anywhere globally with silo launched nuclear weapons
>have more silos then any nation is capable of destroying before retaliation is launched
>have missile detection capabilities allowing retaliatory launches before enemy missiles hit
>have submarines
>have stealth aircraft
>have shit people dont even know about
>fucking rail guns
>dur why dun we put it on a truck like best korea?

Almonds nuked right there

>>34738121
why do you need a special plane to drop nukes? like what prevents them from using the nuclear bombs on any other plane?

>>34737879
because its fucking stupid and not worth the time money and effort for such a low yield bomb
hang yourself

>>34738439
"Low yield bomb"s are the future of nuclear warfare.
And do you know what else is low yield?
Your brain.

>>34738456
>"Low yield bomb"s are the future of nuclear warfare.
that completely defeats the purpose of having a nuke you jack ass
if you want low yield you use a normal fucking bomb, not a nuke
drink paint thinner

>>34738475
No.
Low yield nukes are used to destroys targets like airports, harbors, command centers, some infrastructure, and other nukes. Also, small nukes form cluster warheads to destroy large population centers. 10 x 100kt warheads >>> 1 x 1000 kt warhead

>>34738728

Smaller nukes are strategically more valuable and eminently more usable for having lower fallout - while still having orders of magnitude more power than conventional weapons.

>>34738866
Thanks for complementing my answer, it really disproves >>34738475

>>34738041
What if they nuke the truck depot?

>>34738907
What if there's traffic?
What if there's a 10 meter wide section of road missing?
What if they use caltrops and pop the tires?
What if the president's son took it joy riding and now its got no gas and the nearest gas station is like a 10 minute drive?
What if someone accidentally launched one while OP was sucking his dick?

File: C5 minuteman III test.jpg (48KB, 677x569px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 677x569px

>>34737936
Like this?

>>34737879
>Why are we not funding this?
Because papier-mache parade floats to boost nationalistic pride are not effective in combat.

>>34738728
>Low yield nukes
FAE's accomplish the same thing with no radiation. Most nukes are detonated in mid air to maximize effectiveness. You really don't know jack shit do you?

>>34738866
>for having lower fallout

oh boy, you really don't know much about nukes do you ?

>eminently more usable

yep, ALL NUKES are usable at exactly same amount:
a small nuke is not alternative to large bomb and never will be.

>>34739649
Like the F-35.

File: nrhyi2whzivtnsw5tciy.jpg (51KB, 800x508px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x508px

>>34737936
Why did they have to cancel the CMCA

>>34738041
>america doesn't share land borders with anyone
Someone just nuked canada and mexico

>>34738041
That is great for countries who want to deter invasion. Their short range means they can lob missiles to deny the enemy a large area. The problem with those mobile missile launchers is inflexibility, lack of strategic concealment (I mean sure you could throw some nets up but cmon) and the fact that they do not have a retaliatory strike capability: they would be targeted and most of them wiped out in a first strike scenario.

So take all of these with the fact that we can only have so many nukes and you can see why having a 3-tiered approach (Air dropped/launched , sub launched, and missilemen) is better than adding another method of delivery for little gain and also detriment to the effectiveness of the former 3.

In fact some argue that air launched is probably the least effective because of low rates of penetration, but it offers the greatest flexibility in a conflict that may not be total thermonuclear warfare but may warrant a few bombas dropped to bring conflict to a quick end. They can also be recalled whereas missiles can't and submarines, through miscommunication, can begin a nuclear attack without any external authority.

>>34739673
Someone doesn't know how fallout works, or how the distribution scales with both burst height and the altitude reached by the mushroom cloud.

>>34739739
Could you fucking imagine that thing getting blown out of the sky holy fuck

There were plans in the 80s for small mobile ICBMs or ones mounted on rail cars. Decided it was impractical, because you gave up capability like range, payload and accuracy for being small... and the infrastructure costs of being rail based were bad, not to mention readiness levels.

Much better and actually cheaper to use an SLBM, which were really hitting their stride by then in capability.

>>34737879
Read on the Cuban Missille Crisis on why its not a good idea to place US/Russian nukes on foreign soil.

>>34740049
Dude our subs are everywhere and have nukes on board. I don't know why you retards are debating his.

>>34739739
>Why did they have to cancel the CMCA

Because any 747 on Radar would be suspect and they were the most important aircraft in intercontinental civil aviation in their day.

>>34738041
>While America does not share land borders with anyone

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the education system of the United States of America.

>>34740138
i hope he means "shares land borders with any threatening country" because lets be honest, canada probly wouldnt want to start a war with us given we are one of their most important trade allies...and mexico is too corrupt and has such a small military budget that even think about starting a land war with any other country is insane.

Because it's unnecessary. US has 400 land-based ICBM's plus 336 Submarine-based ICBM's, all of which carry multiple warheads. There's also air-launched cruise missiles. All of this is enough to nuke the world several times over and no countermeasures to stop even 10% of them exist.

Russia's economy is in the shitter. Should spend more on that and less on new cool ICBM's like it's 1978

>>34741132
This. In a nuclear exchange atm Russia/China would be reduced to ashes in a matter of minutes. US would get hit badly too, but that's MAD for you.

>>34739739
The fucking aneurysm that every Soviet air defense commander would have had if this became real...

>>34738411
Maybe the US should put some nukes on trains like Russia, absolutely no way to predict where it will be

>>34738435
Weight of the bombs and the need to be able to get the fuck out of there fast after they drop

>>34739664
>>34739673
Stop pretending like you don't know about tactical vs strategic nukes and admit that trucks are a viable and cheaper option for low yield nukes.

>>34741671
If all you want is a tactical nuke on a truck then you just need to make a warhead that would fit on a ATACMS and then put that in a HIMARS.

>>34738382
Reminder that Edward Teller was a madman who didn't believe in nuclear deterrence and who, at any given point in time, believed war with the USSR was at most 5 years away.

>>34738435
Permissive action links.

>>34739906
Yes. Yes I could.

It wouldn't be all that spectacular.

File: B61_in_Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System.jpg (67KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x531px

>>34741671
The lowest yield nuke we have is the B-61 tactical freefall bomb. Though I guess nowadays that's GPS guided too. The nice thing about it is that it can be mounted on most combat aircraft in the inventory. F-16s, F-15E, F-35, B-2s and soon the B-21 all can carry it. Because of the U.S.s Air power capability, and the inherent flexibility of aircraft vs missiles, it's better to use those as opposed to truck mounted launchers.

As a bonus, everyone forgets that these things are hidden in airbases all over Europe still. When we had Pershing II it was really obvious and obnoxious and the Germans were very upset about it. Mobile TELs would almost certainly be cheaper but then you really restrict what you can and cant fire against as well as the flexibility of the weapon to be called off if need be.

>>34741736
Dozens of nuclear tipped cruise missiles brought down by a single AAM? Sounds like a pretty spectacular fubar situation to me.

>>34743520
The nukes would not detonate. But sure, there would be some radioactive spill I guess.

It would be way more impressive if they were conventional warheads.

>>34738004
>today, on I-4: two nuclear-tipped TEL vehicles and 42 civilian vehicles in massive pile-up caused by 17 year old texting Becky, who quote; "literally cant even". More at 6 tonight

>>34741196
Its not like we haven't seen how Russia handles foreign passenger planes at least a few times now

>>34741772
>everyone forgets that these things are hidden in airbases all over Europe still.

They are not hidden, and they are not all over the place.

All US nukes in Europe is in the following bases

>Belgium
Kleine Brogel

>Germany
Büchel

>Italy
Aviano
Ghedi

>Netherlands
Volkel

>Turkey
Incirlik

>>34737922

Submarines are much harder to find and can be parked much closer to the target, dramatically reducing their warning time

>>34738004
That's why freeways were made, to expedite the movement of military vehicles rapidly in the event of a domestic emergency.

File: 1496339661523.jpg (177KB, 505x960px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 505x960px

>>34741691

>attack 'ems

>>34737922
>Submarines are extremely expensive to maintain
actually they are the least expensive of the nuclear triad, but good attempt at looking like you know anything.

>>34743699
The point I was making is that they aren't as obvious as a shit load of TELs scattered around. An airbase is obvious no shit, but an F-16 coming out of that base serves more purposes then just slinging nukes, and people typically forget it can perform that role. ICBMs in a TEL can only serve a single purpose and they aren't hidden behind fences and inside HASs

File: 1023028482.jpg (86KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x541px

>no mention of russian nuke trains
bunch of fucking plebs

>>34744245

>>34741413

>>34744245
So what happens when it reaches a tunnel? Holy fuck russians are so stupid.

>>34744083
not that guy, but how? Surely the constant use of uranium as fuel, plus the costs related to maintenance of the crew and the sub, in addition to the maintenance of the missiles themselves, would be more expensive than just maintaining silos filled with missiles

File: шщщщрооьбббдбд.jpg (80KB, 801x470px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 801x470px

>>34744568
>Holy fuck russians are so stupid.

>>34744245
>>34741413
>No way of knowing where it is
>Something on a predictable route because a train can only follow it's tracks
Couldn't you first limit movement by blowing pieces of tracks, thereby closing its possible routes?

>>34737922
>NOTHING TO SEE HERE CITIZEN, JUST A VERY LARGE TRUCK
PLEASE DONT SNEEZE IN MY DIRECTION OR KICK UP GRAVEL ON ME UNLESS YOU WANT 1000 MILES IN EVER DIRECTION TO BE TAINTED WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION!
WHY ARENT WE FUNDING THIS!!!!

>>34737879
>spending even more money on nukes that will never be used

File: Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_Launcher_USAF.jpg (294KB, 1800x1115px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1800x1115px

>>34737879
>Why are we not funding this?
The Cold War ended and the SICBM found itself on the wrong end of the peace dividends and nuclear reduction treaties.
> it could send those in trips to Poland, South Korea, etc
That was basically what the Pershings and GLCMs were and those pissed off just about everybody.

File: midgetman_005.jpg (110KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 700x500px

>>34745272
Came here to say this.

>>34737922

Well since they get fueled every 20-30 years or so I'd say it balances out.

Now, they're still stuck using old shitty reactors but still.

Goddamn dude your fucking dumb

>>34743699
>Turkey
>Europe

>>34745910
Kinda. The left hand bit is on the correct continent and it is in NATO.
I wouldn't put nukes on their turf these days DESU.