NationStates Jolt Archive

Could a conventional ICBM be used to:

a) deliver undersea mines?

b) deliver cluster munitions?

c) deliver a bunker buster?

d) other?

Links or advice welcome.

Thanks.

PS I know it isn't the most effective way to deliver payloads. Thanks.

my first thought is what would an unconventional icbm be.

but given the general usage of icbm... and the civ-ification of the would *shudders*

the answer is yes. as long as the icbm, ie everything below the warhead, can carry it the required distance you can put anything on it. the problem is getting close enough to the target for a non-nuclear warhead to be effective. without terminal guidance you are looking at a one mile error radius. which is why usually you do not find non-nuclear warheads on an inter-contenental ballistic missile

for reference the first american in sub-orbit was strapped to the top of an icbm.

my first thought is what would an unconventional icbm be.

but given the general usage of icbm... and the civ-ification of the would *shudders*

the answer is yes. as long as the icbm, ie everything below the warhead, can carry it the required distance you can put anything on it. the problem is getting close enough to the target for a non-nuclear warhead to be effective. without terminal guidance you are looking at a one mile error radius. which is why usually you do not find non-nuclear warheads on an inter-contenental ballistic missile

for reference the first american in sub-orbit was strapped to the top of an icbm.

Thanks - so the bunker buster would probably be out for accuracy reasons - but if one wanted to mine a harbour or pock-mark a airport with cluster bombs - that would be more realistic?

The problem is that the ICBM costs you more than the average damage you will cause with whatever conventional you deliver.

PS: ALL ICBMs are 'conventional', it`s just their warheads being nuclear.

PPS: As i, myselve, consider conventional warheads on ICBMs stupid, white Hawk Inc. considers ICBM attacks on DA, no matter what the attacking nation claims they deliver, a WMD attack and will respond accordingly.

Conventional ICBMs are a joke, the country getting them launched at it doesnt know theyre conventional and might as well turn you into glass.

the bunker buster is doable. it requires terminal guidance of somekind. modern day tech exsists to get the error radius down to a few metres. it hasn't been used or seriously developed becuase it exerted a destabilizing effect on the balance of terror.

mining an area, maybe not sea mines becuase of their bulk and mass, is paper doable. but no one has every really tried it. there's probably a reason.

The problem is that the ICBM costs you more than the average damage you will cause with whatever conventional you deliver.

PS: ALL ICBMs are 'conventional', it`s just their warheads being nuclear.

PPS: As i, myselve, consider conventional warheads on ICBMs stupid, white Hawk Inc. considers ICBM attacks on DA, no matter what the attacking nation claims they deliver, a WMD attack and will respond accordingly.

Consider this though - the use of ICBMs as a distraction for a large scale assault.

You target 5 ICBMs with conventional warheads to high-value military targets.

The defender will train all resources to shooting them down.

Meanwhile - a massive Tomahawk assault is launched, sweeping in with minimal notice.

ICBMs are designed to deliver a nuclear payload, however, it is possible to arm/outfit them with another duty. As mentioned before, it is relatively pointless to to use them in a bunker-busting role but not so much because of accuracy. If you were to load up 5 JDAMs (about all you could fit in the nose cone of most ICBMs), because they have inertial GPS, they could feasibly work, but you are working in a massive excess of cost. That missile is expensive to upkeep as are the personnel for it.

Undersea mines are not going to work because there is no way to prevent the disentegration of the missile upon sea impact, possibly setting off your mines. The average ICBM has on inbound terminal speed in excess of Mach 8.

Cluster munitions once again are simply not cost effective, but possible.

The only warhead really feasible aside from the nuclear warhead, would be a Fuel-air explosive/conventional combination munition such as the BLU-82 "Daisycutter" or the MOAB. These weapons result in 350-1000m blast radii and results like that of nukes. They create a blast, followed by firestorm which leaves a negative pressure in its wake, resulting in over-pressured objects within the radius (ie people) exploding outwards. The vacuum then sucks it all back in and creates a convection current resulting in a mushroom cloud. Cheaper than nukes, but still extremely effective.

For cluster munitions and bunker busters, best to use a submarine launched cruise missile as those are already configured for such operations. Undersea mines are best done by impersonating commercial vessels, using mini-subs, or having them towed by torpedoes.

The problem is that the ICBM costs you more than the average damage you will cause with whatever conventional you deliver.

PS: ALL ICBMs are 'conventional', it`s just their warheads being nuclear.

PPS: As i, myselve, consider conventional warheads on ICBMs stupid, white Hawk Inc. considers ICBM attacks on DA, no matter what the attacking nation claims they deliver, a WMD attack and will respond accordingly.

Consider this though - the use of ICBMs as a distraction for a large scale assault.

You target 5 ICBMs with conventional warheads to high-value military targets.

The defender will train all resources to shooting them down.

Meanwhile - a massive Tomahawk assault is launched, sweeping in with minimal notice.

All ressources? You mean all anti- missile systems that can reach them.

And i would still consider it a WMD attack.

So, while i currently only have 1kt fusion warheads and therefore cannot glass your nation, a living hell of bioweaponery and chemical stuff would be unloaded over your nation.

Not really smart, if you ask me.

The problem is that the ICBM costs you more than the average damage you will cause with whatever conventional you deliver.

PS: ALL ICBMs are 'conventional', it`s just their warheads being nuclear.

PPS: As i, myselve, consider conventional warheads on ICBMs stupid, white Hawk Inc. considers ICBM attacks on DA, no matter what the attacking nation claims they deliver, a WMD attack and will respond accordingly.

Consider this though - the use of ICBMs as a distraction for a large scale assault.

You target 5 ICBMs with conventional warheads to high-value military targets.

The defender will train all resources to shooting them down.

Meanwhile - a massive Tomahawk assault is launched, sweeping in with minimal notice.

......... :shock:

......... :shock:

Uh you do realise if you launch 5 ICBMs at a country they will react entirely unlike that? ICBMs were designed to carry nuclear payloads.......to reach targets outside of conventional warfare ranges not to deliver a single bunker buster on some country......

If ICBMs where built with that idea nobody would accept Mutualy Assured Destruction.....MAD is the key point to why ICBMs are never deployed why? because you launch even one the other side thinks it's a nuclear weapon uses AMD defenses and launches a return shot of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads......

Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to launch an ICBM that was a bunker buster........

No offense meant but ICBMs are the end all of over-reactions and the most dangerous weapon anyone could hold. You would risk your peoples lives by launching an ICBM carrying a bunker buster warhead? I call you a lunatic.

Also, actually with adequte weapons, a tomahawk can be shot down. Tomahawks are only subsonic, non-stealth missile-like "plane", and the MEADS system have shot down some.

The real puprose of ICBMs is to deliver nuclear weapons, or sometimes other WMDs. There is no puprose to put swome conventional warhead on it, seeing ICBMs doesn't really have guidance, therefore it is quite innaccurate.

anything can be shot down, it just takes time, ammo, and patience.

The problem is that the ICBM costs you more than the average damage you will cause with whatever conventional you deliver.

PS: ALL ICBMs are 'conventional', it`s just their warheads being nuclear.

PPS: As i, myselve, consider conventional warheads on ICBMs stupid, white Hawk Inc. considers ICBM attacks on DA, no matter what the attacking nation claims they deliver, a WMD attack and will respond accordingly.

Consider this though - the use of ICBMs as a distraction for a large scale assault.

You target 5 ICBMs with conventional warheads to high-value military targets.

The defender will train all resources to shooting them down.

Meanwhile - a massive Tomahawk assault is launched, sweeping in with minimal notice.

......... :shock:

......... :shock:

Uh you do realise if you launch 5 ICBMs at a country they will react entirely unlike that? ICBMs were designed to carry nuclear payloads.......to reach targets outside of conventional warfare ranges not to deliver a single bunker buster on some country......

If ICBMs where built with that idea nobody would accept Mutualy Assured Destruction.....MAD is the key point to why ICBMs are never deployed why? because you launch even one the other side thinks it's a nuclear weapon uses AMD defenses and launches a return shot of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads......

Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to launch an ICBM that was a bunker buster........

No offense meant but ICBMs are the end all of over-reactions and the most dangerous weapon anyone could hold. You would risk your peoples lives by launching an ICBM carrying a bunker buster warhead? I call you a lunatic.

Thanks for being so insulting. I was merely putting forward a tactical issue for discussion.

Thanks for being so insulting. I was merely putting forward a tactical issue for discussion.

And that was the answer.

The correct answer.

You should be thankful. Would be much worse to launch a tactical strike and be glassed.

without terminal guidance you are looking at a one mile error radius.

Not entirely true. US and UK ICBMs were down to a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of only around 250 feet. Soviet ICBM's were nearly as accurate: around 500 - 600 feet. However, the point is still valid- nuclear weapons are still quite effective even if they aren't accurate. This is NOT the case with standard HE (High Explosive) warheads- which require a fair degree of precision.

The problem with using chemical or bio- weapons in an ICBM is two-fold. Accuracy and delivery. ICBMs are mainly huge fuel tanks designed solely to get the payload into a ballistic orbit. MIRVs seperate into individual warheads. The warheads return to Earth through the atmosphere, and only survive because of the ablative re-entry shielding.

After essentially falling to the ground from orbit, these warheads are travelling at an enormous speed, and they have just barely enough time to make simple course corrections after the re-entry shrouds are burned off before they explode (note that the most effective use of a nuclear warhead is an airburst) over their targets. Travelling at several thousand miles per hour straight down through the atmosphere is hardly an effective way to disperse chemical or biological agents.

for reference the first american in sub-orbit was strapped to the top of an icbm.

As was the first man of ANY nationality in space. Yuri Gagarin was launched into orbit atop a modified ICBM.

{Tag; For Intelligence Purposes}

I see everyone here has just about established that launching a "non-nuclear" ICBM is about the stupidest thing ever. Now for my two cents:

If anyone were to ever launch an ICBM at me, I would glassifiy them without question. The presumption that anyone would use an ICBM for anything other than as a nuclear strike is perpostorous. Even if I were to be informed IC/OOCly of the exception, I would still proceed with glassification.

Ahem, now that I'm done with the rant........just don't launch an ICBM, ok? Everyone will be much happier.

Too costly an exercise to launch an ICBM for so little gain in my opinion.

Too costly an exercise to launch an ICBM for so little gain in my opinion.

My nation cares little about the cost, because of our powerful economy. It's an easy way to attack a foe, without even leaving our nation or endanger the lives of our soldiers.

An accurate, conventional tomahawk could do more specific damage than a nuclear ICMB. But a nuclear tomahawk would be a hell of a lot better bunker buster than a conventional.

Too costly an exercise to launch an ICBM for so little gain in my opinion.

My nation cares little about the cost, because of our powerful economy. It's an easy way to attack a foe, without even leaving our nation or endanger the lives of our soldiers.

OOC:

With all due respect Drakonian, you aren't getting it. Once you launch an ICBM most, if not all, people will presume that the ICBM is carrying a nuclear payload. You are actually putting yourselves at severe risk when you launch an ICBM. It doesn't matter if the warhead is conventional, using cruise missiles, or loaded with cotton candy.

Why not just send over a long-range bomber and drop an MOAB instead?

OOC: Just thought you guys might want to know this thread is from August...

OOC: Just thought you guys might want to know this thread is from August...

OOC: Indeed. But some folks can't seem to understand why launching an ICBM would be a bad idea. Even one with a payload full of unsalted popcorn.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93916&highlight=

[Why not just send over a long-range bomber and drop an MOAB instead?

I entirely understand the arguments.

First, the launch a nuclear barraige at a nation (that it is public knowledge that they do not have nuclear weapons, that it is also public knowledge that they highly protest the use of WMDs, and that is respectable; i.e. would not lie) would not be smart. You would have to deal with the press flaunting that you nuked a anti-WMD nation, when said nation was launching a conventional ICBM (for all you know it could be their first space flight and their simply send a space capulse or satellite into orbit). You also have to deal with the international bad press of nuking a nation, for possibly a bad reason.

Then there is your intelligence service, if they were fool enough to not inform you that said missile had a conventional payload you might consider a new intelligence service. Especially, if said nation launching the missile is anti-WMD.

Assuming things can have bad consequences (and most of the time does). Be careful of what you assume.

On a side note, in the case of Dyelli Beybi they were trigger-happy, had a horrible intelligence service, and made assumptions, hence the current situation. And also that my missile were launch, and then their warheads (cruise missiles) were fired at Al Anbar (not Dyelli Baybian) military positions. Assumption were made, people died, full-scale war ensues.

Finally, I would like to state to everyone an ICBM is simply a missile with a intercontinental range and a weapons payload. That's all.

To respond to Nianacio, I was only meant to tag the thread for future reading, until the conversation restarted. Then I was simply voice my own nations views (not necessarily my own, like this post is).

I entirely understand the arguments.

To be fair, I can also understand your point of view. But it doesn’t make sense.


First, the launch a nuclear barraige at a nation (that it is public knowledge that they do not have nuclear weapons, that it is also public knowledge that they highly protest the use of WMDs, and that is respectable; i.e. would not lie) would not be smart. You would have to deal with the press flaunting that you nuked a anti-WMD nation, when said nation was launching a conventional ICBM (for all you know it could be their first space flight and their simply send a space capulse or satellite into orbit). You also have to deal with the international bad press of nuking a nation, for possibly a bad reason.

Perhaps a real-life example would help. When North Korea launched their Taepodong 2 over Japan in 1998 it caused one hell of a panic. Really, North Korea is damn lucky that they weren’t glassed for that little stunt. I should add that I currently live in South Korea and was ready to go when that baloney happened.

As well, who cares about public knowledge? Nations lie and put out the spin all the time. Israel tells people that it has no nukes but who in their right mind believes them?

Israel is never mentioned in semi-annual reports the U.S. Congress requires the intelligence agencies to prepare on “the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding 6 months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction.”

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3217

Then there is your intelligence service, if they were fool enough to not inform you that said missile had a conventional payload you might consider a new intelligence service. Especially, if said nation launching the missile is anti-WMD.

Assuming things can have bad consequences (and most of the time does). Be careful of what you assume.

Intelligence services can often get things wrong. Would you take that chance? A nation should assume the worst. To wait for the ICBM to impact I believe is a wee bit late to find out.

On a side note, in the case of Dyelli Beybi they were trigger-happy, had a horrible intelligence service, and made assumptions, hence the current situation. And also that my missile were launch, and then their warheads (cruise missiles) were fired at Al Anbar (not Dyelli Baybian) military positions. Assumption were made, people died, full-scale war ensues.

No question the now-deceased Tzar was a nut. But he acted to how most people would react if an ICBM came at them or an ally. Tell me, if I sent an ICBM at one of your allies and said the payload is full of peppermints, would you really believe me?

Finally, I would like to state to everyone an ICBM is simply a missile with a intercontinental range and a weapons payload. That's all.

Yes, capable of carrying nuclear devices.

Well then, you might as well glass some poor idiot every time they launch a missile at you, because every missile/rocket in the world can carry a nuclear warhead with enough engineering put into it.

No question the now-deceased Tzar was a nut. But he acted to how most people would react if an ICBM came at them or an ally. Tell me, if I sent an ICBM at one of your allies and said the payload is full of peppermints, would you really believe me?

If you said it was full of peppermints I would not, but if your nation was respectable (i.e. does not lie) and said it was a conventional warhead, I might.

Note I said, might. I'm giving you that much. Honestly, I see you side too, but what's done is done and I am not going to change the Imperium's policy. We will continue to use conventional ICBMs as long-range assault weapons.

What have we all learned from this thread?

Launching an ICBM regardless of leathality(conventional or nuclear) results in the defending nation launching ACTUAL nuclear weapons.(Well sh*t, anyone with common sense would see that coming).

Using an ICBM for a conventional weapon is like using a regular torpedo to take out a minnow, its just overkill, impractical, and inefficant.So lets,let this horrible topic die.Okay folks?

Too costly an exercise to launch an ICBM for so little gain in my opinion.

My nation cares little about the cost, because of our powerful economy. It's an easy way to attack a foe, without even leaving our nation or endanger the lives of our soldiers.

With all due respect (of which I am fast losing any for you), you are talking about a freakin' ICBM!!

How do I put this delicately......THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT PEOPLE PUT IN ICBMs AND THAT IS A FREAKIN' ***N U C L E A R*** WARHEAD!!!

I don't care what you say, claim, or even think you put in it, when you launch an ICBM, you launch a nuke. You declare the launch of an ICBM in an act of hostilities, the first thing anyone would think (RP/IRL/IC/OOC/whatever) is that you're launching a nuke.

And by doing so, you will find so many nukes coming your way from all the nations around you, it wouldn't even be funny.

Here, I have a learning aid for you, maybe this will help you understand my point better. (http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf)

As usual, Sketch cuts through the BS and makes it nice and clear for everyone to understand.

I can't believe that arguement/debate just went on.

Ask Vrak and Sketch have said - ICBM and nuke have become one in the same.

The real question is the application. Essential tactical question: What is the target and is this the best means of taking it out?

I can't think of any real reason why you would need to launch conventionally-armed ICBMs at another nation for serious point targets. Launching against land-based targets that could easily be taken out (by most NS nations, a note on this later) by high-speed, high-altitude bombers or long-range cruise missiles from aerial or naval platforms is just a waste of your money and time and will probably have a worse return (nuclear annihilation) than your benefit (taking out that damn arms factory).

This does not mean, however, that ICBMs are completely useless for non-nuclear nations or even against certain targets.

I found that during a spin-off of the Melkor wars (Cut and Thrust: The Invasion of Ell), a pair of ICBMs loaded with small-scale EMP submunitions were very effective at removing the majority of a rather large invading fleet on its way to strike at Ell (in fact, the first fleet that had been sent was destroyed thanks to other long-range conventional, ex-nuclear technology). It turns out that "Carpet EMP-ing" works very well against massed, highly computerized vessels (even with EMP-shielding, the sheer number and intensity of EMPs make the advanced systems dead-in-the-water some couple thousand miles from friendly shores).

In this case, the assaulted nations were unlikely to have the resources to:
a) detect the exact location/direction of the missiles, but to know that they were not on a course for their own shores,
b) establish anti-ICBM defenses so far from friendly territory
c) respond in a manner that might aid the fleet.

In addition, a nation is less likely to involve itself in nuclear warfare if the target is not on its own shores...even if it means loosing a good bit of the navy.

---------------

Now, there are some cases where ICBMs can be very useful--when the nation is too poor or technologically "backward" to afford long-range, supersonic bombers and forward-deployable naval fleets.

During the first Gulf war, Saddam used "scud" SRBMs to strike at Israeli population centers. Although generally inaccurate, the missiles did do their purpose: to terrorize the civilians of Israel--the closest Saddam could get to the US. Iraqi jets and bombers could not reach Israel (in part due to Israel's Air Defenses and in part due to the fact that most of them were sitting out the war in Iran or being shot down by Coalition air sorties), so the Scuds were a good tactical choice for Saddam. Easy to move, hide, and deploy quickly, nearly impossible to stop. Hey, so they cost a lot, but throwing a jet fighter at the same target would just mean a destroyed flight of $20m jets...

As a historical note, neither the US nor Israel 'nuked' Iraq during GWI, as easy as it would've been. Among other considerations, the US and Israel both knew (from intelligence) that Saddam didn't have nuclear capabilities (greatly due to the fact that Israel deep-six'd the Iraqi's nuclear power plant/native plutonium/uranium source in the early 80s) and so mainly feared Chem/Bio strikes...and they used the threat of nuclear warfare to 'encourage' Saddam against using such weapons.

They were psychological warfare. And they were damn effective. Since that time, Israel has invested massively in ABM systems and, with the US, have developed two ABM systems (the Arrow ABM Missile system and the Nautilus/THEL system) to prevent any chance of further such strikes. When GWII rolled around, the first concern was about if Saddam would be sending more Scuds at Israel.

As a note: most ICBMs/IRBMs/SRBMs sold/used today outside of China, the US, and Russia (ex-USSR) are armed with *conventional* warheads.

Using ICBMs wantonly will likely get you 'nuked but that does not mean that ICBMs are *always* nuclear-armed. Most ICBM payload capacities are described as "Conventional HE, Nuclear, or Chemical."

ICBMs can ONLY be out fitted with and Nuclear/Biological warhead, since anything else would require insane accuracy and it it would be much more efficent just to launch a long range percision missle strike from a ship. A large explosive warhead would be too heavy and thus not an option. Nor would submunitions since with the reentry speed of mach 10 or even higher the dispersal of the munitions would have to be flawless as to prevent collision. Therefor if an ICBM is launched at your country you can count that theres some sort of city killer aboard.

ICBMs can ONLY be out fitted with and Nuclear/Biological warhead, since anything else would require insane accuracy

Nay. With a 1km CEP as about 'normal' for a decent IRBM, firing it into a city gives you a pretty damn good chance of hitting something. Firing it over a naval fleet with the use of submunitions with a 5km X 10km dispersal pattern will work just fine.

As a note, it would be Nuclear/Chemical. Bioweapons are a pain in the ass to distribute and tend to be pretty damn inefficient in spreading under most conditions.

and it it would be much more efficent just to launch a long range percision missle strike from a ship.

POS (Piece of S---) little countries don't have $1+bn GM Cruisers to play around with...nor do most countries IRL. Hence, more efficient only if you have the ships.


A large explosive warhead would be too heavy and thus not an option.

>500kg of explosives qualifies as a 'large' HE warhead. Such warheads are placed on current SRBMs/IRBMs. If you only need to take out the block instead of the whole damn city then HE could work (see qualifications: advanced nations should use their advanced toys).

Nor would submunitions since with the reentry speed of mach 10 or even higher the dispersal of the munitions would have to be flawless as to prevent collision.

There are such things as timed fuses and altitude fuses, dispersal need not be flawless unless you really give a damn about dispersal pattern accuracy. The rocket also need not be travelling at its top speed (much lower for SRBMs) and there are such things as drogue chutes that can slow sub-munitions (or even the submunitions-dispensing warhead) to an acceptable speed (over mach 2).

Therefor if an ICBM is launched at your country you can count that theres some sort of city killer aboard.

Not a convincing argument so far. It depends upon who is launching it, what their situation is, and what your situation is (read my previous posts).