| Cold War Exercise: Penetrating CONUS | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 31 2010, 05:13 AM (353 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2010, 05:13 AM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
A while back, Simon and I discussed the proper way for the USSR to get at CONUS using long-range aviation. It is a difficult task given the deficiencies of Soviet aircraft throughout the Cold War, as well as American defenses. Summary from before:
|
![]() |
|
| JBK | Dec 31 2010, 01:39 PM Post #2 |
|
I think this is exactly the reason why they went for balistic missle subs and intercontinetal missiles. It is way too hard to get at CONUS with planes.
Edited by JBK, Dec 31 2010, 01:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 31 2010, 05:21 PM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Hard, but not impossible, and the strategic bomber provides a unique suite of capabilities. The reason why the ICBM and SLBM were developed was to complement, not to replace. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 31 2010, 05:28 PM Post #4 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
True, but there was not a lot there to complement in the early Cold War period. Even then I think the US had as much as an eight-to-one advantage in missiles around the time of the Cuban crisis.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 1 2011, 02:52 AM Post #5 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That was not that difficult considering the small number of Soviet bombers. The vast majority of US megatonnage was carried by bombers until the 70s. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 2 2011, 07:58 PM Post #6 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Slightly different take on the question. How does the balance change if we switch the means of delivery from strategic bombers to boomer subs? Clearly, they are harder to defend against, but means of tracking departures and movements still existed. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 2 2011, 09:03 PM Post #7 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Well, we make it impossible to hit hardened or precise targets until the mid 1980s. It would lead to a historical type effort to track and hunt down strategic missile submarines, as well as employment of SOSUS and long range warning radars pointed in a variety of directions. Even so, an SLBM is still interceptable with a good enough advanced ABM system, although sub orbital trajectory shots would require a rather strong Sprint type screen as well as longer range missiles. Some could get through, but not enough to do fatal damage. Relying on any one means of delivery puts all eggs into a single basket and therefore simplifies the defensive equation needed. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |






Even then I think the US had as much as an eight-to-one advantage in missiles around the time of the Cuban crisis.
8:40 AM Jul 11