If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Boomers In Large Deep Lakes?
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:54:54 -0800 (PST), frank
wrote: I know they're out of the inventory, but nuclear depth charges were pretty much the more probable usage of nuclear weapons. Great sub killers. Put the sub in a lake its pretty much dead. Not to mention you'd have to build it in place. Add on all the maintenance and other facilities, yeah, its a dead duck. Much easier than there's a boomer in the Barents or under the ice cap. I've been out of the inventory for a while, too, but nukes were NOT great sub killers and carried a whole bunch of limitations. They were always a weapon of last choice. The specifics of why are not suitable for discussion in a public forum. Tell a targeting geek there's a sub in these lakes, much easier than there are X number of subs dispersed off the coasts. You could even find those nasty types that like putting nukes in place just drooling to put them in the lake to be detonated as needed. Not that we ever did stuff like that ... yeah right. No, not really. The size of Lake Superior was noted in a post below. A sub could also transit into Lakes Huron and Michigan. That's a pretty big "pond." Maybe not as big as the Pacific Ocean, but plenty big enough to generate a virtually insoluable targeting problem. Seeding the Lakes with some sort of "time release mine" is a pretty far fetched concept given that such an activity would likely generate notice and a reaction. When I was drilling at NAS Detroit we participated in the surveylance of some Russion merchant ships (with significant AGR capability) while Ford was President, as he spent a lot of time in MI and I'm sure there was lots of electronic talk. The VP squadrons from NAS Glenview did the same. Thing about silos was you build to survive. Which makes the concrete contractors happy. Get to the point where you have reliable silo busters, you start dealing with launch on warning or launch under attack. Much dicier. And each side thinks they're the rational ones that would play nice, its the other guy that you don't trust. Underwater silos are, IMO, not such a good idea. They can be located and hit and are tough to build. Expensive and not much additional protection. Big part of having these is they're NOT used and keeps the pin striped types talking a lot longer than usual. As the bumper sticker said, one nuclear bomb will ruin your entire day. Indeed. Seeding the Lakes will cause difficulties for Lake margin dwellers and Lake dwelling species. Won't do much for Lake operating subs, however. Even the guys who build one pretty much figure out people who count warheads in their arsenal in the thousands don't see you as much of a threat. Its a real wakeup call for military decision making. You start locking the suckers up and coming up with a really good command and control. Which is why the whole Iran can't get a bomb is pretty much a non issue. What are they going to do with it? Sell it to Al Quada? And if they're dumb enough to use it, its the Irradiated Peoples Republic of Iran. Assuming we apply MAD and actually DO it. The last President whom I would trust to do that was Ronald Regan. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Approaching Deep Stall | Fred the Red Shirt | Piloting | 44 | September 8th 07 01:06 PM |
Car and Deep Cycle Battery FAQ | Bill Darden | Home Built | 0 | May 28th 07 11:57 AM |
Boomers and 40K tailwinds! | Doug Vetter | Piloting | 3 | May 20th 04 02:22 AM |
deep hole | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 9 | April 22nd 04 07:51 PM |
German AUV "Deep C" | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 0 | November 25th 03 04:07 PM |