On 7 Jan 2010 20:22:31 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

Bill Kambic wrote:

So unless you want a deterence patrol against Canada, a SSBN in the
great lakes would be pointless.

As "pointless" as silos in North Dakota?

I agree that you want to be as close as you can to a target. But
there are also other considerations.

Different task. The fixed silos are mainly counterforce missiles -
they're much more precise than the sub-launched kind. However, they
take much longer to Moscow than a missile launched, say, in the
Baltics. The fixed- silo missiles would have taken out enemy missile
silos, headquarters, SAM positions etc. so that the second wave of
nukes delivered by bombers would get through easier. The sub launched
missiles are more aimed at "We can shoot you so fast you don't have
enough time to react - AND you don't know where we are.

I agree "different task." I don't agree "useless." :-)

Mind you, IIRC there was a treaty about a minimum range the subs have
to stay from the enemy border - to ensure at least a few minutes of
warning.

Works both ways, of course, especially since Washington DC is MUCH
closer to the sea than Moscow.

Oh, and another point - while the great lakes are fairly large, the
Barents sea is even larger. And just smashing two dozen warheads into
the great lakes might not DESTROY those missile subs, but it will
definitely mission-kill them for quite some time. There's a reason the
Soviets invested in subs that could hide below the north pole, break
through the ice and launch from there :-)

Well, I don't agree that chucking big nukes randomly (or even on some
pattern) into Lake Superior will necessarily "kill" anything but fish,
wildlife, and residents of several lake shore communities. Roil the
water and make a mess, but not necessarily "kill."