Boomers In Large Deep Lakes?

I have always wondered that if the the U.S. and Russia were really
serious about MAD why were boomers ever deployed to the opean seas?
Think about it. The Great Lakes are very large and deep, some over
1,000 feet deep. There is no reasonable way I can think of to attack a
boomber once out on a patrol in Lake Superior. I mean are the Russians
going to smuggle an attack sub in there? No. Use a ship with smuggled
in sonar gear and torps? Yeah maybe in a dream. Doing this would
probably make boomers far less expensive to design and operate as you
probably would not need all the systems a sea going boomer would need.
You could probably save on missile design by being able to launch from
the surface...

Just wondering what some opinions are.

JK

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:49:22 -0800 (PST), jkochko68
wrote:

I have always wondered that if the the U.S. and Russia were really
serious about MAD why were boomers ever deployed to the opean seas?
Think about it. The Great Lakes are very large and deep, some over
1,000 feet deep. There is no reasonable way I can think of to attack a
boomber once out on a patrol in Lake Superior. I mean are the Russians
going to smuggle an attack sub in there? No. Use a ship with smuggled
in sonar gear and torps? Yeah maybe in a dream. Doing this would
probably make boomers far less expensive to design and operate as you
probably would not need all the systems a sea going boomer would need.
You could probably save on missile design by being able to launch from
the surface...

Just wondering what some opinions are.

IIRC there is a treaty between the U.S. and Canada that restricts the
deployment of warships in the Great Lakes. Beyond the regular "show
the flag" visits of a DD or DE during the summer the Lakes are a
pretty much "demilitarized zone."

I don't know how the Canadians would feel about deployed boomers, but
I suspect they'd object.

On 7 Jan 2010 18:36:58 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

jkochko68 wrote:

You could probably save on missile design by being able to launch from
the surface...

Just wondering what some opinions are.

Simple ballistics: You try to get as close to the target as possible to
reduce flight time, as that gives you a bigger chance the enemy can't
retaliate in time.

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.

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."

On 8 Jan 2010 19:31:06 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

Bill Kambic wrote:

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."

It will also create a godawfull noise in the water and shake people and
equipment about quite a lot. Nuclear depth charges are still part of
the TOE, aren't they? Megaton depth charges sure would rattle more than
just the cups and cuttlery on board about.

iI don't know if they are still in the inventory or not. But back
when I was trained to use them (from an S-2 and P-3, and taught others
to do so) they were a "weapon of last resort" (assuming the
Presidential authority to use them was obtained).

They had some serious tactical limits, the details of which probably
ought not to be discussed publically.

For ANY weapon to be effective you have to have a target fix. "Seeding
the ocean (or a lake) with explosives" (nuclear or otherwise) is a
particularly ineffective tactic. And while if you get close you'll
get somebody's attention that's no guarantee that you will, in fact,
cause lethal or even disabling damage.

IMO a "Great Lakes FBM" would pose a practically insoluable problem to
a strategic enemy. It might lack some throw weight and range, but
would be the single most difficult strategic target to neutralize.

The only reason we probably don't have them is the treaty with the
Canadians.

Well I always thought a big push for the boomers development was that
missile silos and bomber
bases can be taken out with reasonable chances as they are fixed sites
but the subs would be much
more difficult to attack to say nothing of the cost of deploying
effective attack subs or ASW ships etc...
We all know the nuclear triad. Silos, bombers, subs. Subs would assure
MAD. You may not be able to
effectively hit the silos the Russains hold in reserve but what
difference does it make when you kill their
civilization with the less accurate sub missiles?

Hey why not just do it really cheaply and deploy missiles to the
bottom of a deep lake? I don't see terrorists having a DSRV that can
go 1,000 plus feet
down to steal a warhead. If we want to have a 1st strike sub based
capability in case a hardliner seizes control of Russia or China I'd
think attack subs with
cruise missiles would be a far better option. Just design some sort of
nuclear rocket powered missile to strike deep targets with the fastest
speed to target.
Your taking it nuclear so who cares about radioactive exhaust?

JK

As for lobbing megaton nukes into the Lakes...how would tat

Just wondering what some opinions are.

Simple ballistics: You try to get as close to the target as possible to
reduce flight time, as that gives you a bigger chance the enemy can't
retaliate in time.

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

Juergen Nieveler
--
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
(6/72)

On Jan 8, 1:31*pm, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:
Bill Kambic wrote:
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."

It will also create a godawfull noise in the water and shake people and
equipment about quite a lot. Nuclear depth charges are still part of
the TOE, aren't they? Megaton depth charges sure would rattle more than
just the cups and cuttlery on board about.

Juergen Nieveler
--
If teenagers dress to express individuality, why do they all look alike?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not necessarily. A ballistic missile would likely be detected by the
early warning system of
Russia assuming it still works whereas the cruise missile exhaust is
nowhere near hot enough or
large enough to register. Unless their air defense picks it up
1st...wasn't there a stealthy cruise
missile in the pipeline but it got shelved in the 90's...we might have
a few laying around though.

Defending against cruise missiles isn't easy, but it's far easier than
defending against SLBMs. Plus, the warning time to the enemy is longer.
cruis
ust?arly 90's
r a
You mean like the Orion spaceship? ISTR that this wouldn't work inside
the atmosphere, BICBW. Besides, that radioactive engine better kick
quite a bit away from the launch platform, or the crew of said platform.
might be a tad bit disinclined to push the button (remember the Davy reactor
Crocket

No, what makes nuclear rockets great is that they have a far higher
specific impulse from
their thrust their chemical rockets do. Some designs upwards of twice
as efficient. You would expel
some sort of superheated hydrogen as thrust thats run through the
reactor. Problem is do you use a closed or open
loop design. Closed means the radioactivity is contained in the engine
but its far more complex to design
whereas open just spews out the nasty stuff. They did quite of bit of
testing of them back in the 60's out in the desert but
they were all stand tests, none flew.

\

Juergen Nieveler
--i
Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free.

Lake Superior is about 350 miles east to west by about 160 miles north
to south but you think a sub hiding in there would be easy to
target with megaton ICBMs dropped on the lake? Well I would argue you
would have to drop so many on the lake and stagger them so much
that the sub would be able to return fire even if it does not launch
on warning or under attack. Its average depth is about 500 feet with a
max around 1400 feet.
I don't know if the explosive shock of a explosion is more effective
in water or air. I would think the pressure wave would pack more punch
in water but be
less effective overall as the range increases b/c of the water
absorbing the blast...IE. moving all that water takes energy. An
easier solution may be to target the falls
with large yield weapons to carve the falls out much more by way of a
nuclear fireball. Surely dumping a sub over the falls would kill it
but maybe not before it could
still launch.

JK

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 with
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.

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.

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.