Unlimited Range Weapons?

[Dysta]

The Project Pluto from 50s has become a hype, and rumors are spreading thanks by the Putin's report to be used as a bargain for reelection, and the alleged test in September 2017:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... h-and-burn

But during the cold war before Outer Space Treaty come to effect, many countries did theorize the ballistic missile technology that is capable to orbit around the world for a long duration, until the warhead returns and approach to the target whenever needed. Granted not just the unlimited range but also much faster nuclear strike than initial launch from the ground.

Examples like Soviet FOBS and Chinese DF-6:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractiona ... ent_System
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-6.htm

And because it's not nuclear powered like Project Pluto does, orbiting warheads will not spreading radiation, except the point of impact or air detonation. However control when and where the warhead will lands and detonate would be as difficult as how Project Pluto navigate around the world in 50s because they lack of global telecommunications and smart computers for these doomsday weapons.

I wonder if Orbital Missile and Nuclear Cruise Missile will add into CWDB and DB3000 as hypothetical weapons? Will the gruesome weapon profiles without Outer Space Treaty worse than the nuclear arsenals today? If yes, how player and AI will use these weapons with unlimited range?

[User2]

Putin's report to be used as a bargain for reelection

Putin will get reelected anyway. There is none to choose from: only communists and liberals left.

TheDrive article: "an anonymous U.S. government official" - is not a reliable source.

The Project Pluto from 50s has become a hype

Currently it only known that Russia's Pluto is a nuclear-powered cruise missile. It is not even said whether it is a hypersonic ram-jet or just a sub-sonic like most modern cm.

There will be lots of speculations and disinformation in MSM on both sides. I think it is better just to sit on the fence and wait for a confirmation (official details about missile capabibilies, current stage of development, video).

I wonder if Orbital Missile and Nuclear Cruise Missile will add into CWDB and DB3000 as hypothetical weapons? Will the gruesome weapon profiles without Outer Space Treaty worse than the nuclear arsenals today? If yes, how player and AI will use these weapons with unlimited range?

What's the point of unlimited range missiles in CMANO? Usually mission area is rather limited. You do not start scenario on the South Pole to attack a target on the North Pole. ICBMs in the game are almost unlimited range in the game and they are rarely used in scenarios. I think it would be better to spend time and human resources to implement fixes proposed in db3k/cwdb threads: there is already a sea of requests.

[Dysta]

While I'd agree for the rest of your comment, this part however,

ORIGINAL: User2

TheDrive article: "an anonymous U.S. government official" - is not a reliable source.

I searched the source with keyword "2017 September Russia Radiation Spread", and only TheDrive has that possibility covered with. The radiation leak months ago already alarmed NATO about Russian nuclear weapon test, so I'd rather not totally dismiss that the nuclear propulsion is never been attempted.

[User2]

Dysta, It's just a speculation. There is no reliable link between those events. Besides, if I recall correctly, Russian organisation that monitors nuclear related stuff (do not remember its name) published information about the levels of radiation in different areas of Russia. Radiation levels were normal.
Do not you think it is strange, that someone registered high radiation level in Europe and immediately pointed to Russia. Why not Ukraine, for example? They have nuclear power plants. It is the same level of modern 'news' as 'Destroyed patriot SAM by Houthis militia' or 'over xxx Russian mercs dead!'. The proofs are like 'anonymous reliable source, who knows the situation' or posts in social media. Who in the age of Info Wars would believe it without further confirmation? Only those who 'I want to believe' {plays music from x-files}.

[Grazyn]

The FOBS is indeed present in the CW database, just type FOBS to find it. Dunno if the Pluto/SLAM is present as well.

The problem with FOBS-like weapons (and the reason why I believe Russia isn't actually making them) is that they grant the ability to hit targets with little to no warning which means a crippling first strike that would prevent the targeted country from retaliating "en masse". This breaks the balance of MAD because it forces the potential target country to attack first, before the opponent is able to deploy this "perfect" weapon. It's the same reason why failproof ABM systems are considered destabilizing for MAD, because MAD no longer applies to a country completely safe from retaliation and MAD is the only thing that has prevented full-blown thermonuclear war for the last 60 years.

[ultradave]

"that would prevent the targeted country from retaliating "en masse". This breaks the balance of MAD"

Presuming for Russia the targeted country is the US, it does no such thing. It has no effect on the TRIDENT and future COLUMBIA class SSBN's on station. As long as they can remain on station and undetected, there certainly is a crippling retaliatory strike in the waiting.

[thewood1]

I would think the number of warheads needed for a "crippling" strike would be huge. Would any country today be able to get tha that many into orbit undetected?

[ultradave]

Number of SSBN's on station X number of missiles per SSBN X number of warheads per missile.

At that point ( retaliatory strike) who cares about undetected? Sure they know they are coming. Missile defenses existing today are only designed to counteract a very limited number of missiles.

Our SSBN's are what we depend on NOW for MAD deterrent. If our land facilities get hit with an "invulnerable" weapon, is that any different than Russia launching a first strike of ICBMs/SLBMs that we can't stop?

[Dysta]

What about the "Sucker Punch" factor of the nuclear powered cruise missile? If Moscow has them and decided to attack, but also want to deceive some alliance on NATO countries and US, then it can switch targets in a middle of flight, or even scuttle them to cancel the attack. But Ballistic Missile is a fixed point of approach weapon, it has no way to change the target (like they will approach New York to cause panick in US, but then changed to hit London instead for the maximum surprise).

An example like B-29's second nuke strike, the original target was Kokura, but changed to Nagasaki because of the cloudy weather.

[ultradave]

And I still say, what's the difference?

We, the UK, and France maintain continuous SSBN deterrence patrols. By causing panic in NYC you are stating we detected it, and therefore know where it came from. ONE attack on London (or NYC)? What would that gain Russia except some kind of retaliation in kind? And if we launched a number of missiles to ensure that a missile defense system is overwhelmed, would that then lead to a full exchange? Doesn't seem to me to be a plausible scenario. The Russians aren't suicidal. Far from it.