I only read about ICBMs being armed with nuclear warheads. I have never read about them being armed with conventional weapons. So that must mean that the nations that have ICBMs only use them as part of their nuclear armed forces.
Why is this? Why not use ICBMs for conventional reasons?
In: 13
Correct … the USAF had a workgroup on it I want to believe between 2008 and 2020 as a way to project precision strike capability globally within 4 hours and they considered using SLBM’s. The one very big hangup they had with any missile on a ballistic flight path wether IRBM SLBM or ICBM was the ballistic flight path and that typically being used for nuclear armed missiles. With ballistic missiles as well as cruise missiles the flight paths and characteristics on radar to the nation being targeted are exactly the same for conventional and nuclear warheads. So there is no way to tell literally up to the point of warhead detonation if you are going to get just a regular boom … or the nuclear boom, And any country that is targeted and has allies or is capable of response in kind will launch before detonation.
At the end of the study they deemed any plans to do so would be foolish considering we already have that capability with sea launched tomahawk and air launched cruise missile … without the added danger of triggering a nuclear exchange
In addition to being very expensive, they aren’t very precise. So, with a nuclear payload that’s not important, seeing as 200 or 300m off mark won’t change much.
But with a conventional payload? That’s pretty much useless.
To add a reason: ICBM is your weapon to deter the enemy. Ok its a perfectly fine missile, but would you ever take the risk of your ICBM falling short or wrong and then having the entire planet thinking your deterrent is a ruse?
In itself, using it will reveal a lot of things about your system, in the best case you give a chance to study a counter, in the worse you may make your deterrent look ridiculous.
nukes are put on icbms to keep them safe from a preemptive strike. there are other types of nukes that go on smaller missiles and even dropped as bombs or fired as artillery, but the icbm fleet is the ultimate mad guarantee. other types have shorter ranges and are vulnerable to a surprise attack. icbm are as far away from the enemy as can be physically arranged and kept underground or underwater.
ICBMs are expensive AF. Very little return on the dollar. The AGM-30 (Minuteman III) appears to be able to boost a 3000lb payload to it’s destination. They don’t list the specifics, but the missile was able to carry 3 reentry vehicles, and their approximate weights would be around 800lbs each (guess). A single minuteman was $7m in 1970 dollars. Also, it’s >hard< to tell the difference between a nuclear tipped missile and one that’s not.
A single Tomahawk delivers a 1000lb-warhead (or a nuclear one if you’re so inclined) 1500 miles and costs $2m each.
Alternatively a single B-52 can carry 20 2000lb JDAMS @ a cost of about $40k per to anywhere on the globe and drop them from a range of up to 15 miles from the target.
Because they *can* be used for nuclear weapons delivery
Launching an ICBM without a clearly publish test trajectory(and sometimes even with) is going to set off launch detection systems and send everyone to high alert. Since it *could* carry a nuclear weapon it gets assumed to be carrying a nuclear weapon and will earn retaliation in kind (aka nuclear weapons heading your way)
ICBMs also don’t carry huge payloads. The US Minuteman III launches 3 warheads in reentry vehicles for a total payload of only about 1000 kg total. A wayyy cheaper Tomahawk carries a 450 kg conventional payload
You want unambiguous and cost effective weapons. Surface to surface missiles and short range ballistic missiles are wayyy cheaper and wayyyyyy less likely to get nukes flying back at you
The payloads of missiles aren’t huge. That’s okay for nuclear weapons which pack a lot of bang per pound, but wouldn’t make sense for chemical explosives.
That being the case, any nation that sees an ICBM coming toward it is going to assume it’s a nuclear attack, and react accordingly.
Some ballistic missiles use conventional warheads. SCUD missiles for example.
Generally ICBMS exist as a strategic deterrence rather a tactical strike platform because the infrastructure needed to generate and support ICBM capability far outweighs their utility for anything other than to offer the spectre of total annihilation.
For one you don’t want people thinking you’re launching nukes.
Other reasons may include them being very expensive and unnecessary compared to conventional arms.
Why would you need to fire it half way across the world when you can do it from a few hundred miles away in the same relative safety.
Why would you bother to send a missile intercontinentally do deliver such a relatively small payload? Each individual ICBM costs millions of dollars, your return on investment would be ridiculously low to use a whole ICBM to launch a conventional bomb across the ocean.
It would be like using a Ferrari to drive to the grocery store, except the Ferrari gets used up just so you could grab some milk and bread. If you has a single-use Ferrari, you’d make sure to bring a huge load of groceries back in one trip to get your money’s worth. Wonky analogy but hope it helps
Latest Answers