• Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    America has a lot of warheads but its delivery systems are relatively behind Russian and Chinese systems. For instance, the current US land/silo based missiles are Minuteman 3s, which were first built in the 1970s. Even with upgrades, they are generally understood to be inferior to much more recent Russian Yars and Chinese Dong Feng missiles.

    That said, increasing the number of warheads doesn’t really help in terms of that deficiency so the between the lines conclusion is that the new American missile systems have hit such snags that the military is considering making up the deficiency with numbers of warheads.

    • CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Do they need them to be good, or just to have a lot? Look at Hamas breaching the vaunted Iron Dome by sheer number of projectiles. Likewise, I heard Ukraine overwhelmed Russian S-300/400 with a simultaneous launch of something like a dozen ATACMS

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        ICBMs are notoriously difficult to intercept. Nobody realistically has an interception system able to take down enough of them to matter. The problem with old ICBMs is that they’re less survivable if the enemy strikes you first so you need even more warheads and delivery systems to compensate.