nuclear trains

omon · 01-04-2008, 01:14 AM

as some of you know, ussr, and now russia has nuclear trains, not nuclear powered, but armed with nuclear missiles, many of those trains just ride all over russia, and wait for orders, they don,t look much different from cargo trains, only if you know what it is, you'll recognize it.
so my question, does us has similar trains?

Blademaster · 01-04-2008, 02:48 AM

There were plans for it but it got scrapped because, IMHO, the Army wanted more money for its other weapon programs and opted out of the nuclear weapon programs in exchange for more funding towards the other weapon programs.

ace16807 · 01-04-2008, 04:41 AM

I believe that it'd be a bit too much cost in developing for what it's worth. It seems like an easy target for an air strike, and doesn't quite have the mobility of a vehicle mounted vehicle. Keep in mind, it can only go where there is rail, and I believe it'd have to be pretty good quality rail to support that weight.

Feanor · 01-04-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace16807

I believe that it'd be a bit too much cost in developing for what it's worth. It seems like an easy target for an air strike, and doesn't quite have the mobility of a vehicle mounted vehicle. Keep in mind, it can only go where there is rail, and I believe it'd have to be pretty good quality rail to support that weight.

In closed mode it's indistinguishable from a reglular train, and given the vast size of Russia, and the many small and barely used railroad lines out in the east it was a very cost-effective measure of providing a well concealed nuclear delivery system.

EDIT: Omon I do believe Putin agreed to, and has, scrapped the Soviet nuclear trains.

glyn · 01-04-2008, 07:35 AM

It looks odd.

Assuming the missile is resting on or near the bottom of the cylinder it is too large to lie flat within the confines of the coach. The guy wires don't fill me with confidence either.

VarSity · 01-04-2008, 08:08 AM

Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network?

Cant be dealing with yet more delays to the Midland Mainline! None of these for the UK thanks!!

ace16807 · 01-04-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarSity

Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network?

Cant be dealing with yet more delays to the Midland Mainline! None of these for the UK thanks!!

Yeah, I figured that as well. But I also figure that if you're desparate enough to launch a nuclear missile, repairing a remote railnetwork and the loss of a train is the least of your worries.

And yes, the cylinder seems a bit too large to be completely concealed within the train. I still say it's not worth it.

omon · 01-04-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

EDIT: Omon I do believe Putin agreed to, and has, scrapped the Soviet nuclear trains.

i had no idea, thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarSity

Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network?

Cant be dealing with yet more delays to the Midland Mainline! None of these for the UK thanks!!

nobody would fix or clean up, it is one shot deal, luch missile, and leave.
in an event of nuclear war, clean up and repear would be the least of consernes.

supergreek · 01-04-2008, 11:25 AM

Imagine that train going through a tunnel

. It must also be prone to hijaking.

Silent Hunter · 01-04-2008, 17:39 PM

One, you'd need to find it. Two, you'd need to be able to hijack it and I guess it had some serious defence on it. Three, you couldn't launch the missiles anyway.

gunnut · 01-04-2008, 17:52 PM

The Soviet system was made after the US proposal surfaced in the late 1970s. The original MX (Peacekeeper) had a mobile basing plan. It was abandoned due to high cost. Soviets went ahead with the mobile system.

Martin Marietta LGM-118 Peacekeeper

supergreek · 01-04-2008, 18:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

One, you'd need to find it. Two, you'd need to be able to hijack it and I guess it had some serious defence on it. Three, you couldn't launch the missiles anyway.

There goes my world domination plan

Feanor · 01-04-2008, 20:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supergreek

There goes my world domination plan

Takes more then one nuke to dominate the world

supergreek · 01-06-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Takes more then one nuke to dominate the world

how about 2?

IflareR · 01-12-2008, 11:41 AM

[quote=VarSity;444426]Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network?

[quote]

i would assume that its cold launch canister, just like topol-M, s-300/s-400, the late peacekeeper(only american cold launch missile?) etc. russians have allways been liking cold launch LVS for some reason.

01-04-2008, 07:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,399	It looks odd. Assuming the missile is resting on or near the bottom of the cylinder it is too large to lie flat within the confines of the coach. The guy wires don't fill me with confidence either. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

01-04-2008, 08:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
VarSity Contributor Join Date: 06-11-07 Location: Leicester Posts: 446 Country:	Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network? Cant be dealing with yet more delays to the Midland Mainline! None of these for the UK thanks!! Last edited by VarSity : 01-04-2008 at 08:11 AM.

01-04-2008, 17:52 PM	#11 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,143 Country:	The Soviet system was made after the US proposal surfaced in the late 1970s. The original MX (Peacekeeper) had a mobile basing plan. It was abandoned due to high cost. Soviets went ahead with the mobile system. Martin Marietta LGM-118 Peacekeeper __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?	FibrillatorD	2008 US Presidential Election	36	08-16-2007 11:11 AM
How clean is India?	Neo	Political Discussions	163	05-03-2006 19:09 PM
Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council	Dreadnought	Political Discussions	13	01-16-2006 15:14 PM
An Article worthy of Lull.....	MIKEMUN	Political Discussions	2	03-18-2005 20:04 PM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences	lulldapull	International Defense Topics	14	11-20-2004 16:27 PM

01-04-2008, 02:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,007	There were plans for it but it got scrapped because, IMHO, the Army wanted more money for its other weapon programs and opted out of the nuclear weapon programs in exchange for more funding towards the other weapon programs.

01-04-2008, 04:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
ace16807 Regular Join Date: 01-01-08 Location: TN Posts: 77 Country:	I believe that it'd be a bit too much cost in developing for what it's worth. It seems like an easy target for an air strike, and doesn't quite have the mobility of a vehicle mounted vehicle. Keep in mind, it can only go where there is rail, and I believe it'd have to be pretty good quality rail to support that weight.

01-04-2008, 11:25 AM	#9 (permalink)
supergreek Regular Join Date: 05-31-07 Posts: 112 Country:	Imagine that train going through a tunnel . It must also be prone to hijaking.

01-04-2008, 17:39 PM	#10 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 501 Country:	One, you'd need to find it. Two, you'd need to be able to hijack it and I guess it had some serious defence on it. Three, you couldn't launch the missiles anyway.

01-12-2008, 11:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
IflareR New Member Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 9	[quote=VarSity;444426]Surely once fired, the back blast would totally ruin the train car it was in and take a long while to clean up. Thus damaging your own rail network? [quote] i would assume that its cold launch canister, just like topol-M, s-300/s-400, the late peacekeeper(only american cold launch missile?) etc. russians have allways been liking cold launch LVS for some reason.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)