Abstract
The German V1 missile was the first cruise missile, not a ballistic missile, that flew a flat trajectory, obtaining oxygen from the air, like an airplane. The German V2 was the first ballistic missile that flew on a parabolic trajectory above the atmosphere and needed to carry its oxygen. The first German V2 flight of October 2, 1942, was the first of 3,700 V2–flights. The V2 carried 750 kg a distance of 300 km, similar to today’s Russian Scud B. The accuracy of the V2 was poor, only 35 % landed within 2 km of their targets. At this rate, the accuracy of ICBMs would be 60 km over a range of 10,000 km. As ICBMs improved, the nuclear arms race shifted from production of slow, recallable bombers to that of fast, nonrecallable, MIRVed (multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles) ICBMs. The increased accuracy of ICBMs led to decreased weapon yields, dropping from nuclear weapons from multi megatons to 300–500 kilotons (kton). To attack foreign leadership, as well as buried weapons, the U.S. also developed earth-penetrating warheads.
A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought
(Ronald Reagan 1987)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Drag force = 0.5ρv 2 ACd, where ρ is air density and A is cross-sectional area. The drag coefficient Cd is less than 0.5 at subsonic speeds, but increases sharply by a factor of 2–3 above the speed of sound. The lift force has the same appearance, except the lift coefficient is smaller for missiles.
- 2.
P. Enge, “Retooling the Global Positioning System,” Scientific American, May 2004, p. 88–97.
- 3.
The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review defined the new triad as consisting of nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, and an information-based transformed military.
Bibliography
American Physical Soc. (1987). Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, S1–S201.
——— (2003). Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense, APS, College Park, MD.
Blair, B. (1991). Strategic Command and Control, Brookings, Washington, DC.
Blair, B., et al (2011). One-hundred nuclear wars, Science and Global Security 19(3), 167–194.
Collina, T. (2012). Former STRATCOM head call for cuts, Arms Control Today, 27–28 (June 2012).
Congressional Comm. on Strategic Posture of the U.S. (2009). U.S. Instit. Peace Press, Washington, DC.
Carter, A., J. Steinbruner and C. Zraket (1987). Managing Nuclear Operations, Brookings, Wash., DC.
Drell, S. and J. Goodby (2012). Nuclear deterrence in a changed world, Arms C. Today, 8–13 (June 2012).
Herring, T. (1996). The global positioning system, Sci. Am. 274(2), 44–50.
Feiveson, H. (Ed.) (1999). The Nuclear Turning Point, Brookings, Washington, DC.
Hafemeister, D. (1983). Science and society test VIII: The arms race revisited, A. J. Phys. 51, 215–225.
——— (1986). Technical Means of Verification, Am. J. Phys. 54, 693–703.
——— (1997). Reflections on the GAO report on the nuclear triad, Sci. Global Sec. 6(3), 383–93.
Hobson, A. (1989). ICBM vulnerability: Calculations, predictions and error bars, Am. J. Phys. 56, 829–836.
——— (1991). The ICBM basing question, Science and Global Security 2, 153–198.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK.
Kristensen, H. and R.S. Norris (2013). US nuclear forces in 2013, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 69, 77–86.
B.G. Levi and D. Hafemeister (1989). “Stability of Nuclear Forces,” The Future of the Land–Based Strategic Missile, p. 87–100, Ed. by B.G. Levi, M. Sakitt, and A. Hobson, American Institute of Physics, NY, and Physics and Society 17, 9–11.
Levi, B., M. Sakitt, and A. Hobson (1989). The Future of the Land-Based Missile, AIP Press, New York.
May, M., G. Bing, and J. Steinbruner (1988). Strategic arms after START, International Sec. 13, 90–113.
National Academy of Sciences (1997). The Future of US Nuclear Weapons Policy, NAS Press, Wash., DC.
——— (2002). Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear–Test–Ban Treaty, NAS Press, Washington, DC.
——— (2012). The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Technical Issues for the US, NAS Press.
Office of Technology Assessment (1981). MX Missile Basing, Off. Tech. Assessment, Washington, DC.
Schultz, G., S. Andreasen, S. Drell and J. Goodby (2008). Reykjavik Revisited, Hoover, Stanford, CA.
Schields, J. and W. Potter (Eds.) (1997). Dismantling the Cold War, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schwartz, S. (1998). Atomic Audit, Brookings, Washington, DC.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1992). The START Treaty, Executive Report 102–5, p. 52
Snyder, R. (1987). Approximations for the range of ballistic missiles, Am. J. Phys. 55, 432–437.
J. Steinbruner, G. Bing and M. May (1988). “Strategic Arsenals after START-I,” International Security 13, 90–133.
Stockholm Inter. Peace Research Institute. SIPRI Yearbook, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK.
Sutton, G. and D. Ross (1976). Rocket Propulsion Elements, Wiley, New York.
Wheelon, A. (1959). Free flight of a ballistic missile, Am. Rocket Soc. J. 29, 915–926.
Woolf, A. (2012). “Modernizing the Triad on a tight budget,” Arms Control Today, Jan. 2012, 8–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hafemeister, D. (2014). The Offense: Missiles and War Games. In: Physics of Societal Issues. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9272-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9272-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9271-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9272-6
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)