Skip to main content

Missiles and War Games

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1033 Accesses

Abstract

The German V1 buzz-bomb terrified London in World War II. The V1 was an air-breathing cruise missile, supported by lift forces from the air. The German V2 was the first ballistic missile that flew above the atmosphere without oxygen. The first of 3700 V2 flights took place on 2 October 1942. V2s carried 1000-kg conventional explosives some 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, ICBM accuracy, over its range of almost 10,000 km, would be 60 km. As ICBMs improved, the nuclear arms race shifted from slow, recallable bombers to fast, non-recallable, MIRVed (multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles) ICBMs. Increased ICBM accuracy led to decreased weapon yields to attack silos, dropping from a megaton to one-third Mton. Huge warheads of 10 Mton (US) and 100 Mton (USSR) were deployed to produce electromagnetic pulses to shut-down military and civilian communication. To enhance leadership attacks, the US developed earth-penetrating warheads.

A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

[President Ronald Reagan, 7 December 1987]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The drag force is proportional to air density, the velocity squared and the effective cross-sectional area.

  2. 2.

    The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review defined the new triad as consisting of nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, and an information-based transformed military.

  3. 3.

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1992)

  4. 4.

    Steinbruner et al. (1988).

Bibliography

  • Blair, B. (1991). Strategic command and control. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, B., et al. (2011). One-hundred nuclear wars. Science Global Security, 19(3), 167–194.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, A., Steinbruner, J., & Zraket, C. (1987). Managing nuclear operations. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collina, T. (2012, June). Former STRATCOM head call for cuts. Arms Control Today, 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of US. (2009). Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense. (2015). Nuclear posture review report. Washington, DC: US Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drell, S., & Goodby, J. (2012, June). Nuclear deterrence in a changed world. Arms Control Today, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiveson, H. (Ed.). (1999). The nuclear turning point. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafemeister, D. (1997). Reflections on the GAO report on the nuclear triad. Science and Global Security, 6(3), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafemeister, D. (2014). Physics of societal issues. NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, T. (1996). The global positioning system. Scientific American, 274(2), 44–50.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, A. (1989). ICBM vulnerability: Calculations, predictions and error bars. American Journal of Physics, 56, 829–836.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, A. (1991). The ICBM basing question. Science Global Security, 2, 153–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. (2009). The dead hand. NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute of Strategic Studies. (2015). The military balance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, H., & Norris, R. S. (2015). US nuclear forces, 2015. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 69, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, B., Sakitt, M., & Hobson, A. (1989). The future of the land-based missile. NY: AIP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madow, R. (2012). Drift: The unmooring of America’s military power. NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, M., Bing, G., & Steinbruner, J. (1988). Strategic arms after START. International Sec, 13, 90–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (1997). The future of US nuclear weapons policy. Washington, DC: NAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office Technology Assessment. (1981). MX missile basing. Washington, DC: OTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padvig, P. (2006). Reducing the risk of an accidental launch. Science Global Security, 14, 75–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schields, J., & Potter, W. (Eds.). (1997). Dismantling the cold war. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, G., Andreasen, S., Drell, S., & Goodby, J. (2008). Reykjavik revisited. Stanford, CA: Hoover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. (1998). Atomic audit. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (1992). The START treaty. Executive Report, 102–5, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, R. (1987). Approximations for the range of ballistic missiles. American Journal of Physics, 55, 432–437.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbruner, J., Bing, G., & May, M. (1988). Strategic arsenals after START-I. International Security, 13, 90–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2015). SIPRI yearbook. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenwald, N. (2007). Nuclear taboo: US and non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, A. (2012, January). Modernizing the triad on a tight budget. Arms Control Today, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hafemeister .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hafemeister, D. (2016). Missiles and War Games. In: Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism in the Post-9/11 World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25367-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics