[spetznaz]

You're methodology of measuring 'pretty lousy' is way off. It is a nuclear missile with a CEP capable of ensuring a hard kill on a fortified missile silo (let alone a soft target like a city). The fact that the US had the capability 33 years ago doesn't mean this particular missile is 'pretty lousy.' It only means the US scientists were much better much earlier. The kill capability of this missile is exactly the same as that of the latest D5 ...the only difference is that the Trident D5 will hit the exact house on a block, while a Trident C4/Bulava may hit the NEXT house instead. Considering all those missiles use nuclear warheads it really adds up to warm spit at a bluegrass concert!

I am sure that the M-4 is 'pretty lousy' by '2012 standards' compared to the OICW prototype that got killed, but not even an idiot would say it's ok to have a bullseye painted on their forehead and the 'pretty lousy' M-4 aimed there. Same thing here ...the fact that it is roughly equivalent to the Trident C4 is NOT a good thing, because the C4 was a VERY good missile. As I said, the difference between hitting the front porch vs hitting the neighbor's house - when you are using a 500KT warhead - is moot. It is sheer idiocy to think otherwise.

I just hope that the people in positions of making strategic decisions, and coming up with countermeasures to progress made by near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, are more like the Israelis (or the Americans who invented wonder weapons like the Trident C4 decades ago) rather than those who, like some on FR, say we dont need the Raptor because the F-15 has an unbeaten record against the Iraqi airforce. That myopia is deadly (I am not saying you specifically btw).

If your nuclear missile can fly thousands of miles and hit my front porch with a warhead - and my missile can fly thousands of miles, but rather than hit your front porch, or even your house, instead hit the dog kennel in your neighbor's house - as long as we are talking nukes we are both dead. Both vaporised. And both missiles have done their job, withthe only difference being that I was killed by your 'super' missile while you were killed by my 'pretty lousy' missile.

I sincerely hope those in actual positions of power don't base national security on a d*

[moonshot925]

“the front porch vs hitting the neighbor’s house - when you are using a 500KT warhead - is moot. It is sheer idiocy to think otherwise.”

The Bulava is only being deployed in a 6x150KT configuration. It is NOT being deployed in any type of 500KT configuration. Bulava is not suited to destroy hardened targets. It does not have the accuracy or the throw weight to carry high enough yield warheads.

The Trident D5 on the other hand has a throw weight of 2800 kg and an accuracy of 90-120 meters using stellar-inertial guidance. It could carry 8x455KT or 12x100KT or even 14x100KT in a lower range maximum payload configuration. There are many different options for the weapons package thanks to the high throw weight of Trident D5.

But the Bulava can make a great second strike weapon for destroying soft targets. Just like the Posiedon C3, Trident C4 and R-39 Rif.