From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.science

Hello, (the topic is for everyone, but especially for Mark L. Fergerson, if he is at liberty to answer the question :) )
The question is as in the topic but it, also refers to more general issues. As we know Russia/USSR deployed land mobile ICBM's. Appparently some of them are on patrol at any given time ( there is controversy here, some say START actually forbids deployment outside bases/maintenance facilities, others disagree). The US however abstained from such a move.
My question is: why is this so. Among the problems cited are huge land requirements and necessity for using southern territories because of the risk of the snow, which is seen as an obstacle to continuous deployment.
But, none of these issue seem to be the problem for Russia, which has 10 large deployment zones of up to 1 milion squate kilometers (actual deployment areas are said to be 10 times smaller but it it still half a milion square kilometers in total). More Importantly some deployment areas are located far to the north (Teykovo, Yury'a) where snow is quite often.
There are are even videos of TELs following snow plow tractors.
So which is that: Is the snow a problem for ICBM's deployment or no. If so, why it is cited as a counter argument ( for example here on page 43 /74 of the pdf: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1210.html ). Similarly, is there really land use a problem for US if it is not appparently, for Russia?
Sincerely,
trident
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.science

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 1:34:07rC>PM UTC-7, trident wrote:

Hello, (the topic is for everyone, but especially for Mark L. Fergerson, if he is at liberty to answer the question :) )

The question is as in the topic but it, also refers to more general issues. As we know Russia/USSR deployed land >mobile ICBM's. Appparently some of them are on patrol at any given time ( there is controversy here, some say >START actually forbids deployment outside bases/maintenance facilities, others disagree). The US however >abstained from such a move.

I have no current information on the topic nor do I know for sure whether or not the US abandoned the method as was publicly announced some time ago.
From first principles it would be foolish not to use such a system for the reasons it was proposed to begin with; primarily, reducing the likelihood of being hit in a first strike.
However both the US and Russia have far better satellite surveillance systems than when the idea was first proposed, and the mobile launchers are very difficult, if not impossible, to disguise from overhead view. They are also relatively slow, so their future possible positions are easier to predict from multiple satellite observations. That is due to their being restricted to purpose built rCLracetrackrCY roads rather than using remote segments of the interstate highways. Recall the latter was part of the original proposal but was rejected due to potential blockage by civilian traffic accidents (or sleepers deliberately blocking them). Dedicated racetracks would be much easier to keep clear but also much more expensive to maintain, which maintenance costs would have (to actually address the question) included dedicated snowplow fleets.
Are we doing this right now? CanrCOt say, but recall that adding another leg to the tripod of ICBMs, bombers and boomers was criticized as an unnecessary expense. On the other hand the military budget always includes billions for rCLblackrCY projects that once started tend to live on by inertia.
My intuition says yes, the program is ongoing, the visibility issue was somehow resolved, and a bunch of somebodies drive those roads with snowplows all winter long.
Mark L, Fergerson
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2