Dilandu wrote:Basically the underground military facilites make sence only if their location could not be determined by the opponent with needed percision, or if they are combined with the effective active defenses.
Not quite that bad.
Essentially, if you make them protected enough to stand up to any conventional weapons, and anything but a direct hit from "normal" nukes, that sets up a situation where if the enemy wants to take it out, they have to use weapons that are extremely bad politically, and they have to be used in such a way that they cause large amounts of radioactive fallout, which is bad as long as an enemy either wants conquest, or if there´s even a slight risk of the fallout ending up over their own nation.
And, to the above is added that against such protection, an attacker needs to know EXACTLY what the base looks like, or even a 100m bad aim combined with the margin of error for accuracy can make even a direct hit to do nothing more than vaporise a huge chunk of mountain, because the base is actually another 200m over THERE...
It´s basically a matter of playing the odds well enough that trying to destroy such bases takes far more effort than they´re worth for an enemy.
Dilandu wrote:For example - the "Safeguard" ABM system, that protected the missile silos. She made virtually impossible any disarming strike, because to destroy all silos before they launch, the enemy would be forced to send not 2-3 warheads against each silo, but saturation attack (dozen of warheads) against each silo.
P.S. But the "Poseidon" SLBM worked better)
Exactly.