Talk:Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Revisions

Changes 20:02, 22 Jul 2004:

Revised line on Minuteman configuration and added link.
Sentence "The most powerful MIRV developed by the USA was the Peacekeeper missile, which could carry up to 10 re-entry vehicles, each of which with a maximum explosive power of 300 kilotons." deleted as as the D-5 Trident II carries more powerful bombs (475 KT) and the C-3 Posiedon carried up to 14 warheads. By which measure is the Peacekeeper more powerful?
Revised section on MIRV's and ABM's.
Added section on the ability of a MIRV to attack multiple targets.

Elde 04:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most powerful?

IIRC, the Trident II carries 8 W-88 warheads (475kt) while the MX carries 10 W-87, while is true that their standard yield is around 300Kt many sources (HEW,fas,globalsecurity) claim that it can be incresed to 475Kt in the "dirty" version (with the oralloy) which seems a standard feature of W-88 (this leaves me thinking that the physics packages of the two weapons are very similar). The 14 warheads were the old W-76 (100kt) and not enough accurate to be used as counterforce weapons (at least until they will be upgraded with the new fuze). I think that these are the reasons why MX was perceived as "more powerful" even if IMHO the Trident II is a better system Krellmachine 16:44, 22 Oct 2004

MIRV target 'spread'

Does anybody know, how far appart can be the targets of a MIRV attack?

It's possible to make some guesses, but the actual figures are classified. If I had to guess, I think some tens of miles. Note: It's traditional to 'sign' your entries with four tildes which creates a signature like this: Elde 21:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second picture description

Second sentence makes no sense. syndicate 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify it a bit. --Fastfission 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When were they first deployed?

Something about the dates of deployment should be added. Also what "drives" the individual warheads? -Pietas

The first MIRVed missile was the Minuteman III, and was first deployed in 1970. Each warhead is kept in a re-entry vehicle, which has it own motor. I imagine though that the motor is just used to get it into position and that much of its speed comes from gravity. I do think adding a history section would be appropriate. --Fastfission 18:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~MV~~

~~ Were the MK12 and MK12A RVs made with metal rather than carbon materials? ~~

Were the materials used in the MK12 and MK12A Rvs different to the other later RVs or the ones used in the peacekeeper and W88 warheads? The TPS cooling is mentioned as finished with the MK-2 RV, but was it ever used in the minutemen missiles, since they were of the first MIRVS made?

What materials are used in the making of military RVs and RBS and are they different to the non-military re-entry vehicles?

Mirv AND Marv

Imo something should be added about marv. It is a similar concept but more sophisticated. marv is short for maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/655/is-china-developing-a-marv -Pietas

Article revisions

I made multiple changes to the article, mainly correcting obvious errors, adding internal links, and clarifying wording. Discuss here if any issues with the changes. Joema 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good riddance

There should be a "demise" section in the article since MIRV are finally outlawed by treaty. 195.70.32.136 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. The START II treaty which outlawed MIRVs was never activated, hence never a factor. Russia withdrew from the treaty on June 14, 2002. The current SORT treaty (also known as the "Moscow Treaty") does not restrict MIRV warheads. Joema 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striking first advantage

The scenario this article give for explaining why mirvs give a first strike advantage is wrong. The multiplications and mathematics do not help illustrate the point and are misleading. The mirvs gave the US a first strike advantage simply because it increased the number of usable weapons they had in a very short timespan. If the US had suddenly received 1000 new missiles and launchers the same result would have applied. Once the SU got mirvs then the first strike advantage was no longer applicable. Thus the mathematics in the example are not helpful and actually misleading.

page 224-227

http://www.jstor.org/view/00438871/di971185/97p0244n/0

A better explanation is this: MIRVs threatened to rapidly increase the US's deployable nuclear arsenal and thus the possibility that it would have enough bombs to destroy virtually all of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons. Later on the US feared the Soviet's MIRVs because Soviet missiles had a greater throw weight and they could thus put more warhead on each missile than the US could. Thus for example the US MIRVs increased their capacity by a factor of 6 while the Soviets increased their by a factor of 10. Furthermore, the US had a much smaller proportion of its nuclear arsenal in ICBMs than the Soviets. Bombers could not be outfitted with MIRVs so their capacity would not be multiplied. Thus the US did not seem to have as much potential for MIRV usage as the Soviets. However, the US had a larger number of SLBMs, which could be outfitted with MIRVs, and helped offset the ICBM disadvantage.

If you guys agree with my alterations then perhaps they should be applied to other articles about MIRVs (such as the MX and Minuteman III) where the former passage is repeated instead of my new one. 128.12.77.97 09:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the US had suddenly received 1000 new missiles and launchers the same result would have applied. Once the SU got mirvs then the first strike advantage was no longer applicable.Not quite. Each side tends to use its missiles or lose them in the scenario. So the temptation would be very high to use them, because the enemy thinks the same. It makes sense to use them because they can knock out the enemy missile force with fewer missiles and because if they are not used, the enemy would use the same tactics to destroy these missiles. --Arado 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nations?

There is no information as to which or how many nations deploy MIRVed warheads. The United States and the Soviet Union/Russia are obvious, but is there information about other nations? Does Great Britain or France have MIRV capacity? What about China, India, or Israel? Intrepidsfsu 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the United Kingdom and France have MIRV capability, with the Trident and M45 systems respectively. I'm unsure about the other three, although I would put money on at least India and China. Mothball (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIRVy pics

Hey MIRV friends, I just uploaded some great pics I don't have time right now to incorporate, but I thought someone else might like to. Nothing can match this reentry pic, but there's still an interesting night-time reentry shot and a bus-assembly shot more detailed than the old one we have now. Cheers. --Sean 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIRVs in Media

In light of a very recent episode of the American television drama Mad Men which depicted the development of MIRV research in the early 1960s, I wonder if the page would not benefit from a section listing significant portrayals or references to MIRV in narrative or non-narrative media? Armadillo01 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In 1962 the science fiction author Clark Darlton (pseudonym of K.H. Scheer) described in a novel about a nuclear war in 1978 a MIRV like nuclear sytem, called "Fragmentbombe" (fragment bomb). http://www.perrypedia.proc.org/wiki/Die_Gro%C3%9Fen_in_der_Tiefe 91.32.212.157 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing of the Peacekeeper caption.

In this article, this image

has the caption:

Testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons. In this other article LGM-118_Peacekeeper, the same image has the caption: Testing at the Kwajalein Atoll of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile. With live warheads, each line would represent the explosive power of twenty Hiroshima-sized (Little Boy) weapons.142.55.138.53 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did "targetable" go?

I'm a little confused at why the acronym is MIRV, when the full name is "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle". Is there any information on why the "T" was left out? The main reason I wonder is if there was another name from which the acronym is derived. (If so, it should probably be listed). I also question the grammar on that name: "a multiple ... vehicle" (singular)? A quick browse through the references provided shows that they all use "reentry vehicles" (plural). -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is from Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle(s).--Patrick (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks these Nukes are so disgustingly over the top? Nukes should be Kept around about the potency of 'Little Boy' and should only be used as a last resort.