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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
If the article is going to specifically mention the US, Russia, and Israel, it seems like it should mention all the countries with known or suspected SLBMs. Tempshill23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section could indeed be added, with proper references. Regarding Israel, it would seem that their vessels are capable of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and not ballistic missiles. Still, could be kept along with a see also section with SSG and SSGN. Scoo06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that the article about the Brahmos weapon states that it's a cruise missile, not a ballistic missile. The two are very different beasts since the cruise is under propulsion for the majority of free flight, whereas the ballistic has an initial burn, then is unpowered until a mid flight second or third stage which injects further power. Given that the Brahmos is a cruise missile, and not a ballistic missile I'll remove it again.
The article currently states that SLBMs have nuclear warheads - whilst this is currently true, there is no reason why a conventional SLBM could not exist (the US was looking at conventional Trident at one point), so something along the lines of "all SLBMs currently in service carry a nuclear warhead" woud seem more appropriate.Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ballistic missiles carry only nuclear warheads - reason: If SLBM (or ICBM) is launched it is for "other side" impossible to recognize what kind of warhead is on it installed. Exception is tests of missiles with tests warheads which launches are reported some days ahead. Incidentally US deny conventional warheads for BM.--Hornet24 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Submarine-launched ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Submarine-launched ballistic missile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
HiZagham I did see the sources you have provided they are indeed valid and reliable. The issue is not them but your misunderstanding. Babur is Cruise Missile and it's submarine launched version is thus a Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM). This page is meant for Submarine Launched Cruise Missile (SLBM). There is a difference between a cruise missile and a ballistic missile. Feel free to chime into the discussion here and not edit war the article. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"New SSBN construction terminated for over 10 years in Russia and slowed in the US with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991."- Really misleading. US Stopped building in the 1970s as reached their imitial objectives for force levels. AS they Ohios were built - the Existing SSBN had to be decomissioned / converted based on Nuclear Weapons treaty limits. Then "This makes them immune to a first strike directed against nuclear forces, allowing each side to maintain the capability to launch a devastating retaliatory strike, even if all land-based missiles have been destroyed" - recall the 2009 collusion at Sea of a United Kingdom and a French SSBN with each other - see HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant submarine collision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfoj3 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
