I think missile silos will become obsolete in the future; give it 2-3 decades. The problem is that they are designed to withstand nuclear blasts in close proximity. But they are not designed, and cannot be designed - to withstand nuclear blasts dead-centre, which more accurate future ballistic missiles might be able to achieve.
But in fact nukes aren't even needed nowadays at all for such targets - now that precision weapons and anti-bunker warheads are being mastered and the US is developing its Global Strike Doctrine, envisaging the use of a range of hypersonic precision conventional weaponry to achieve the tasks less-accurate nuclear ICBMs were reserved for in decades prior.
We're at the level now when specialized missiles now have both the accuracy and penetration to take out nuclear-missile silos.
What isn't present so far, is the technology to deliver such weapons to targets in Russia, past all the multiple layers of air-defenses. But it isn't hard to imagine future ICBMs with payloads of bunker-busting missiles.
victor1985 wrote:i tinked to something. if the rocket wouldnt stay vertically underground (i mean bunker ones) but horizontally and at launch to be in vertical form. or maibe burried deep underground and elevated up at launch. similar could be done in case of simple rockets for defence (stationary burried missile) whit holes camouflated so they are not visible from satellite. event strategic ICMB can be positioned somewhere not whit a lot of machines that could be visible from satellite. and i think ICMBs could be separated in parts not beeing need a huge truck that could be seen from satellite and mounted at lauch. also i think at ICMB for sea self motorized and self lift from the sea at close of enemy territory. could be use an electric motor whit computer at bord and advance silence protection
On the face of it a ICBM complex composed of multiple compartment-containers might sound good - until you pause to think about it a bit.
A stationary, disguised ICBM complex will be completely vulnerable and have no defenses whatsoever, other than its camouflage. What guarantees do you have at any time, that the Americans haven't already discovered its location and have a missile of their own with its name on it? You don't, you have no way of knowing, and with the passage of time you'll have to assume that they have found out about your system; that's the fate that befalls all systems that stay in one place too long, no matter how well hidden.
Where will you base this system? Out in the middle of nowhere? The activity/resupply/etc... will give it away. It will have to be in the proximity of some garrison or the other, so actually there's a limit as to where you can place It.
What if you place it in an inhabited area? That way some of the activity might be disguised; but then it would be completely exposed - you would have to have guards, personnel out in the open which might ruin the subterfuge - and again it will have to be not too far from a garrison.
Placing it as part of existing military infrastructure, in existing military bases is an option; hoping to disguise it as a military facility of another purpose; say a logistics base or some such. But then as a visible military facility, it might get targeted anyway for another reason, and besides which you can't be sure that your disguise has worked - if it hasn't than you've wasted a lot of money and effort; not that it would matter by then.
Placing it at sea? On what, a container ship that calls to New York? The only option is to place it on a container ship that you control the routes of; say one that travels Russia's Northern Route. However, it would be completely exposed, and without any sort of outside support, like a nuclear submarine - only it's not a nuclear sub - just a set of containers. Traveling along a defined trade-route, it would be lucky to be afforded the protection of Russia's air-force; and would be otherwise defenseless and vulnerable to infiltration, take-over or destruction; although I suppose you can fit another compartmentalized weapon system on there too, and a platoon of marines.
Ultimately the Americans might find it easier to simply destroy all Russian cargo ships they suspect might be harboring such a system, rather than try and sort through them - and there would be nothing stopping them.
If you're going to put ICBMs at sea, you might as well put them on nuclear ICBM subs, which are superior in every respect.
The only place such a container-ICBM system might be a good fit - is underneath a mountain in a rail tunnel. You can mount the compartments on rails, attach a diesel locomotive to enable it to get there, and then to roll in and out of the mountain to launch and then take cover respectively.
Well done - you've just reinvented the ICBM train.