Author Topic: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes  (Read 369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« on: March 17, 2023, 05:40:16 pm »
America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes

Having ground-based nuclear weapons exposes America and the world to unnecessary risks.

Andrew C. Jarocki
Mar 17, 2023

When news first broke last month of a Chinese observation balloon hovering 60,000 feet above Montana, a simple question emerged during the ensuing national uproar: Why Montana?

Montana, along with Wyoming and North Dakota, is home to America’s nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. With a range of at least 6,000 miles and the ability to carry up to three nuclear warheads each, these 400 Minuteman III ICBMs make up an impressive arsenal.

They are also completely unnecessary for national security.

Beginning in the 1960s, the United States developed a triad of methods to deliver a nuclear strike on the Soviets: ground-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles and heavy bombers. Although the Soviet Union collapsed over three decades ago, this basic nuclear posture has remained unchanged.

“The question looming in the background about nuclear posture is, ‘A posture to do what?’” notes Jasen Castillo, an expert on nuclear weapons at the think tank Defense Priorities.

*  *  *

Most of America’s fourteen nuclear-capable ballistic-missile submarines are continuously at sea, each one virtually unfindable and able to launch a sufficient number of nuclear missiles to destroy twenty enemy cities by itself. The Air Force’s ninety-six nuclear-capable bombers will also soon add the most advanced class of stealth bomber yet to its ranks with the new B-21 Raider.

ICBMs aren’t just unnecessary for deterrence. The risk of strategic miscalculation they present is appalling.

As former Secretary of Defense William Perry has pointed out, ground-based nukes present a use-it-or-lose-it conundrum. If a country began a nuclear attack, U.S. ICBMs could only be launched before those incoming missiles destroyed them. If the attack were a false alarm, America would unintentionally start a nuclear war. Missiles cannot be recalled like bombers and subs. 

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis has also raised this issue, advising Congress to consider if it is “time to reduce the triad to a dyad” by “removing the land-based missiles” to “reduce the false-alarm danger.”

*  *  *

Source:  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/america-doesnt-need-ground-based-nukes/

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2023, 05:47:23 pm »
More of the old unilateral disarmament shtick?

This crap was past its use-by date in the 1960s.

The parts of America that become targets because of the presence of these missiles have fewer people in the counties around them than most blocks in New York City.

Of course, if the missiles were removed and the silos (and control facilities) returned to the locals, we'd have a place to wait out the cool-down while the craters that replaced the cities (which would become the primary targets, because there would be no missiles to pre-empt) stopped glowing.

When everyone else has decommissioned theirs, maybe we can talk about it.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2023, 05:56:25 pm »
More of the old unilateral disarmament shtick?

This crap was past its use-by date in the 1960s.

The parts of America that become targets because of the presence of these missiles have fewer people in the counties around them than most blocks in New York City.

Of course, if the missiles were removed and the silos (and control facilities) returned to the locals, we'd have a place to wait out the cool-down while the craters that replaced the cities (which would become the primary targets, because there would be no missiles to pre-empt) stopped glowing.

When everyone else has decommissioned theirs, maybe we can talk about it.

No, not unilateral disarmament.  An argument for a more agile, less risk-prone, nuclear force.  Principally, the argument rests on the fact that silo-based missiles are a one-time use-it-or-lose it proposition.

For example, assume that the U.S. receives information that Russia has just launched, and the data shows enough apparent launches to constitute a first strike - but the data are incorrect because the Chinese government hackers have spent the last 10 years worming their way into the U.S. nuclear systems to the point where they can generate an apparently real spoof.  If the apparent launch is real, the missiles in the silos must be used or lost, and they have to be launched with sufficient time to at least escape the disruption that would be caused by a nuclear air-burst over the silo's location.  So there is an incentive to launch as soon as possible; however, once launched, those missiles cannot be recovered.

On the other hand, subs that are activated and bombers that are activated, can be recalled, even at the last minute before they deploy their own weapons.  Furthermore, since the location of a sub or an aircraft in the air is much less knowable ahead of time than is the location of a fixed silo, those assets are much less vulnerable to a first strike once they are mobile and taking defensive measures.

The argument, then, is that the land-based siloed missiles should be phased out in favor of improving submarine based and bomber based nuclear deterrents.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2023, 06:06:26 pm »
No, not unilateral disarmament.  An argument for a more agile, less risk-prone, nuclear force.  Principally, the argument rests on the fact that silo-based missiles are a one-time use-it-or-lose it proposition.

For example, assume that the U.S. receives information that Russia has just launched, and the data shows enough apparent launches to constitute a first strike - but the data are incorrect because the Chinese government hackers have spent the last 10 years worming their way into the U.S. nuclear systems to the point where they can generate an apparently real spoof.  If the apparent launch is real, the missiles in the silos must be used or lost, and they have to be launched with sufficient time to at least escape the disruption that would be caused by a nuclear air-burst over the silo's location.  So there is an incentive to launch as soon as possible; however, once launched, those missiles cannot be recovered.

On the other hand, subs that are activated and bombers that are activated, can be recalled, even at the last minute before they deploy their own weapons.  Furthermore, since the location of a sub or an aircraft in the air is much less knowable ahead of time than is the location of a fixed silo, those assets are much less vulnerable to a first strike once they are mobile and taking defensive measures.

The argument, then, is that the land-based siloed missiles should be phased out in favor of improving submarine based and bomber based nuclear deterrents.
We had the land based shell game missiles, with 10 MIRV buses on them. We broke those down.
The silos are there, hardened, and if nothing else would occupy a lot of enemy inbounds in the attempt to eliminate them.

I know how spread out they are, and have driven past quite a few of those facilities in my travels. Remove them and the focus will be on finding the aircraft and submarines, shadowing them, and taking them out preemptively in the instance of hostilities, as if 20 B-2s are going to replace over 450 missiles in terms of firepower or strike capability.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2023, 06:07:20 pm »
We had the land based shell game missiles, with 10 MIRV buses on them. We broke those down.
The silos are there, hardened, and if nothing else would occupy a lot of enemy inbounds in the attempt to eliminate them.

I know how spread out they are, and have driven past quite a few of those facilities in my travels. Remove them and the focus will be on finding the aircraft and submarines, shadowing them, and taking them out preemptively in the instance of hostilities, as if 20 B-2s are going to replace over 450 missiles in terms of firepower or strike capability.

:shrug:

Opinions will differ.  The author makes a valid argument, however.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2023, 06:34:26 pm »
:shrug:

Opinions will differ.  The author makes a valid argument, however.
Oh, come on. I don't want to give up my ringside seat for WWIII. :tongue2:
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,365
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2023, 10:42:42 pm »
Perhaps within another 15-20 years, the ability to "sniff out" the locations of nuclear subs may become technologically possible. Theirs by us. Ours by them.

(if it's not possible already...)

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: America Doesn’t Need Ground-Based Nukes
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2023, 04:06:50 am »
Perhaps within another 15-20 years, the ability to "sniff out" the locations of nuclear subs may become technologically possible. Theirs by us. Ours by them.

(if it's not possible already...)

The difference is that it will take a pretty direct hit to take out a silo on land. (One missile, and unless we reinstate the three package bus, one warhead).
At sea, that hit takes out a rack of them (24 Tridents on an SSBN, 154 Tomahawks on an SSGN).

If on the other side, my strategy would be to build islands with setups that can be used like phased array sonar to track the boomers while concentrating on orbital weapons to take out the ICBMs. 
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis