US Reduction in Nuclear Forces

[texas_ex2000]

WSJ - US Planning to Cut Nuclear Forces Under Pact With Russia

Effectively undetectable sea-based SLBMs manned by nuclear engineers/finest sailors in the Navy - the Silent Service, will take the greatest hit, while land based ICBMs run by air force flight school drop out couch potatoes who coldn't pass a test on when and when not to turn a key will have the least amount of cuts.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[dillohorn]

We need to start having Russian taught as a second language in our schools.

 

[huisache]

we will only be able to destroy the world eight times instead of twelve. Treason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


the cost of keeping missiles in silos is somewhat less than keeping them in fully crewed submarines, which may just have something to do with the plan

and the Russians still can't make decent toilet paper for their domestic market. They can keep Putin and we will keep the pack of juggling clowns we have

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'm a Russian Literature/Music/Arts fan myself...so that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world

.

And really, we could annihilate Russia and China with 300 individual missiles (that's like 2,000 MIRV warheads).

But the actual megaton yield firepower isn't the raison d'être for nukes in this post cold war world. And it isn't the driving factor behind how many you keep and how you deploy them. It's about intimidation to deter threats to Americans. And that is where others perceive opportunities.

 

[texas_ex2000]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Seattle Husker]

texas_ex2000-

You obviously have a lot of knowledge in this area, specifically since you were one of those submarine seamen if I remember correctly, right? I'm wondering if that status also potentially biases you? As an Army grunt myself, I've been conditioned to believe things about the Marines, Air Force and Navy that in hindsight wasn't accurate based on people (family) that were in those services.

 

[pasotex]

land based missiles are cheaper to maintain

they used to be more accurate, but I do not think this is the case any more

the greatest advantage to subs is their near invulnerability to first strikes

there is real value in this although how many subs you need to deter another country is a real question since even one Ohio class submarine could destroy any country on earth - each sub has 24 trident II missiles with each missile carrying up to 8 warheads (MIRVs)

this means 192 warheads per sub

we have 18 subs

this is massive overkill

 

[texas_ex2000]

Seattle,

I was an intelligence officer in the Navy. I was never in the "Silent Service." I prefer sunsets and stars while sailing, but I did get a boondoggle and spent a week aboard a fast attack on an exercise. Our sailors in the sub community are superb...another level of professionalism and capability above the surface fleet. Submarines, fast attack and boomers, are without a doubt one of our premier assets in this country. They're great for nuclear deterrence, intelligence gathering, tactical cruise missile strikes, special operations, and if the Chinese got any crazy ideas...anti-shipping warfare. The problem with submarines though, is that congressmen in Wyoming, North Dakota, and Montana, who for some reason are really powerful, don't have sub bases.

As Paso said, our subs are the most survivable component of our nuclear deterrence...that's just a fact. The Air Force is great (I was teasing about the missile officers. I've flow dozens of missions with AF recon crews and have had more than a respectable number of Jeremiah Weed shots with Zoomies at air shows), but ICBMs and bombers just can't compare to survivability. SLBMs are also now just as accurate as ICBMs...not that accuracy is all that important with nukes. Accuracy used to be the only advantage with ICBMs, but no longer. ALCMs' advantage are that their bombers are flexible in their alert posture and can be recalled from an attack. They're not as survivable as subs though.

The Army is great too. I've read as much as I could on the European Theater, The Indian Wars, and the Civil War. I'll always be Navy-Marine Corps 1st obviously, but I got love for everyone.

 

[CanaTigers]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Clean]

By the time Obama is done, he will have reduced our once mighty defense capability to that of roughly, Romania.

The Navy is at pre-WWI levels. It is down to less than 300 ships and they had to reclassify some smaller vessels to get to that level. About 1/3 of that number are operable at any one time and that ain't much.

But, the good news is our entitlements and debt are at world record levels.

 

[pasotex]

good grief that is silly

 

[Hu_Fan]

ex2000, that is a fine read you put down. I was on Early Warning (AWACS) flights all of my active AF time and feel I missed a lot. Was thinking the other day I wish I had gone Navy. You had quite the experience. My brother, in the Navy, ended up handling electronics on helicopters and managed to get on an ice cutter that took him across the equator and international date line, he did the King Neptune ritual, and spent time at Antarctica. With the helicopters, he got to fly right to the pole and also hang out with thousands of Penquins. And once spent time in the North Sea playing games with Soviet trawlers. I ended up with hardly a story to tell. Just enough air miles on station over the years to fly to the moon. I computed that once, before I lost my log book.