tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post6236448464161912433..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Do We Need An SSBN?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85085052232746979792018-03-26T15:08:10.669-07:002018-03-26T15:08:10.669-07:00Should we ever need to conduct a first, (or second...Should we ever need to conduct a first, (or second) nuclear strike, the greatly-reduced flight time of forward-based SLBMs makes it that much harder for an adversary to counter them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31290407960632271662013-11-08T05:27:30.200-08:002013-11-08T05:27:30.200-08:00There is probably a Pentagon slide somewhere with ...There is probably a Pentagon slide somewhere with this:<br />1) Take out land based silos- Rods from God, Boost-Glide Hypersonic Weapon, Conventional Ballistic Missile<br />2) Take out road mobile ICBM- Long Range Persistent Endurance Stealth UCAV <br />3) Take out SSBN threat- UUVs<br />4) Missile defense to handle anything left.<br />5) Impose American will on our opponent.<br /><br />Problem comes when the other guy has the same slide. They would just have to nuke us before we forcefully disarmed them. Well the good news is that there is plenty of land in rural America available. <br /><br />E.L.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47663184035497160692013-11-08T04:51:54.299-08:002013-11-08T04:51:54.299-08:00Missile defenses against nuclear tipped ICBMs are ...Missile defenses against nuclear tipped ICBMs are a joke and will always be a joke. Do you know why we stopped using nuclear tipped interceptors? It was because they would blind their own radars and thereby allow follow on enemy missiles to attack us while we couldn't even track them. You see a nasty side effect of the detonation of a high attitude nuclear blast is a electromagnetic pulse. Now a nuclear HEMP will also ionize the upper atmosphere turning it into a plasma (remember plasma stealth?) and render it impassable to radar waves temporarily. Depending on the size of the nuclear explosion the effect could last for hours. Now what is to stop an enemy from intentionally doing this with his own ICBMs or SLBMs, to open up a way for a first strike? If your sea and/or ground based radar can't direct your interceptors to the enemy ballistic missiles attacking you, then what use are your missile defenses? All the attacking country has to do is stage their first strike a few minutes apart. Missile defense is a technology that can be overcome by simiple tactics. Like say nuclear tipped air/sea launched cruise missiles destroying your tracking radars. Oh wait, our missile defenses can't even descriminate between anything other than decoys that look nothing like warheads (large spherically shaped balloons versus cone shaped warheads) and are bigger than the warhead itself, with real warheads. I sure hope the Russians and the Chinese don't put rod and/or cone shaped decoys on their ICBMs. Oh, then you could simply put more warheads on your missiles, tear up arms control treaties and build more missiles. And since you want to hit a bullet with a bullet, what happens when I make my warhead manueverable? Now your interceptor has to be more manueverable than my warhead to intercept it. But I can make my warhead as manueverable as your interceptor. Now combine MARVs with fractional orbital bombardment to diverisfy flight plans. You now need more interceptors in more places. All these are reasons why we gave up on ABM defense during the Cold War. The technology was useless! There are simply to many ways to overcome missile defense when you are talking about nukes. <br /><br />Nevertheless, the religion of missile defense continues unabated because people want to use it to aid in a first strike against an opponent. That is the real reason for missile defense and stealth bombers. You attack first, nuke your opponent to hell, destroy most of his nukes, and then attempt to weather his second strike . And if we ever pull this first strike capablity off, then it gives any and all nuclear opponents the incentive to strike first and use it before they lose it. Missile defense isn't about surviving an enemy first strike, it is about being able to conduct your own. And it is highly destabilizing because if we ever get it right then Russia/<br />China has an incentive to immediately nuke us before we nuke them. <br /><br />E.L.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79464885712573669942013-10-15T07:19:05.069-07:002013-10-15T07:19:05.069-07:00First let me clarify that I think that, today, the...First let me clarify that I think that, today, there is still some deterrent value to nuclear weapons, at least with respect to rational enemies. I just don't believe there will be any significant deterrent value by 2030 or so -- both for the reasons I've already written above and because more time passes since the US actually used them in anger. I'm not in favor of reducing the current offensive force levels before they can be replaced by defences.<br /><br />Bunker buster bombs are too big and heavy to put on an ICBM. We could develop and build a bunker buster with a nuclear warhead that could fit on a Trident II missile, but that would be just one warhead per missile rather than the twelve possible with conventional MIRVs (of which only four or five are carried now). It would be a lot less capable than the best bunker busters we have now. Realistically, bunker busters are carried by aircraft.<br /><br />So, lets imagine the proposed new SSBN fleet of 12, each with 16 missiles, so a total of 192 bunker busters. Say five or ten make through the 2030-era missile defences of a country like Iran or North Korea (with countries like Russia or China, it's difficult to imagine more than one or two getting through -- zero if they have a fleet of chemical lasers in orbit plus ground-based interceptors). How many bunkers do they need to build to defeat such a strategy, knowing that we won't know which bunker they'll be in? We'd have to agree on several assumptions before we could even begin to apply probability theory (it's essentially a combinatorics problem) but suffice it to say that they could potentially have a lot of confidence.<br /><br />I have never been able to find a case of economic sanctions that were effective in changing national behavior -- with the one arguable exception of South Africa, where it's not clear whether or not the sanctions played a role. No matter how bad things may get for ordinary citizens, the leaders are always able to get whatever luxury goods they want.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think the only ways to influence the behavior of other countries are 1) setting incentives so that interests are aligned and 2) the threat of invasion. Rather than trying to influence the behavior of other nations, I think the US Navy should be focused on keeping open worldwide sea lines of communication (freedom of the seas) and on ensuring that no country can ever invade (or seriously threaten to invade) the US by sea. There may also be an ABM role for the Navy -- at least with respect to North Korea.M Carlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470713838232683723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48707670213276723722013-10-15T05:21:27.842-07:002013-10-15T05:21:27.842-07:00MC, you make a good point about the long lasting e...MC, you make a good point about the long lasting effects of nuclear weapons. In addition to the Japanese cities, the effects on the Bikini Atoll have been far less than what was predicted. Medical studies have long shown that nuclear effects on the body are less than predicted. Of course, much of that was based on the early WWII era bombs and the basic makeup has since changed. What impact that has, I don't know.<br /><br />I know we have specific "bunker busting" nuclear weapons that, again, would seem to provide a deterrent effect.<br /><br />Since you don't see a deterrent value in nuclear weapons what means, if any, do you see using to influence (threaten) other countries into desired behavior?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-585880258438039682013-10-15T02:02:18.961-07:002013-10-15T02:02:18.961-07:00It depends on whether we're talking about real...It depends on whether we're talking about real nuclear weapons or Hollywood. If your hypothetical semi-rational enemy leaders base their beliefs about the effects of nuclear weapons on Hollywood, then perhaps they might be deterred by the idea of spending months or years in a shelter. On the other hand, if they base their beliefs on what their scientists tell them or read serious sources (for example, Glasstone and Dolan's definitive book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons or Cresson Kearny's Nuclear War Survival Skills), then they'll expect to spend days or weeks in a shelter, depending on the direction of prevailing winds, etc.<br /><br />So, Hollywood nuclear weapons might have a deterrent effect against the semi-rational leaders you describe, but real nuclear weapons would not.<br /><br />BTW, it only took a few years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki recovered to the point where no one who didn't know exactly where to look for war memorials would have been able to find any residual effects. Eizo Nomura was 170 meters from ground zero in Hiroshima. He lived into his 80s. Several trainloads packed with refugees from Hiroshima went to Nagasaki, so there were thousands of "double survivors". The first double survivor to be official recognized as such was Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a resident of Nagasaki who had been on a business trip to Hiroshima, who lived to be 93.M Carlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470713838232683723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90451859208481060842013-10-14T14:57:31.938-07:002013-10-14T14:57:31.938-07:00How does one sit out a second strike? The result ...How does one sit out a second strike? The result would be a radioactive wasteland and the leaders would be condemned to life in a bunker. That would seem likely to have a deterrent effect, don't you think?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58796304281030981052013-10-14T13:14:49.597-07:002013-10-14T13:14:49.597-07:00I think the leaders of a country, such as you desc...I think the leaders of a country, such as you describe, are not at all deterred by a second-strike capability because they would sit it out in their bunkers. They wouldn't care if they lost a million civilians to a few warheads that might leak through their defences. Such leaders are only deterred by the threat of an invasion which would remove them from power.<br /><br />I think the deterrence value of a second-strike capability is already small compared to the deterrence value of a possible invasion and getting smaller every year.<br /><br />On the other hand, the stronger our missile defences are, the less attractive it is for any enemy to build an offensive force.M Carlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470713838232683723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61503137258398247032013-10-14T12:25:46.337-07:002013-10-14T12:25:46.337-07:00MC, I think there's a third case that lies bet...MC, I think there's a third case that lies between the two you described. Iran, NK, and China may have rational leaders but may see a different "rationality" than we do. Specifically, they won't risk total annihilation that means their own deaths (that's the rational part) but may be willing to accept a nuclear exchange that works out in their favor. While they may lose a few cities or hundreds of thousand civilian deaths, what do they care? They can always grow more people. That's the irrational part from our perspective but it may seem rational to them.<br /><br />In this case, the threat of counter-strike is a deterrent (because they're rational to a point) unless we allow the threat to deteriorate to the point that an exchange seems like a win to them (that's the irrational aspect, at least as we view it).<br /><br />What do you think?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9670654372965200952013-10-14T11:06:14.777-07:002013-10-14T11:06:14.777-07:00A country such as Iran or North Korea (or any coun...A country such as Iran or North Korea (or any country) is either rational or not rational. Let's consider both cases.<br /><br />Case 1: They're rational. They have, say, 100 missiles and estimate that 1 or 2 or 5 could get through our defences. They know that, following such a scenario, the American people would be 100 times more pissed off than after 9/11 and we would send the marines and they would no longer be in power or enjoy a nice life. Any rational country would be dissuaded.<br /><br />Case 2: They're irrational. If they're irrational, no counter-strike capability will deter them at all. They may believe that attacking the US will result in going to paradise and getting to enjoy 69 fresh virgin boys every week for eternity, or any other crazy idea. If any country might acquire nuclear weapons and become irrational, the best we can do is prepare to defend ourselves as best we can.M Carlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470713838232683723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54657117259607106902013-10-14T10:26:41.863-07:002013-10-14T10:26:41.863-07:00MC, assuming you grant that no defense is perfect ...MC, assuming you grant that no defense is perfect and that it doesn't take but a few nuclear missiles to get through a defense, ours or an enemy's, do you still view the SSBN as not worth the money?<br /><br />Also, the only way we can influence an enemy country is by offensive threats. Defensive measures don't threaten other countries. If you don't want to spend the money on SSBNs, how do you propose to threaten other countries who might want to attack us with nuclear weapons?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25335749682731510352013-10-14T10:12:25.631-07:002013-10-14T10:12:25.631-07:00By the time new SSBNs would be in service (probabl...By the time new SSBNs would be in service (probably not before 2030), not only countries like Russia and China will have effective (not perfect, but highly effective) ballistic missile defences. By 2030, countries like Iran and North Korea will also have effective missile defences.<br /><br />Spending $100 billion on an (optimistically) undetectable and invulnerable platform that exists solely to launch obsolete and impotent weapons doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That $100 billion would, in my opinion, be much better spent on missile defences.M Carlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470713838232683723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85733904218480468192013-09-17T08:29:35.355-07:002013-09-17T08:29:35.355-07:00Jim, you've loosely summed up the future dilem...Jim, you've loosely summed up the future dilema. The Minuteman is scheduled to be replaced in 2030 or so, I think. The development and replacement costs will be staggering. Do we maintain all the legs of the triad? If so, how do we pay for them? Are they even needed? Could we get rid of one or two legs. While 2030 seems far off, given the lead time for development of new weapons, it's just around the corner. That's why the article is quite timely. Whether you agree or disagree with the author, he's raising questions that our national and military leadership need to be answering now so that we can begin planning. Hopefully, that's what they're doing but I have my doubts!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10052463122452293672013-09-17T07:28:50.657-07:002013-09-17T07:28:50.657-07:00CNO; I wasn't aware we had that many land silo...CNO; I wasn't aware we had that many land silos. For whatever reason I thought we had drawn that down by quite a bit. I'm of two minds: A) I don't think that we can replace that with the tridents we have, unless B) we close those 450 and use the money to build more SSBN's. However, the politics and economics behind that are staggering. I don't see any chance of convincing the air force to get out of the nuclear game. And you'd be early retiring an already sunk cost. <br /><br />That said, I worry that we don't have a follow on for the minuteman III; at least not that I know of. When they retire, what happens to all of those silos and missiles? <br /><br />(As an aside, I worked with a guy who was a missal launcher back in the day. Not a job I'd want.)JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61633455738772285262013-09-16T18:51:36.654-07:002013-09-16T18:51:36.654-07:00Supposedly, we trailed Soviet boomers at all times...Supposedly, we trailed Soviet boomers at all times. Presumably, (geez, I hope!)we do the same for Chinese subs. If so, the launch location and our trailing subs would quickly provide positive ID. If we're not trailing them then we're idiots and our Navy leadership is even more inept than I've thus far accused them of being.<br /><br />I suppose Russian subs could launch (if I were the Navy, I'd still be trailing them, too) but Russia would have absolutely nothing to gain so it seems highly unlikely.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36575512481722719672013-09-16T17:34:05.279-07:002013-09-16T17:34:05.279-07:00I hope we continue to use all 3 in the future. I r...I hope we continue to use all 3 in the future. I remember reading about how the Russians were caught trailing on of Britains Vanguards, so if the Chinese sneak in and trail all 4 of ours at the same time, then that would be very dangerous for us. But then again that would take immense effort, and would be major disaster if they were caught doing that. <br /><br />On the other hand, they know where all of our silos are, and a first strike with subs could see all of them destroyed if they manage to knock out a large portion of the chain of command. I am quite sure we don't operate on LOW anymore. (Launch on Warning) If they struck most of our relevant early warning sites too, that would give those left in the chain of command less than 10 minutes to make a decision. Maybe 5, due to launch prep and whatnot.<br /><br />Off topic: One of the things I have wondered about, is what we would do if just subs started launching at us? How would we identify who was shooting at us so we could respond? Launch at everyone we don't like to make sure we get them? It's one thing for our satellites to see the launches coming from Siberia, it's another thing indeed if they come out of the Pacific. TheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26385646898927584172013-09-16T16:46:22.615-07:002013-09-16T16:46:22.615-07:00The idea has been put forth in these comments to k...The idea has been put forth in these comments to keep the SSBNs and let the land and air legs of the triad go. I'm not arguing for or against that - I just don't know enough - but here's a related thought:<br /><br />If I understand it correctly, it appears that we have 450 land silos. By comparison, when the new SSBN enters service we'll have 12 submarines. At any given moment, around a third (4) are on patrol and available. If we were to abandon the land and air legs, that's a lot of risk riding on 4 (or 12 total) subs. Could an enterprising enemy (China) kill 4 subs? Would that be easier than destroying 450 dispersed silos? Just thinking out loud.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25799941448267267492013-09-16T15:32:55.573-07:002013-09-16T15:32:55.573-07:00Minuteman 3s are expected to be in service till 20...Minuteman 3s are expected to be in service till 2030*.TheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33485585703426851122013-09-16T15:31:38.916-07:002013-09-16T15:31:38.916-07:00Silos and the missiles in them are pretty inexpens...Silos and the missiles in them are pretty inexpensive to maintain once setup. However, new construction of missiles and silos would be a crushing expense. The Peacekeeper missiles we built in the 80s and 90s to replace the Minuteman 3 cost $70-80 million for each missile, with total costs running around $400 million to get it in the ground and operational. You can do the math on what a modern replacement might run... <br /><br />TheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11002159590050420332013-09-16T15:30:16.166-07:002013-09-16T15:30:16.166-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63764676661123588262013-09-16T14:56:47.960-07:002013-09-16T14:56:47.960-07:00The U.S. maintains about 400 nuclear gravity bombs...The U.S. maintains about 400 nuclear gravity bombs capable of use by F-15, F-16, and F-35. Some 350 of these bombs are deployed at seven airbases in six European NATO countries; of these, 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs fall under a nuclear sharing arrangement.<br /><br /> I got this information from wiki, but it seems right under START II. As for the naval ships, they don't give us much to go with on those.TheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4758851760421702732013-09-16T10:45:01.393-07:002013-09-16T10:45:01.393-07:00TR, I don't follow nuke issues closely. Do we...TR, I don't follow nuke issues closely. Do we still officially maintain a tactical nuclear capability? I was under the vague impression that we abandoned that though we may still have weapons in storage. Similarly, my impression is that we don't have tactical nukes on any ships.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1199887512908834472013-09-16T10:29:29.697-07:002013-09-16T10:29:29.697-07:00Jim, that's an interesting twist on the author...Jim, that's an interesting twist on the author's premise. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to even have an intelligent opinion. Good thought, though!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81533867977361582252013-09-16T10:26:48.321-07:002013-09-16T10:26:48.321-07:00Tom, your point about the nuclear umbrella is exce...Tom, your point about the nuclear umbrella is excellent. As you say, and others have pointed out, if we drop our nuclear shield below a critical threshold we may well trigger a nuclear arms race by friends and foes seeking to fill the vacuum for their own protection or more nefarious reasons. <br /><br />Is the mere existence of our nuclear arms preventing a widespread nuclear arms race? An interesting thought!<br /><br />Good comment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5372451507625330452013-09-16T10:16:11.369-07:002013-09-16T10:16:11.369-07:00I am unsure of the difference in accuracy between ...I am unsure of the difference in accuracy between the land-based Minteman III missiles and the Trident D5 missiles, but if the difference is negligible, then the Ohio-replacement program is a better bet in the long run than the land-based missiles are, given its mobility and stealth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com