I think it would be pretty stupid to put the President in a situation where he would have to face that choice.
The bases actually are all quite isolated from major cities. You could easily hit Bangor with a 20 kiloton warhead and have little to no impact on Seattle or any other major population center.
I think it would be pretty stupid to put the President in a situation where he would have to face that choice.
The bases actually are all quite isolated from major cities. You could easily hit Bangor with a 20 kiloton warhead and have little to no impact on Seattle or any other major population center.
It could certainly escalate after that... but the only thing the US would have left to escalate with is our few surviving SSBNs that were at sea at the time of the strike if we are dumb enough to get rid of our ICBMs.
IIRC Russia does not have had a have single ICBM armed with a warheads of less than 100kt and SLBM of less than 50kt and they are mostly MIRVs. and while the people of Seattle might be spared most of the effects the blast you can't say the same about radiation/fallout.
How they arm and use their missiles today doesn't matter - the question is how they arm their missiles and how they use them in a future where we give up all of our ICBMs and make ourselves vulnerable to such a small attack.
Go ahead and look at the fallout cone for a 25 KT airburst on the Delta Pier in Bangor - Seattle is spared completely.
Exactly what we need to avoid. Sustaining a robust triad - including our prompt & stabilizing ICBMs is a key part of that.
Increasing our tactical nuclear capabilities to deny Russia and China the perception of an advantage at low levels of escalation is also a key part. The W76-2 on D5 helps with that but we need more. We got rid of too much after the cold war ended. Our zeal to reduce the size of our arsenal wasn't match by Russia and now China is rapidly expanding theirs.
I maintain that bombers and SLBM are enough,. No need to make targets of our food production regions by placing nukes there. I would also add that none of the ICBMs are equipped with low yield tactical warheads to allow for the limited response you seem to think is feasible. If anything it is the bombers that would be the most easily to provide for that.
We know the Triad works to prevent large scale nuclear war. The risky and borderline insane strategy of inviting a first strike by eliminating the stabilizing influence that our ICBMs have provided for over 50 years and reducing ourselves to 5 relatively soft and easy to destroy targets is a terrible way to try to save a few dollars. We lost far more to Earned Income Tax Credit fraud every year than we spend on ICBMs.
They know exactly where our soft and easily destroyed bomber and SSBN bases are. Without repair or support facilities or spare parts the few surviving at-sea SSBNs will slowly wither and die.
It's amusing that you think any single nuclear use would result in the end of the world. Then again considering you think our ICBMs carry 300 megaton warheads I can understand why this is confusing for you.
Also, your math doesn't make any sense. SSBNs can't each hold 240 warheads - the most they can hold is 160 (20x8). And even then they are never fully loaded since that reduces the range/footprint too much. Right now, according to our own public New START data releases we (at least in Dec 2020) had 1457 warheads broken down by: 397 ICBM warheads, 48 bombers (which each count as 1 warhead), and then 1012 SLBM warheads spread around 230 SLBMs --- an average loading of 4.4 warheads per SLBM. (Source: https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty-aggregate-numbers-of-strategic-offensive-arms-15/ )
According to the internet a D-5 can hold up 12 W-76/W-88 MIRVS 20x12+240
B-52s can carry at least six nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Either way the math does not work in favor your idea of limited response with an ICBM. In your scenario arguing in favor of keeping them would have the President respond to a 20-25 megaton strike on Bangor with a 300+ megaton ICBM (per missile) counter strike.
The internet is wrong - only 8 has ever been tested and they are actually loaded with far less than that as the New START numbers show.
Now - I said a 20 KT strike on Bangor not a 20 MT. Also, the whole point is the president WOULDN'T be put in a "use or lose" scenario if attacked by only 5 small warheads BECAUSE we still have hundreds of ICBMs.
Also, our ICBMs don't carry 300 MT eachs. That is just nonsense.
Also, just because ICBMs don't deter tactical nuclear use doesn't mean they aren't useful at deterring large scale nuclear exchanges. Those 450 hard targets, and over 500 more at the height of the cold war, have been in the midst of our food production region for over 50 years.
I think it would be pretty stupid to put the President in a situation where he would have to face that choice.
The bases actually are all quite isolated from major cities. You could easily hit Bangor with a 20 kiloton warhead and have little to no impact on Seattle or any other major population center.
It could certainly escalate after that... but the only thing the US would have left to escalate with is our few surviving SSBNs that were at sea at the time of the strike if we are dumb enough to get rid of our ICBMs.
IIRC Russia does not have had a have single ICBM armed with a warheads of less than 100kt and SLBM of less than 50kt and they are mostly MIRVs. and while the people of Seattle might be spared most of the effects the blast you can't say the same about radiation/fallout.
How they arm and use their missiles today doesn't matter - the question is how they arm their missiles and how they use them in a future where we give up all of our ICBMs and make ourselves vulnerable to such a small attack.
Go ahead and look at the fallout cone for a 25 KT airburst on the Delta Pier in Bangor - Seattle is spared completely.
https://youtu.be/EcK6ad_t9ak
Exactly what we need to avoid. Sustaining a robust triad - including our prompt & stabilizing ICBMs is a key part of that.
Increasing our tactical nuclear capabilities to deny Russia and China the perception of an advantage at low levels of escalation is also a key part. The W76-2 on D5 helps with that but we need more. We got rid of too much after the cold war ended. Our zeal to reduce the size of our arsenal wasn't match by Russia and now China is rapidly expanding theirs.
I maintain that bombers and SLBM are enough,. No need to make targets of our food production regions by placing nukes there. I would also add that none of the ICBMs are equipped with low yield tactical warheads to allow for the limited response you seem to think is feasible. If anything it is the bombers that would be the most easily to provide for that.
We know the Triad works to prevent large scale nuclear war. The risky and borderline insane strategy of inviting a first strike by eliminating the stabilizing influence that our ICBMs have provided for over 50 years and reducing ourselves to 5 relatively soft and easy to destroy targets is a terrible way to try to save a few dollars. We lost far more to Earned Income Tax Credit fraud every year than we spend on ICBMs.
You have to find them first to destroy them. They know were the missile silos are. 5 with up to 240 warheads (MIRV) each sounds pretty good to me.
They know exactly where our soft and easily destroyed bomber and SSBN bases are. Without repair or support facilities or spare parts the few surviving at-sea SSBNs will slowly wither and die.
It is amusing that you think there will any repairing and supporting going on once nukes start to get thrown around
It's amusing that you think any single nuclear use would result in the end of the world. Then again considering you think our ICBMs carry 300 megaton warheads I can understand why this is confusing for you.
Also, your math doesn't make any sense. SSBNs can't each hold 240 warheads - the most they can hold is 160 (20x8). And even then they are never fully loaded since that reduces the range/footprint too much. Right now, according to our own public New START data releases we (at least in Dec 2020) had 1457 warheads broken down by: 397 ICBM warheads, 48 bombers (which each count as 1 warhead), and then 1012 SLBM warheads spread around 230 SLBMs --- an average loading of 4.4 warheads per SLBM. (Source: https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty-aggregate-numbers-of-strategic-offensive-arms-15/ )
Our latest data release in May 2023 doesn't break it down to that extent but we sitting at (as of March 2023): 1419 total warheads on 662 total launchers. (Source: https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty-aggregate-numbers-of-strategic-offensive-arms-5/ )
According to the internet a D-5 can hold up 12 W-76/W-88 MIRVS 20x12+240
B-52s can carry at least six nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Either way the math does not work in favor your idea of limited response with an ICBM. In your scenario arguing in favor of keeping them would have the President respond to a 20-25 megaton strike on Bangor with a 300+ megaton ICBM (per missile) counter strike.
The internet is wrong - only 8 has ever been tested and they are actually loaded with far less than that as the New START numbers show.
Now - I said a 20 KT strike on Bangor not a 20 MT. Also, the whole point is the president WOULDN'T be put in a "use or lose" scenario if attacked by only 5 small warheads BECAUSE we still have hundreds of ICBMs.
Also, our ICBMs don't carry 300 MT eachs. That is just nonsense.
Also, just because ICBMs don't deter tactical nuclear use doesn't mean they aren't useful at deterring large scale nuclear exchanges. Those 450 hard targets, and over 500 more at the height of the cold war, have been in the midst of our food production region for over 50 years.