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.
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.
Excuse me Kiloton but still 350 KT significantly more than 20kt and you were not talking just one but 5. Why stop there why not ten or 15 is it no big deal? . Is there going to be some gentlemen's agreement that we won't nuke you more than you nuke us? Good grief.
Again, the issue is about not putting the President in a position where the only choice is to respond with a full launch or nothing after only being hit with 5 small nukes. That is the stability that the ICBMs provide - 450 hardened targets that have to be destroyed.
Without our 450 stabilizing ICBMs we could be attacked by only 5 small warheads and the only surviving element of our nuclear deterrent would be our at-sea SSBNs. Those SSBNs would have no spare parts and no repair crews. The only choice would be to launch a full retaliatory strike while we still have them or to let them slowly wither away and die on the vine.
Everyone knows that they can carry more than one don't be silly. I said under the New START treaty bombers only count as one warhead. That doesn't mean they can only carry one warhead --- it's a simple treaty accountability rule that helps explain the open source data that shows we only carry an average of 4.4 warheads per SLBM.
Oh and obviously there is no missile with 0.4 parts of a warhead on it --- that comes from the math of averaging it out. I just want to make sure it's clear that I understand that before you start claiming to be the only one who understands that too.
Your original contention for keeping the ICBMs was that they give the President a limited response option to 5- 20 Kt nukes. I don't see how a 350 kt ICBM a limited response to a 20kt.
Wrong. Go back and read my actual response --- from the start I have been clear that what ICBMs do is promote stability by providing a large target sink that means any attack against us would have to be massive rather than "them" being able to hit us with just 5 tactical nuclear warheads to destroy our entire nuclear deterrent with the exception of our at-sea SSBNs.
It's all about not putting the president in a position where they have to choose between an all-out response to a very minor attack or nothing as our surviving nuclear deterrent withers away without parts or support.
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.
Excuse me Kiloton but still 350 KT significantly more than 20kt and you were not talking just one but 5. Why stop there why not ten or 15 is it no big deal? . Is there going to be some gentlemen's agreement that we won't nuke you more than you nuke us? Good grief.
Again, the issue is about not putting the President in a position where the only choice is to respond with a full launch or nothing after only being hit with 5 small nukes. That is the stability that the ICBMs provide - 450 hardened targets that have to be destroyed.
Without our 450 stabilizing ICBMs we could be attacked by only 5 small warheads and the only surviving element of our nuclear deterrent would be our at-sea SSBNs. Those SSBNs would have no spare parts and no repair crews. The only choice would be to launch a full retaliatory strike while we still have them or to let them slowly wither away and die on the vine.
On the plus side I new that a B-52 could be equipped with more than one nuke-and standoff missiles.
Everyone knows that they can carry more than one don't be silly. I said under the New START treaty bombers only count as one warhead. That doesn't mean they can only carry one warhead --- it's a simple treaty accountability rule that helps explain the open source data that shows we only carry an average of 4.4 warheads per SLBM.
Oh and obviously there is no missile with 0.4 parts of a warhead on it --- that comes from the math of averaging it out. I just want to make sure it's clear that I understand that before you start claiming to be the only one who understands that too.
Your original contention for keeping the ICBMs was that they give the President a limited response option to 5- 20 Kt nukes. I don't see how a 350 kt ICBM a limited response to a 20kt.
Wrong. Go back and read my actual response --- from the start I have been clear that what ICBMs do is promote stability by providing a large target sink that means any attack against us would have to be massive rather than "them" being able to hit us with just 5 tactical nuclear warheads to destroy our entire nuclear deterrent with the exception of our at-sea SSBNs.
It's all about not putting the president in a position where they have to choose between an all-out response to a very minor attack or nothing as our surviving nuclear deterrent withers away without parts or support.