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 w…
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.
Even if it is only 8, that is 8 x 20 x 5=800 at sea plus not courting what the Air Force gets air. You are going to argue that is not enough? You limited tactical nuke war is as crazy as the Army telling troops not worry about a nuclear battlefield in their aluminum battel taxi in MOPP-4
Though your assumption that only 5 are at sea is also a poor one. Look at the satellite photos of Kings Bay and Bangor sometime and count the boats.
Any nuclear war is crazy --- but so is the idea of inviting a nuclear strike by doing away with ICBMs and incentivizing an adversary to strike early to destroy everything we have that isn't actively at-sea at the time.
The idea is to never put the President in a position where they have to choose to respond to an attack on the US with only 5 tactical nukes with a full all out attack by our surviving nuclear forces.
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.
Even if it is only 8, that is 8 x 20 x 5=800 at sea plus not courting what the Air Force gets air. You are going to argue that is not enough? You limited tactical nuke war is as crazy as the Army telling troops not worry about a nuclear battlefield in their aluminum battel taxi in MOPP-4
But again it isn't 8 - it's an average of 4.4.
Though your assumption that only 5 are at sea is also a poor one. Look at the satellite photos of Kings Bay and Bangor sometime and count the boats.
Any nuclear war is crazy --- but so is the idea of inviting a nuclear strike by doing away with ICBMs and incentivizing an adversary to strike early to destroy everything we have that isn't actively at-sea at the time.
The idea is to never put the President in a position where they have to choose to respond to an attack on the US with only 5 tactical nukes with a full all out attack by our surviving nuclear forces.