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…
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.
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.