I recall when the items that "we can neither confirm nor deny" were removed from the carriers. The CO's who had to drop them immediately shredded their PRP (personnel responsibilityy programm) documents and all related documents associated with the program...just in case the message was issued in error. A lot of high 5's in their ready rooms...an aweful lot of CO's relieved in those days ouut of a special weapons inspection discrepancy. If they didn't have the documents, nobody could inspect them.
The money those programs cost would be much better spent on conventional arms for stand off delivery, mines and subs to take the fight to the enemy, instead of vice versa.
With the amount of imperial hubris generated on both sides of the political spectrum, and from the academic "smartest people in the room", from mass media squealing in glee they have another story, from POL-MIL-NATSEC Influencers generating more monetizable content, and not from the American people, who just don't DGAF anymore....... we deserve to get our asses kicked by the ChiComs.......... le sigh.......
“ChiComs”…THANK you! (You paying attention, Sal? “People’s Republic of China” is Orwellian bullshit. You don’t have to play along. Now, if you want to call ‘em the “PRiCks”, I think we can work with that)
What does this word really mean (existential)? One of the most overrated and over hyped and over used words.
My interpretation is that it makes politicians look better than they actually are, or smarter than they actually are and it loses value when someone like Sal uses it properly.
Airtight...hardly. MM's case reflects a poor understanding of the value of the triad's air breathing leg. It is the most flexible leg, and it enhances conventional as well as nuclear deterrence. A two-for-one deal. All three legs have their unique advantages, it's the combination that counts.
Land based ICBMs are cheaper to build and (especially!) maintain than SLBMs. Do we need 400+ ICBMs? Probably not, but as we replace the Minuteman with the Sentinal we could make "dummy" silos to soak up enemy hits.
Yes, the "use them or lose them" dynamic applies IF a massive strike is incoming. But that scenario is not a given.
The dynamics of nuclear war are unknowable. Flexible options should include a land based component.
I find your comments on military preparedness on point and well reasoned, and am curious: what advice would you give to Canada, whose armed forces are in pathetic shape? I mean, other than the obvious stuff like, stop letting the Chinese Army practice winter manoeuvres in Canada’s arctic. We had soldiers deployed to Latvia last year without any mess capability- they had to buy their own food on deployment, while still supporting their families back home on their meagre pay. We have no tanks or planes, our submarines spend more time in drydock than on patrol, and our shipbuilding programs are all years behind schedule and way over budget.
Well, the rest of the Commonwealth could help... well that's not going to happen! If I had to guess, go all in on the Artic. Get the necessary icebreakers and ice resistant hulls, train Army and Air Force heavily in Artic ops, and have a capacity the US lacks enough of.
The book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" should be on the read list for anyone interested in this topic. At the very least listen to the Hardcore History Addendum podcast where the author is interviewed.
The book is a riveting read, and explains modern systems (as recent as 2024) without being dry. Takes the idea of nuclear war from detatched scientific theory to the heavy reality the subject deserves. Highly recommend
What need are millions of sea and air and anti missile / anti sat drones. We have a gazillion 500# bombs. If we had a gazillion drones set to deliver 100 500#ers on any target that target would be combat ineffective. Now move those 500# bombs to water/sewer/power/comms nodes and voila. Civilization as we or they know it ends. Both ends of that stream of drones need to be addressed.
Send 50 drones in multiple waves with 500# at a CVBG and inside 12 hours it’s either combat ineffective or pushed back outside drone range it doesn’t matter.
Missile defense is not about saving lives but saving enough infrastructure and firepower for a second retaliatory strike., especially for nuclear warfare.
Tangent: "In the course of a single day to a work week, a global nuclear exchange will take place, and the center of human civilization will recenter to the Southern Hemisphere."
This was actually the backstory to H. Beam Piper's Terro-Human Future History stories. The Cold War turned hot, and once it was all over the dominant powers were Brazil, Australia, and South Africa, and even hundreds of years after the fact, when humanity had gone to the stars, the Northern Hemisphere was still the domain of horse-mounted barbarians.
The current Minuteman III, LGM-30G is long in the tooth having come on line in the early 70s. In theory it will start being replaced this decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Replacement I would not hold my breath on that though.
In the meantime the USAF holds it together with much effort and slowly dwindling 60s tech. That said, they pull an active duty missile from a silo to send to Vandenberg once a year from each of the 3 ICBM wings. Missile is downloaded to the test silo by an active duty crew from the wing tapped. SFAIK, they have never had a failure. Politics induced delay, but never a failure to launch.
There was unreasonable optimism about the physical infrastructure, like the actual missile silos. A geotech engineer had a talk about this and basically said that the odds of a 50+ year-old buried structure being reusable is not great. And that is apparently what they found.
And the missile itself is also grossly overruning the budget.
What I have heard doesn't imply there is problems with the structures. The plant itself is another issue. If useable, the silos should be stripped to parade rest and completely refurnished with modern gear. No idea if that was programmed or if the plan was to continue to use 60 year old tech.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles that are also conventionally capable present the risk of a nuclear response to a pending conventional attack that is perceived to be a nuclear attack.
Fully funding the B-21 makes more sense because we have standard air dropped nuclear bombs.
I think we need to reconsider the new Sentinel ICBM as well. I think it would make more sense eliminate ICBMs entirely and put more spending into ballistic missile defense.
We are at a point where we should be pursuing significant nuclear arms reductions.
Putin's Oreshnick ICBM is even more destabilizing with MRIVs.
Funding a mobile Midgetman single warhead ICBM that can be launched from Typhon or existing Virginia class submarine launch tube is a better deal for second retaliatory strike.
The Sentinel ICBM program cost has ballooned and delivery delayed(what's new?).
Some of my random thoughts in no particular order are:
1. Why don't the USAF dig and build the the first batch of launch complexes for Sentinel in some new territory like Alaska where there's plenty of land while waiting to refurbish some old silos in the US mainland. This will get the program off the ground faster and perhaps save a few billions.
2. Maybe US Army and US Navy should look at the development of a small, single-warhead Midgetman ICBM capable of being launched from land mobile platforms(like Typhon) and Virginia attack sub launch tubes.
This will greatly multiply the US second strike capability using existing platforms.
3. Reintroduce a new generation of air bust sub-kiloton nuclear EMP ammunition similar to GENIE AIR-2 against drone swarms
I recall when the items that "we can neither confirm nor deny" were removed from the carriers. The CO's who had to drop them immediately shredded their PRP (personnel responsibilityy programm) documents and all related documents associated with the program...just in case the message was issued in error. A lot of high 5's in their ready rooms...an aweful lot of CO's relieved in those days ouut of a special weapons inspection discrepancy. If they didn't have the documents, nobody could inspect them.
The money those programs cost would be much better spent on conventional arms for stand off delivery, mines and subs to take the fight to the enemy, instead of vice versa.
With the amount of imperial hubris generated on both sides of the political spectrum, and from the academic "smartest people in the room", from mass media squealing in glee they have another story, from POL-MIL-NATSEC Influencers generating more monetizable content, and not from the American people, who just don't DGAF anymore....... we deserve to get our asses kicked by the ChiComs.......... le sigh.......
“ChiComs”…THANK you! (You paying attention, Sal? “People’s Republic of China” is Orwellian bullshit. You don’t have to play along. Now, if you want to call ‘em the “PRiCks”, I think we can work with that)
But, NUCWEPS inspections are so much fun, can we at least keep DNSI inspections?!?!?
I have removed all Long-Range Stand-off Missiles from my stockpile and have replaced them with Houthis.
What does this word really mean (existential)? One of the most overrated and over hyped and over used words.
My interpretation is that it makes politicians look better than they actually are, or smarter than they actually are and it loses value when someone like Sal uses it properly.
Airtight...hardly. MM's case reflects a poor understanding of the value of the triad's air breathing leg. It is the most flexible leg, and it enhances conventional as well as nuclear deterrence. A two-for-one deal. All three legs have their unique advantages, it's the combination that counts.
Get rid of the land-based ICBMs first, they create a "use them or lose them" dynamic.
Why make the Great Plains a nuke sink?
There have been a few false alarms, Murphy's Law means some day someone's going to pull the trigger.
In the case of a nuclear threat, you can put bombers in the air with LRSOs and they can loiter until the truth is known.
Subs of course are the best.
Land based ICBMs are cheaper to build and (especially!) maintain than SLBMs. Do we need 400+ ICBMs? Probably not, but as we replace the Minuteman with the Sentinal we could make "dummy" silos to soak up enemy hits.
Yes, the "use them or lose them" dynamic applies IF a massive strike is incoming. But that scenario is not a given.
The dynamics of nuclear war are unknowable. Flexible options should include a land based component.
"...which is usually the smart bet..." Love it. yeah.
I find your comments on military preparedness on point and well reasoned, and am curious: what advice would you give to Canada, whose armed forces are in pathetic shape? I mean, other than the obvious stuff like, stop letting the Chinese Army practice winter manoeuvres in Canada’s arctic. We had soldiers deployed to Latvia last year without any mess capability- they had to buy their own food on deployment, while still supporting their families back home on their meagre pay. We have no tanks or planes, our submarines spend more time in drydock than on patrol, and our shipbuilding programs are all years behind schedule and way over budget.
Well, the rest of the Commonwealth could help... well that's not going to happen! If I had to guess, go all in on the Artic. Get the necessary icebreakers and ice resistant hulls, train Army and Air Force heavily in Artic ops, and have a capacity the US lacks enough of.
agree. be best at something
Which used to be a NATO thing.
Now it seems to be: Suck at Everything.
"what advice would you give to Canada.....?"
The seem thing all countries currently seem to lack, rational leadership unemcumbered by advice from Ivory Tower academics who operate in theory.
Well, when I served on exchange at HMCS Stadacona, the RCN was very professional and competent. Of course there were still Tribals in commission then.
The book "Nuclear War: A Scenario" should be on the read list for anyone interested in this topic. At the very least listen to the Hardcore History Addendum podcast where the author is interviewed.
The book is a riveting read, and explains modern systems (as recent as 2024) without being dry. Takes the idea of nuclear war from detatched scientific theory to the heavy reality the subject deserves. Highly recommend
What need are millions of sea and air and anti missile / anti sat drones. We have a gazillion 500# bombs. If we had a gazillion drones set to deliver 100 500#ers on any target that target would be combat ineffective. Now move those 500# bombs to water/sewer/power/comms nodes and voila. Civilization as we or they know it ends. Both ends of that stream of drones need to be addressed.
Send 50 drones in multiple waves with 500# at a CVBG and inside 12 hours it’s either combat ineffective or pushed back outside drone range it doesn’t matter.
Missile defense is not about saving lives but saving enough infrastructure and firepower for a second retaliatory strike., especially for nuclear warfare.
Tangent: "In the course of a single day to a work week, a global nuclear exchange will take place, and the center of human civilization will recenter to the Southern Hemisphere."
This was actually the backstory to H. Beam Piper's Terro-Human Future History stories. The Cold War turned hot, and once it was all over the dominant powers were Brazil, Australia, and South Africa, and even hundreds of years after the fact, when humanity had gone to the stars, the Northern Hemisphere was still the domain of horse-mounted barbarians.
CDR, were do we sit in regards to the land and air portions of the triad?
The current Minuteman III, LGM-30G is long in the tooth having come on line in the early 70s. In theory it will start being replaced this decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Replacement I would not hold my breath on that though.
In the meantime the USAF holds it together with much effort and slowly dwindling 60s tech. That said, they pull an active duty missile from a silo to send to Vandenberg once a year from each of the 3 ICBM wings. Missile is downloaded to the test silo by an active duty crew from the wing tapped. SFAIK, they have never had a failure. Politics induced delay, but never a failure to launch.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel
Of particular interest to this discussion is the History section.
There was unreasonable optimism about the physical infrastructure, like the actual missile silos. A geotech engineer had a talk about this and basically said that the odds of a 50+ year-old buried structure being reusable is not great. And that is apparently what they found.
And the missile itself is also grossly overruning the budget.
Had not heard that.
What I have heard doesn't imply there is problems with the structures. The plant itself is another issue. If useable, the silos should be stripped to parade rest and completely refurnished with modern gear. No idea if that was programmed or if the plan was to continue to use 60 year old tech.
I hope you are right.
Ooh, I didn't realise the B21 is a thing (beyond studio pics). Looks awesome.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles that are also conventionally capable present the risk of a nuclear response to a pending conventional attack that is perceived to be a nuclear attack.
Fully funding the B-21 makes more sense because we have standard air dropped nuclear bombs.
I think we need to reconsider the new Sentinel ICBM as well. I think it would make more sense eliminate ICBMs entirely and put more spending into ballistic missile defense.
We are at a point where we should be pursuing significant nuclear arms reductions.
Putin's Oreshnick ICBM is even more destabilizing with MRIVs.
Funding a mobile Midgetman single warhead ICBM that can be launched from Typhon or existing Virginia class submarine launch tube is a better deal for second retaliatory strike.
The Sentinel ICBM program cost has ballooned and delivery delayed(what's new?).
Some of my random thoughts in no particular order are:
1. Why don't the USAF dig and build the the first batch of launch complexes for Sentinel in some new territory like Alaska where there's plenty of land while waiting to refurbish some old silos in the US mainland. This will get the program off the ground faster and perhaps save a few billions.
2. Maybe US Army and US Navy should look at the development of a small, single-warhead Midgetman ICBM capable of being launched from land mobile platforms(like Typhon) and Virginia attack sub launch tubes.
This will greatly multiply the US second strike capability using existing platforms.
3. Reintroduce a new generation of air bust sub-kiloton nuclear EMP ammunition similar to GENIE AIR-2 against drone swarms