Quite agree . This program proposal has no particular merit that I can see: It would not actually contribute to deterrence, and would add immensely (says this veteran of numerous NWAIs) to the administrative burdens afloat. It would not, as you say, be even tactically useful. This is not the Pershing system of old afloat.
SLCM-N belongs on the same list as Davy Crockett, Atomic Annie, AIR-2 Genie and the Special Atomic Demolition Munition or, the nuclear land mine. Interesting ideas from a bygone era but not very practical or, useful.
Just the certifying, inspecting and overall security surrounding the unit(s) dealing with such is a massive headache.
One of the approaches that I dislike about CRS reports is that they don't name names. X Administration this, Y Administration that. People are policy. There are individuals or groups of individuals in the NatSec community and Defense Contractor lobbyists that are pushing this tradeoff for that. I want names so that I can see for myself which individuals(s) are pushing policies and proposing expenditures that I agree with and who are railing against them.
There is a more pressing need. The 'MAD' strategy (which you refer to) is dissolving right in front of our eyes. Russia, (soon China), and other countries have or are developing hypersonic nuclear warhead capable systems. It is not just what our feckless leadership thinks, it is what our adversary leadership thinks. So we need to develop a 'NIKE-2.0' defense system. Israel has a near proximity defense system that works well. We have nothing. The US has the best detect, evaluate, alert notifcation system of any country. However, once our military and civilian leaders are notified of an incoming strike, the next step is unavailable - no defense systems available. The original Nike systems used liquid fueled 50 mile range missiles and we had rings of launchers around major cities. When our 'experts' determined that MAD would make these irrelevant, we decommissioned them (we still have fallout from yhose decommed sites - I had a contract to pump toxic groundwater out of empty NIKE missile coffins in my last job that is still in place to date). But we have the technology to easily develop and field 200 to 400 mile defensive solid fuel rockets that can again be placed around sensitive military and civilian concentration areas. Yes, exploding an incoming warhead in the low stratosphere still discahrges huge amounts of radioactivity. But it would negate the low altitude blast that results in a heat funnel pulling vast amounts of radioactive debris into the higher stratosphere. There are two staregic reasons why this defensive system isn't being developed - a) it would spur an immediate acceleration of increasing the warhead inventories of our adversaries to overcome this new development (so instead of targeting 5 megaton warheads per city target they would assign 10 or 15 warheads per target), and b) it would raise our vulnerability to the entire population and scare the living daylights out of our politicians (essentially fear would prevail to defeat this proposal). And there are plenty of 'experts' who still think MAD is our supreme defensive strategy. With the proliferation of nuclear wahead technology in high gear, defeating a single incoming nucear ICBM is becoming a strategic reality. Tunnelvision thinking will lead to our defeat and demise. My background is both classified and diverse. I hold MS, MA, MBA, BBA degrees. I have been with the CIA, DIA, and NSA as well as SOCCOM along with 11 and a half years underway on four now decommissioned Navy surface combatants (out of 28.5 years active duty).
Right with you on this one. Heap of money at the entirely wrong capability. Good conventional shock an awe backed up by and I will end you potential. If we have to spend more on anything nuke spend it on nuclear power and nuclear propulsion.
SLCM-N or new gym clothes for the Army? New gym clothes for the Army is way ahead of that and the gym clothes is currently near last on my priority list. We are insane, not particular about the nukes, which these people are, but about the fact that there is not enough money to do what we really need and they want to spend on this type of nonsense.
What makes you believe that any use of nuclear weapons will automatically lead to a full-scale, all out nuclear exchange? I've read that nuclear war was narrowly averted when a Russian submarine captain during the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962 came close to using a nuclear torpedo to sink a U.S. Navy destroyer that was harassing him. Question: Why would sinking a U. S. warship with a nuclear torpedo be any more serious than sinking it with a conventional torpedo? It certainly wouldn't warrant launching a nuclear strike on Russia. Suppose Israel decides to put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions with an earth-penetrating nuke strike against its underground facilities. Would Russia and/or China be obligated to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on Israel? Or the U.S.? Think about how you fight a war. Bombing cities and killing civilians has never been effective. You win by destroying the military capability of your enemy. Relatively small nukes are good at that -- the SSBN I served on in the 1970s carried 160 40 Kiloton warheads -- 16 missiles, with 10 MIRV warheads each. All our targets were USSR military assets. So I think your base assumption is probably wrong -- but still, you're probably right that we really don't need a SLCM-N for all the reasons you state.
Underwater nuclear detonation, if in relatively shallow water, makes aboveground detonation seem positively clean by comparison. We saw this in tests, which is why we quickly stopped testing that way.
"...killing civilians has never been effective. You win by destroying the military capability of your enemy."
Killing non-combatants and destruction of infrastructure has always been effective. Non-combatants are the ones producing materiale bellico that supports the war efforts. Cities and towns are nodes in transportation networks used for moving supplies. It has always been thus.
“One of my biggest concerns is that we would be giving up something we really need for something we are unlikely to use,” Kelly said, referring to the possibility that the missile would displace conventional munitions aboard Navy attack submarines.
Says it all - we must separate from the sheep. Our needs are conventional... and the problems we face require conventional solutions. The nuclear deterrent is important, and necessary, and the maintenance and upgrades to bombers and subs are critical... but this ain't it. Thousands of SMs and hypersonic and drones... please. Money much better spent. Nice to see the one thing Biden gets right...
You convinced me. I had thought the Biden Administration's cancellation of the SLCM-N program had been a mistake. Given the availability of other "dial-a-yield" weapons deliverable by bomber, there is little need for expensive, slow and vulnerable SLCM. Also, as you pointed out, it would take up valuable magazine space needed for conventional offensive and defensive weapons.
$2.1 billion over 5 years. Call it a 1,000 TLAM for that money. Definitely more useful than the nukes.
Con: we won't have the beginning of The Last Ship.
Quite agree . This program proposal has no particular merit that I can see: It would not actually contribute to deterrence, and would add immensely (says this veteran of numerous NWAIs) to the administrative burdens afloat. It would not, as you say, be even tactically useful. This is not the Pershing system of old afloat.
Not just NO,
HELL NO!
If there is any compelling argument for this weapon simply buy the technology from the Israelis who already have these weapons.
Of course no dollars for our contractors so the issue will go away.
Agreed. We have other, much more pressing, needs.
SLCM-N belongs on the same list as Davy Crockett, Atomic Annie, AIR-2 Genie and the Special Atomic Demolition Munition or, the nuclear land mine. Interesting ideas from a bygone era but not very practical or, useful.
Just the certifying, inspecting and overall security surrounding the unit(s) dealing with such is a massive headache.
One of the approaches that I dislike about CRS reports is that they don't name names. X Administration this, Y Administration that. People are policy. There are individuals or groups of individuals in the NatSec community and Defense Contractor lobbyists that are pushing this tradeoff for that. I want names so that I can see for myself which individuals(s) are pushing policies and proposing expenditures that I agree with and who are railing against them.
I was reading Sal's description about Milley and I immediately thought, and Sal immediately wrote,
"As a general rule, if Milley thinks something is a good idea, it is actually a bad idea." I'm glad that we're on the same page about him.
I was prepped to come to the comments to say that, then hit Sal's line. 🤣
"First time..."? 😃
There is a more pressing need. The 'MAD' strategy (which you refer to) is dissolving right in front of our eyes. Russia, (soon China), and other countries have or are developing hypersonic nuclear warhead capable systems. It is not just what our feckless leadership thinks, it is what our adversary leadership thinks. So we need to develop a 'NIKE-2.0' defense system. Israel has a near proximity defense system that works well. We have nothing. The US has the best detect, evaluate, alert notifcation system of any country. However, once our military and civilian leaders are notified of an incoming strike, the next step is unavailable - no defense systems available. The original Nike systems used liquid fueled 50 mile range missiles and we had rings of launchers around major cities. When our 'experts' determined that MAD would make these irrelevant, we decommissioned them (we still have fallout from yhose decommed sites - I had a contract to pump toxic groundwater out of empty NIKE missile coffins in my last job that is still in place to date). But we have the technology to easily develop and field 200 to 400 mile defensive solid fuel rockets that can again be placed around sensitive military and civilian concentration areas. Yes, exploding an incoming warhead in the low stratosphere still discahrges huge amounts of radioactivity. But it would negate the low altitude blast that results in a heat funnel pulling vast amounts of radioactive debris into the higher stratosphere. There are two staregic reasons why this defensive system isn't being developed - a) it would spur an immediate acceleration of increasing the warhead inventories of our adversaries to overcome this new development (so instead of targeting 5 megaton warheads per city target they would assign 10 or 15 warheads per target), and b) it would raise our vulnerability to the entire population and scare the living daylights out of our politicians (essentially fear would prevail to defeat this proposal). And there are plenty of 'experts' who still think MAD is our supreme defensive strategy. With the proliferation of nuclear wahead technology in high gear, defeating a single incoming nucear ICBM is becoming a strategic reality. Tunnelvision thinking will lead to our defeat and demise. My background is both classified and diverse. I hold MS, MA, MBA, BBA degrees. I have been with the CIA, DIA, and NSA as well as SOCCOM along with 11 and a half years underway on four now decommissioned Navy surface combatants (out of 28.5 years active duty).
Right with you on this one. Heap of money at the entirely wrong capability. Good conventional shock an awe backed up by and I will end you potential. If we have to spend more on anything nuke spend it on nuclear power and nuclear propulsion.
SLCM-N or new gym clothes for the Army? New gym clothes for the Army is way ahead of that and the gym clothes is currently near last on my priority list. We are insane, not particular about the nukes, which these people are, but about the fact that there is not enough money to do what we really need and they want to spend on this type of nonsense.
What doesn't happen makes possible what does. Tell me what you don't want in order to have what you do.
What makes you believe that any use of nuclear weapons will automatically lead to a full-scale, all out nuclear exchange? I've read that nuclear war was narrowly averted when a Russian submarine captain during the Cuban Missile Crises in 1962 came close to using a nuclear torpedo to sink a U.S. Navy destroyer that was harassing him. Question: Why would sinking a U. S. warship with a nuclear torpedo be any more serious than sinking it with a conventional torpedo? It certainly wouldn't warrant launching a nuclear strike on Russia. Suppose Israel decides to put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions with an earth-penetrating nuke strike against its underground facilities. Would Russia and/or China be obligated to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on Israel? Or the U.S.? Think about how you fight a war. Bombing cities and killing civilians has never been effective. You win by destroying the military capability of your enemy. Relatively small nukes are good at that -- the SSBN I served on in the 1970s carried 160 40 Kiloton warheads -- 16 missiles, with 10 MIRV warheads each. All our targets were USSR military assets. So I think your base assumption is probably wrong -- but still, you're probably right that we really don't need a SLCM-N for all the reasons you state.
Underwater nuclear detonation, if in relatively shallow water, makes aboveground detonation seem positively clean by comparison. We saw this in tests, which is why we quickly stopped testing that way.
"...killing civilians has never been effective. You win by destroying the military capability of your enemy."
Killing non-combatants and destruction of infrastructure has always been effective. Non-combatants are the ones producing materiale bellico that supports the war efforts. Cities and towns are nodes in transportation networks used for moving supplies. It has always been thus.
^ On target. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Even Carthage.
“One of my biggest concerns is that we would be giving up something we really need for something we are unlikely to use,” Kelly said, referring to the possibility that the missile would displace conventional munitions aboard Navy attack submarines.
Says it all - we must separate from the sheep. Our needs are conventional... and the problems we face require conventional solutions. The nuclear deterrent is important, and necessary, and the maintenance and upgrades to bombers and subs are critical... but this ain't it. Thousands of SMs and hypersonic and drones... please. Money much better spent. Nice to see the one thing Biden gets right...
You convinced me. I had thought the Biden Administration's cancellation of the SLCM-N program had been a mistake. Given the availability of other "dial-a-yield" weapons deliverable by bomber, there is little need for expensive, slow and vulnerable SLCM. Also, as you pointed out, it would take up valuable magazine space needed for conventional offensive and defensive weapons.