Could the Nuclear Triad Become a ‘Bi-ad?’

National Defense Magazine ^ | 10/18/2011

[sukhoi-30mki]

Could the Nuclear Triad Become a ‘Bi-ad?’

Now is not the time to discuss removing one leg from the three-legged stool known as the nuclear triad, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said Oct. 18.

“I continue to stand by a need for a triad,” Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler, Stratcom commander, told reporters in Washington, D.C.

The prospects for budget cuts have prompted some pundits to question the need to fund all three parts of the nation’s methods of delivering nuclear weapons — land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and submarines armed with sea-launched missiles.

Wouldn’t it be better to do away with one of the three and make the remaining two more robust rather than to trying to sustain all three? Kehler was asked.

“I will tell you that in the near term that we can sustain a triad. I think there will be interesting questions about both the scope and pace of modernization as we go forward,” he said.

“In that structure, I believe that a triad of force makes the most strategic sense, makes the most operational sense and ultimately is the right way to go forward today,” he said.

Modernizing the forces may include a long-range bomber to replace the aging B-52, he said. But it must include an attack submarine to replace the Ohio-class submarines, which will need to be replaced starting in the late 2020s, he said. Research and development needs to continue, so a replacement is ready by the time the first Ohio-class submarine is ready to retire, he said.

Unlike the B-52, which is entering its sixth decade of service, submarines are subject to extreme pressures underneath the ocean. The metal that encapsulates the crew simply wears out, he noted.

In the distant future, there could be a discussion about eliminating one of the three legs. It will depend on new treaties, the strategic situation the nation finds itself in, “and of course, there is a budgetary dimension to this,” he added.

The question remains whether budget pressures will allow the Defense Department to continue with plans to modernize new platforms such as submarines and long-range bombers.

“Can we in fact spend the resources to modernize all of the triad? Those are not all questions for today,” he said.

He warned about making budgetary decisions that would leave the military less capable of carrying out its nuclear mission. “We can have a hollow nuclear force and we need to be very careful about that. You can have a hollow nuclear force in the industrial base that supports the weapons,” he said.

The Air Force found itself in trouble “ a few years back” because it made some budgetary decisions to fund conventional forces over nuclear forces, Kehler said, referring to an incident where cruise missiles with their warheads still attached were flown on a routine logistics flight over the continental United States.

“You can have a hollow nuclear force just like you can have a hollow conventional force,” Kehler said.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Odd that we’re talking about this under Mr. Obama, who was a “no-nukes” activist as far back as high school, and still is, as far as I can tell. This guy makes President Jimmy Carter and Senator George McGovern look like General Curtis LeMay.

[Mr. Mojo]

In the distant future, there could be a discussion about eliminating one of the three legs.

It would be the land-based ICBMs. But yeah, distant future.

[Jonty30]

I tend to think it might be the bombers, considering that the military is looking at space-based weapons and missiles that can be at any point around the globe in an hour.

I was reading up on those missiles, that if they’re developed, they scare everybody because nobody has anything even close to it.

[mkjessup]

The triad concept has worked for the United States in providing strategic deterrence from the days of the first Polaris sub. IF there is to be any consideration about eliminating one of the 'legs' it would be more logical to remove the land based missile component as was proposed by then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird during the Nixon Administration, his logic was that by removing land based ICBM's from the triad, it eliminated the targets that incoming missiles would have been targeted on, i.e., the Soviets would have no strategic need to target empty farmland which would equate to nearby civilian populations being less likely to be vaporized.

Laird wasn't proposing eliminating the missiles however, he was an early proponent of railroad based Minuteman missiles, although under his original proposal, the land based missiles would be replaced by additional SLBMs on the sea-going leg of the triad, the subs being mobile and underwater would provide greater targeting difficulties for the Soviets (of course this was back in the day when the Soviets had little to zero capability in the field of ASW).

At this point however, we need all the nuclear deterrence possible due to a resurgent Russian (Soviet by any other name) military led by a former KGB guy (aka Putin).

If America were ever to come under attack, the key question is: "is the TOTUS programmed to tell the pOTUS what to do?"

[af_vet_rr]

I tend to think it might be the bombers, considering that the military is looking at space-based weapons and missiles that can be at any point around the globe in an hour.

I was reading up on those missiles, that if they’re developed, they scare everybody because nobody has anything even close to it.

I think in a way we need to retool our thinking on deterrents, because technology is rapidly changing everything, and providing a flexibility that we didn't have in the past. 20 years from now, we could easily have, nuclear capable drone aircraft, very high speed air-launched systems (using the B-52 or its successor as a launch platform), and submarine-launched systems.

The large land-based missile systems we have now, while they provide a deterrent, have a very limited use, and really only concern Russia. We cannot use them against any other country, both because some are designed to go over the pole, and because the moment we launch a missile out of a silo, Russia will shit themselves, and whatever conflict we were involved would get even more complicated. Plus it's a lot easier for a missile launch from a silo to be spotted, either by satellite or people in the area.

Our bigger threats in the next several years require us using means that would not involve traveling over Russian territory. It just so happens that the B-52 is a wonderful, very flexible, launch platform. The Air Force is testing an incredible missile system (Popular Mechanics article) that uses the B-52, and even if that missile, the X-51, doesn't carry a nuclear payload, eventually somebody will come up with a derivative that is nuclear-capable. Either way, the B-52 is one launch platform for two or more incredibly modern missile systems without the headaches involved with silo-based systems. It's a helluva lot harder to spot a missile launch from a B-52 if it's out over the ocean somewhere and the missile is super-fast and stealthy versus a silo-based system. Magnify that by the nuclear-capable drones that are probably being developed. Popular Mechanics or the Air Force Times has run a few articles about drones getting larger and more capable.

Over the past decade, technology has really shaken things up when it comes to talk about such systems. I'm glad I'm retired and am nowhere near any of the planning. Congress has been really muddying the issue of replacement systems and aircraft lately. There is talk of an interim bomber in 2017 or 2018, there is talk of a B-52 replacement somewhere in the 2030s. There is talk of nuclear-capable drones that can reach anywhere around the globe and that provide a standoff capability. There is talk of this or that treaty banning the use of this or that weapon. It's just all over the place. It's compounded by members of Congress, lobbyists, etc. doing everything they can to try to keep current systems in place to keep constituents happy or jobs in place while at the same time trying to sell the most expensive systems they can come up with. Hap Arnold would not last 5 minutes at the top of today's Air Force - he'd be sitting in prison for murdering one or more members or Congress and lobbyists, or would have died of a heart attack from rage.

At some point we are going to have to come up with a replacement for what's sitting in our silos, and with these super-fast missile systems that are in development or being proposed, the deterrent factor will be huge, since enemies would have much less time to take action before they are hit.

[edpc]

Unlike the B-52, which is entering its sixth decade of service, submarines are subject to extreme pressures underneath the ocean. The metal that encapsulates the crew simply wears out, he noted.

Apparently, he's never heard of metal fatigue on airframes or taken a look at the skin of the B-52 on display at the AF Museum in Dayton, OH. It's noticably buckled and wrinkled in places due to being pressurized and depressurized. Same thing happens to airliners.

[ClearCase_guy]

I don't want to re-fight "the last war" -- not to mention one from 70 years ago, but perhaps Hitler's biggest mistake was starting WWII when he didn't have heavy bombers. We had heavy bombers and we pounded the crap out of him.

The B-52 and the B-1 and B-2 can do major damage, whether it be nuclear or non-nuclear. If we were to decide that we don't need that capability (hey, we've got subs!) then I think we would lose a lot more than just a leg in the nuclear triad.

[Flintlock]

Nazis built lotsa little bombers because as Goering said “The Fuhrer only asks how many bombers we have....not how big they are”.

My problem here with ANY major cuts is as LeMay always said`—”The bombers will always get through.”

[teacherwoes]

If we lose one of the legs of the triad I guess we could always outsource that leg to China /s

[ASA Vet]

Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird during the Nixon Administration, his logic was that by removing land based ICBM's from the triad, it eliminated the empty targets that incoming missiles would have been targeted on

Thereby freeing up those Soviet ICBM's to hit major population centers.

[rbg81]

My problem here with ANY major cuts is as LeMay always said`—”The bombers will always get through.”

---

I’m not sure that’s true anymore. Modern Russian SAMS are very hard to beat.

[SampleMan]

Thereby freeing up those Soviet ICBM's to hit major population centers.

The only thing that was going to be in those ICBM silos by the time that the Soviet missiles arrived was air.

The Soviets always targeted our major population centers. Colateral damage from nukes hitting North Dakota, norther Maine, etc. would have been small potatoes by comparison.

I'm all for replacing the triad with a pentad. Placing some nukes in perpetual hover over Iran and Mecca, with dead man switches in every major U.S. city.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Bombers offer a big advantage in cost effectiveness-you can launch more standoff munitions (JDAM or cruise missile) in one sortie than to launch multiple sorties of tactical aircraft or strikes from warships.

[ASA Vet]

The only thing that was going to be in those ICBM silos by the time that the Soviet missiles arrived was air.

That is the reason I added the empty

You're correct, the majority of Soviet targets were our population centers.

Even the medium size Michigan city I live near was allocated 3 warheads. The Soviets saw what the industrial strength of the US could do in WW-II so bye bye to the three GM plants, and the people who worked there.

[The Great RJ]

Imagine a railroad based ICBM being carted around by Amtrak... scary thought.

[Tallguy]

Unlike the B-52, which is entering its sixth decade of service, submarines are subject to extreme pressures underneath the ocean. The metal that encapsulates the crew simply wears out, he noted.

My understanding is that modern nuke boats are not build with the idea of re-coring the reactor. Therefore, when the reactor core wears down to a certain level the boat is destined to be retired. The more the boat is at sea operating, the quicker it wears out operationally.

[Tallguy]

I don't want to re-fight "the last war" -- not to mention one from 70 years ago, but perhaps Hitler's biggest mistake was starting WWII when he didn't have heavy bombers. We had heavy bombers and we pounded the crap out of him.

He didn't have a Navy either when you consider the requirement for a 'balanced' fleet. He wasn't going to have one until 1946. Then again, nobody was prepared for general hostilities in 1939. Hitler won the early rounds based on the competence of his mechanized forces and the Luftwaffe.

[Tallguy]

I think that the Minuteman’s accuracy relative to the Polaris system kept that from happening. Polaris, from what I’ve read wasn’t really accurate enough for the counter-force role.

[j_tull]

As a retired “boomer” sailor, the land-based ICBM has never made much sense to me once the SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) was perfected and given suitable range. In the Polaris days, yes, needed all three. In Trident II days, not so much.