Is it time to quit the ICBM race? [tr]

LA Times ^ | May 30, 2017 | W.J. Hennigan and Ralph Vartabedian

[C19fan]

The sky over the turbulent Pacific was pitch-black earlier this month when a Minuteman III missile blasted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base on a column of fire that illuminated the California coastline for miles.

The unarmed missile thundered past the outer reaches of the atmosphere, tracing a fiery arc around the globe before plunging into a lagoon at Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific, 4,200 miles away.

[C19fan]

There are plans to replace the Minuteman III missile at a cost of $85 billion; double that to get an idea of the true final costs. The question is is there a place for ICBM in silos. There was a time when only ICBMs had the accuracy to hit hardened targets especially the enemy's missile silos but advances in technology have enabled SLBMs to play that counter force role. France got rid of its ground based nuclear missiles.

[riverrunner]

France got rid of its ground based nuclear missiles

They have always been on the cutting edge on winning wars./S/

[MrEdd]

It is time to augment the nuclear arsenal with an orbital tungsten rod arsenal.

[PJBankard]

Well let’s look at France and their capacity to make good rational decisions.

A Boomer (SSBN) carriers 240 Nuclear Warheads (24 Trident II missiles with 10 nukes per missile). An ICBM silo may contain 3 nuclear warheads (1 Minuteman III), many are empty or have dummy missiles. Each the silo and the submarine can be taken out; however, a submarine can be taken out with some ease (comparatively) effectively reducing/eliminating the nuclear force and response. Each silo requires a direct nuclear hit to destroy it.

So eliminating the ICBM force would be simply put stupid.

[C19fan]

Based on various arms control treaties the 400 Minuteman IIIs only contain 1 warhead.

[NorthMountain]

France got rid of its ground based nuclear missiles.

That's a sure sign that abandoning ground based nuclear missiles is the wrong path.

[NorthMountain]

Based on various arms control treaties the 400 Minuteman IIIs only contain 1 warhead.

Arms control treaties invariably favor the bad guys. Pres. Bush was right to abandon the ABM Treaty. Pres. Trump would do well to abandon the various SALT and START treaties, along with the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.

[Williams]

Liberal propaganda, read the article. Our entire slbm and strategic bomber program can be taken out with FIVE missiles. That we are down to only 400 single warhead ICBMs is terrible in itself.

[buffaloguy]

With the development of what appear to be effective anti missile systems I do see an end to the icbm in the future to the icbm program but it is a long way off and they will be around for quite a while.

One of objectives of the DOD is to make the cost of attacking us latger than most countries GDP and we have done that very well.

What about FATBOI in the NK? Most likely hev will be ‘sploded by a group of generals if he gets serious. They nearly got him several years ago with a trainload of conventional explosives that leveled a large area. Really impressive but he had not shown up.

NK is really small and could be erased by a single carrier group. We have three publicly on station. Not a good situation for the fatboi in a leisure suit. He needs a new hobby.

[Fred Hayek]

Here’s the flip side. The silo is at a fixed location, and found by reconnaissance satellites (hell, google earth). Now where is that bloody submarine?

[Pollster1]

Liberal propaganda, read the article. Our entire slbm and strategic bomber program can be taken out with FIVE missiles. That we are down to only 400 single warhead ICBMs is terrible in itself.

I disagree on the vulnerability of SLBMs. Assuming an SSBN is on patrol, with orders to "remain undetected", taking it out is a major challenge for Russia and impossible for anyone else. Subs in port are vulnerable, but I would expect the boats on patrol to respond adversely, in accordance with NCA orders, to anyone who launched on their home ports.

[Note: This is not an anti-Russia comment; just the reverse. Their capabilities are why President Trump was right, and Graham/McCain/RINOs/Democrats are wrong. We need to work with Russia in the very large number of areas in which our interests overlap.]

We need the triad. SSBNs are survivable, in the sense that they are very hard to find, completely outside the scope of what China or any country other than Russia could threaten. Our land-based ICBMs are survivable because they are spread out, and completely outside the scope of what China or any country other than Russia could wipe out - especially at a cost of one nuke to take out each ICBM. Our bombers have the advantage that they can be launched and then called back (assuming Slim Pickens is not involved).

[Wildbill22]

I’m with you.

The fact that to disarm the US of a significant portion of our nuclear deterrent would require a relatively massive nuclear attack on our homeland (at least two warheads per each of the 400 hardened missile silos), instead of just two sub bases and three bomber bases, raises the threshold any potential adversary would have to cross to defeat us.

Not to mention that it would put Several other countries with a disarming first strike capability since the target list goes from over 400 to just 5 primary targets. On top of that, then Russia is relieved of obligating 800 warheads to our missile fields, about half their deployed treaty limited strategic Arsenal.

Of course some would say this doesn’t account for the few subs at sea or bombers aloft, but a technological breakthrough in Anti sub or air defense could, combined with missile defense, make nuclear conflict “winnable” and thus thinkable, diminishing deterrence.

[Wildbill22]

400 hardened targets requiring at least two warheads each also blurs the line between “counterforce” nuclear strikes, where the intent is to spare the civilian population, and “counter value” , or all out thermonuclear war.

Again, having 400 targets on our homeland raises the stakes too high for any sort of successful outcome for any nuclear armed adversary.

[kabar]

Pres. Trump would do well to abandon the various SALT and START treaties

This is especially true given the fact that China is not a signatory to these treaties.

[PJBankard]

Track it from when it leaves port.

[PJBankard]

It’s actually considerably more than 400 targets. While we may only have 400 nuclear armed ICBMs, there are considerably more silos that contain dummy missiles (missiles that work but aren’t loaded with a nuclear payload.). Only Russia has the capacity to strike us in that magnitude.

[politicianslie]

So eliminating the ICBM force would be simply put stupid.

Elect a DEMONRAT and they will prove you right. Stupid is, as stupid does.

[PJBankard]

There are considerably more than 400 silos. Most of the silos are dummy silos, which contain a working Minuteman III but it has no nuclear payload. The missiles that have the nuclear payload change. To guarantee that you take out every one of the 400 Minuteman III missiles that have a nuclear payload you would have to hit every silo. Which is quite a few of them. Our SSBNs while difficult to track are not impossible to track, and we have only 14 of them.

[xone]

Track it from when it leaves port.

And how will that be accomplished?

[PJBankard]

I assume in the same manner we do with theirs when they leave port.