Replies

Paul,
Thank you for your follow up response to a number of folks.
I do appreciate the references made in how our nuclear sub fleet has dwindled down in more then one way. The Bangor move is trully bad news. I was aware of that one. What I have not been aware of since I no longer follow things as you are, is the very sad fact of how many of our nuclear subs in all classes have been retired or at least are no longer patrolling the worlds seas. Bad news. Very bad news. I am aware of the capabilities afforded by using GPS, as an example. Let me say this. My response to you ininitally in saying "No one wins in pre-emptive nor follow up nuclear strikes:, and my follow up reponses to our member pesmerga, in essence where based on my INCOMPLETE knowledge of just how bad our aging nuclear deterrant has become. I simply do not follow things as once had.

One thing is quite clear in my head. And that is the fact that only those countries that are willing to spend the required R&D followed up with high levels of excellance in the fabrication and production levels of all type defensive/offensive weapontry, to equal or outclass rivals, has a chance of maintaining any level of soverienty and say in this world.
Having with been from 1966 through 1979 directly involved, lab development through in some cases final testing stages on the world's first Harpoon Cruise Missle (I worked on the onboard computer), F16 Fire Control Radar System (again the computer), the original Westinghouse ECM pods (was a beam me up scotty at the time), APG-120 analog FC. Radar system, and other defense projects, I do have a sense of the need for not only keeping equal but far exceeding any technology any potential enemy or otherwise power can produce.
So believe me I do not live in a rose glassed world. My comment should have perhaps been better worded. To indicate that killing hundreds of millions of peoples by first strikes or required follow up strikes by nuclear means is a hell of a way to have to go. But I truly am aware we must have the worlds best and powerful weapon capabilities in all forms, e.g. ground, air, sea, and associated monitorihng, and detection grids, ground, air, sea, and space. Our potential or outright enemies must always view it as simply a ridiculus proposition to even think about starting a war with us. In this I see your well thought out responses show, we truly are lacking. We know longer can as under JFK and Ronnie, make it clear we will have the means to remove the aggressor from existence should the need arise.

Now if we just had a senate and house that would support the need to fully re-arm in mass, then obviously any future POTUS would have the means to put us back on the right track. As you are fully aware, there are those in our DoD and military at large, it has always been the case, hey George S. Patton as you are aware had to fight harder against those that did not seek a fully trained modern at the time equiped mobile army both teeth and nail. The problems just have gotten worse over the years, for many well documented reasons.

At any rate, thanks for the effort to update some of us on just how precauious a position we have put ourselves into.
Without not even considering the air/ground/space issues, not having a dominant and new technological and number wise nuclear fleet to keep the status quo, this nations is at risk of continued blackmail, and intimidation. To damn many
people in congress are more worried about how many bucks can be spent to keep certain elements of our society and those from other nations, living on the same standard of living as those that work hard for their money. They are to be blamed partly for our current demise. In this I am certain. As usual one expects unless they write a carefully "cover all an angles book", within a single post to perhaps not convey adequately what angle they are coming from.
But again thanks for the bad news.

You're very welcome!

I too believe things can be turned around...but I am also concerned about the degree of political ennervation...fueled by a broad misunderstanding of the yawning vulnerabilities we are exposing to our enemies.

Confronting the notion of a real enemy...especially one pretending to be harmonious, and with four times your population...is a disquieting thought at the best of times. Hence people prefer not to want to think about it, and will latch onto comfortable evasions. This includes many in the media who have never defended the country...or thought about what it takes to do so.

Many ignoring the threats for a variety of political reasons (both left and right) also, would rather listen to soothsayers who minimize the risks, the enmity of the enemy, and the vulnerabilities. Some even appear to be in the OMB.

If only our enemies evil were as manifestly visible to the naked eye, as was Grima Wormtongue! But life isn't Hollywood...

Thought you guys would be interested in taking a gander at the revisionist anti-submarine spin of several "defense" think tanks. These MUST be who Rumsfeld and GWB are being influenced by:

The Independent.

G2Mil

Note the disparaging lingo in this one:

Shows no respect for the service whatsoever. Perhaps one of you, without breaking regs, could speak to the disparaging of the SSN intelligence mission value.

G2Mil Practically preaches that the SSN force should be zeroed out, and is oblivious to the Pearl Harbor problem of a premptive first strike by China when we are in a low alert posture, as we have been since Xlinton. Furthermore, G2Mil totally ignores the threatening political situation of U.S. isolation being orchestrated from China, Russia, and France....and Venezuela and Brazil. It ignores the Mutual Assistance Pact between China and Russia...and what that really portends. The Russian's Topol-M is never once mentioned as the first strike weapon it could be. Their retention and continued maintenance until 2017 of the SS-18s which are purely first strike weapons. The at-sea SSN force presumably would survive such a knock-out blow, and at least still leave us with anything resembling a navy. The in-port ships would be lost. Carriers and subs all. The at-sea surface vessels may be much more vulnerable than we know, especially if the Chinese catch us completely unawares, and go full nuclear at the get go with their lethal stash of cruise missiles...many of which could be launched in fire & forget fashion from unconventional platforms...COSCO container/Freight ships for instance.

We need to be thinking outside the Liberal Box of G2Mil. G2Mil is right about the other Navy requirements, however. Which to me just says we are not spending enough for overall naval force mainentance and rebuilding. Cheney's mistake with regard to F-14 tooling is now really being felt. We need to look beyond force projection studies...and keep our eye on the vulnerability situation to preemption. And using Herman Kahn's approach to viewing all situations through the lens of enemy capability to do such a premptive attack. A robust SSN force, rather than where we are headed, would give us an optimum deterrent, in my view.

Also recommended reading: Interview of Rear Admiral Malcolm Fages, USN