Posted on 04/04/2010 10:42:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The new START treaty that would cut the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons could also prompt the United States to trim the bomber leg of its nuclear force.
Limits that reduce the number of deployed "launchers" to 700 could encourage U.S. nuclear policy makers to rely more on land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles and less on B-2 and B-52 bombers, said Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association.
"The bomber leg of the triad is not what you think about when you think about survivability and quick response," he said.
At present, the United States has 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles based on land and 336 based on submarines. It also has 44 nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and 16 nuclear-capable B-2 bombers.
That gives the United States a total of 846 launchers. The treaty permits 800 launchers, but says only 700 may be "deployed."
If the number of deployed launchers must be reduced to 700, the U.S. military is likely to want most of them to be its most responsive and survivable, Collina said. That suggests keeping the maximum number of land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles.
"The treaty is forcing us to decide where to put our warheads," he said. And bombers are likely to be the losers. "We could be moving to 20 or fewer bombers."
But 20 bombers is a deceptively small number.
Under the new treaty, each bomber counts as one weapon even though U.S. bombers can carry more than one warhead. B-2 bombers can carry 16 nuclear weapons and B-52 bombers can carry 20.
So a fleet of 16 B-2s could carry 256 nuclear weapons and four B-52s could carry 80 more. An all-B-52 fleet could carry 400.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocnus.net ...
This is a terrible mistake. This whole treaty is a sham.
There is no treaty. There is a tentative agreement. A treaty requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but we have always observed treaties(especially nuclear oriented treaties)without the Senate. But, if I was a Republican leader I would force a vote to kill the bill.
The Russians are building a brand-new bomber fleet, nonetheless.
The world only gets more dangerous, not less, when we disarm. It might be a better idea to scrap our disarmament treaties and start mass-manufacturing nukes ourselves, since we don’t have the will to stop others from getting them.
All the while, Iran, North Korea, and who knows what other half baked regimes, are working to develop long-range delivery systems.
Five nuclear blasts in continental USA would send us back to the 1850’s. It would take many years to recover and millions more people would die of stravation then died in the blasts. I think 700 nukes is more then enough.
Strange listening to Anthony Kuchins: “Obama Obama Obama. congress is in the way.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.