Comments on: Red Phones vs. Tridents

By: Hal Gutterman

Hal Gutterman — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:02:25 +0000

We are talking about nuclear war as if it wouldn’t have a major effect on the very existence of the free world. We talk about it as if the Russians didn’t have 10 — 15,000 warheads; as if the Chinese didn’t have hundreds of warheads; as if the other guy doesn’t have a plan. What if they have a few warheads already in the U.S. sitting in 40′ containers (an old Russian plan) just waiting to be recalled. We already have a greenhouse problem. Can you imagine 100 or so nuclear weapons going off around the world with respect to the effect on our atmosphere. You will not only be dying directly from the radiation fallout. We will be giving birth to kids with 3 legs. This has to be a last idea scenario.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:51:22 +0000

Anon, how come we can launch cruise missles off just about every surface ship we have? I mean… the new DDX (21) has a bunch of tomahawks (and so does the arleigh burke which is in service NOW), the ticonderogas, and many other ships. And also, the harpoon is techincally a cruise missile

By: RHYNO

RHYNO — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:21:14 +0000

SINCE OUR AIR POWER HAS BEEN USED SPARINGLY LATELY, A MASSIVE AIR AND MISSLE STRIKE SHOULD CRIPPLE N.KOREA. IT STARTS WHERE THIER TROOPS, ARMOR AND AIR FORM UP, AND ENDS WITH OUR TAC AIR PUMMELING THIER FORWARD LINES. WE SHOULD WARN THE CHINESE AND RUSSIANS MINUTES BEFORE A SUBMARINE MISSLE STRIKE. THOSE MISSLES CAN BURROW DEEP AND GET TO THE MOST VALUED TARGETS. GOOD TRANSITION, FROM NUKES TO H-E. BOOM!!! GOOD THINKING.

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:18:26 +0000

TANSTAAFL, Mycroft. You've got a good point but I can think of a few reasons that there's all this hoopla over ballistic missiles. 1.) Ballistic missiles are easier to detect and track, thanks in part to the big huge infrared signature. You fire a missile and the other guys know it. And if they're not expecting it, they get nervous. Bombers have a similar goosebump-generating capability- if the US bomber and tanker fleet dispersed to alternate locations, and then went to airborne alert, they'd still be worried. It equates to the same thing. For a long time a lot of work has gone in to notifying folks prior to test launches; when the launch-detection satellites and missile-warning radar pick up an "unscheduled" launch everyone sits up and takes notice. Witness the Norwegian scientific rocket which set off the Russian high command about ten years ago. 2.) Bombers can be recalled in the hours they'll take to hit their targets. If there's a plan for defusing RVs in flight I haven't heard of it (outside of an Eric Harry novel). Once you launch an ICBM/SLBM it's like, final, you know? 3.) Everyone thinks associates ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Perhaps it's reflexive to think missile launch equals thermonuclear attack. This ties in with #1; certain behaviors (missiles launching, bombers surging) suggest nuclear intentions. Beyond those points, you're right- and I think it's a matter of out of sight, out of mind. How DO they know every B-2 isn't carring B61s? By the way, "anon", my review of the global strike program points out a key fact- China seems to be a "placeholder". Terrorist targets can't be easily predicted over the course of fifteen years, but the Chinese can so they're used as a convenient example. I still doubt we're seriously considering them as the REAL Global Strike target when, as I said, an impending crisis should give us some marshalling time.

By: Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:10:11 +0000

It’s so simple. If all you see are 1–3 missiles, there’s no way it’s a first strike. I mean, how stupid would that be? So if it’s only 1–3 missiles, it must be either a conventional warhead or a mistake.
This exact logic saved the world once, by the way, when a Soviet software glitch showed 3 American ICBMs headed in toward Russia.

By: Mycroft

Mycroft — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:28:25 +0000

I think this overstates the problem. I mean, with our Stealth Bomber fleet, every time an American stealth bomber goes into the air, the Russians and the Chinese have no reassurance where it’s going, or whether it’s carrying a nuclear payload.
Global Strike just moves ICBMs into the same category. Rationally, people would recognize that they don’t have to freak unless they saw a few hundred missiles get launched simultaneously.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:41:22 +0000

For BWJones — I don’t understand your point. We’ve had cruise missiles on submarines for more than 25 years; the first President Bush took them off surface ships in 1991, but left the capability to carry them on submarines. There was no debate about it then, and certainly no debate about in 5 years later, which matches your “10 years ago” timeframe as a time when it was not obvious that we should have cruise missiles on submarines. Also, this move, to put conventional warheads on Tridents, is not a move to save the submarine fleet by giving it a new job. If anything, the ballistic missile submarine fleet is on the firmest ground of all the strategic nuke delivery vehicles. STRATCOM seems very accepting of cuts in the bomber fleet and ICBM force, with the knowldege that Tridents can basically do it all (survive at sea, launch promptly, strike accurately, etc.). As for your point that ther “was HUGE resistance to putting conventional warheads on top of nuclear missiles”, when is this “was” period of time? This is a relatively new proposal (its been kicking around the Air Force and Navy for about 4 years.) The resistance IS there; Congress denied funding for an RV study for the Navy in 2003–2004. And there are concerns about the Air Force and Navy ideas because of the problem that others might misunderstand the launch. This is a current issue, not a past issue. The Navy is back in the mix now, because the Air Force was having trouble selling its idea and because Cartright (STRATCOM) wanted this done fast (2 years), something the Air Force didn’t seem capable of doing.
As for Trustbutverify’s question about targets in China. Yes, there are airbases that could send weapons towards China in a few hours, but they could not get to deep interior areas within 30 minutes, without risks to crews from air defense systems, and with little or no warning to the Chinese at the very early phases of a conflict. I’m not going to specify a target base, but there is some concern about China’s future deployment of systems that might be used to interfere with the U.S. ability to conduct a conflict (hmmm. we need our satellites), and concern about our ability to take those capablities out quickly and early, before the war really gets going.…
As I said, Congress has been faced with this idea for awhile, and you can get more background on it here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:54:13 +0000

Guess I’m not thinking deep enough– but eight conventional warheads seem like spitting at the ocean if you’re aiming for China. These things are presently touted as being meant for quick-reaction strikes to fleeting targets of opportunity which our regular bag of tricks (JDAMS, Tomahawks) are too far away to respond in time.
Which isn’t a problem we really have with China. Those airbases in South Korea and Japan, not to mention the local CVBGs, and the fact that immenent Chinese LTW/MTW will be obvious to the intel folks plenty of time beforehand.
No, I don’t buy it. But I do agree that deployment of the system practically demands that we work with China and the Russians, and in turn requires that we have sufficient confidence in them NOT to turn around and warn the target.
By the way– I don’t think the military is worried about the Iranians or North Koreans going off on a hair trigger because of this. You need a good BMEWS of one sort or another, which only Russia and the US have. China’s is still rather rudimentary.

By: pedestrian

pedestrian — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:37:33 +0000

If they don’t feel like picking up the red phone, fine. They will be in big trouble for not doing so, and putting the country in great crisis resulting China to “cease to exist”. You could also send diplomats before attacks, in case Chinese officials do not pick up the phone. Face to face communication will do fine.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:18:56 +0000

Good Evening David,
I assume that the above post is ment to be humorious, a more absurd proposal I can’t imagine.
First problem is who are you going to call first?
Like if we called Russia first, they wouldn’t call the target?
Second problem suspose your target is in a country that has “nkes”?
Anyone who is seriously considerating this idea should find another line of work.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner