Comments on: What a Successful D-5 Test Could Mean

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:46:34 +0000

The article is correct if it is only speaking of the missile, itself. There have been launch system malfunctions, including a Hangfire on the USS Louisiana.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:56:21 +0000

A few thoughts.
1. Triad isn’t going anywhere, for some of the reasons hinted at here.
Minuteman III is modernized through 2020, and probably beyond. A lot of it is “sunk” cost, so they’re actually the cheapest leg of the Triad at this point.
One reason you want ICBMs isn’t just because someone may find a way to discover your submarines– the missiles or warheads they carry may not always be reliable. Having two types of missiles– MMIII and D5– provides you with assurance that if one fleet goes down for problems/accuracy/reliability concerns, the other doesn’t.
Another reason was hinted at here: 500 silos vs. 2 Trident bases. A handful of nukes can take out hundreds of SLBM warheads tied up at the pier, while it takes a minmum of 500– more realistically, 1000+– warheads to guarantee that you’ve taken out the silos. If for nothing else, having the silos out there in the middle of nowhere allows us to “soak up” adversary warheads in a counterforce strike– every warhead dedicated to a silo is a warhead that’s NOT targeted at a city or conventional military base.
2. RE: conventional ballistic missile, conventional Trident is, pardon the pun, dead in the water. STRATCOM loved the idea, but there’s no viable way around the launch verification issues (you can’t prove that we DIDN’T launch a nuke from an Ohio). The solution, if there ever is one, will likely come from having one or more fixed land-based CBM firing sites that can be easily monitored, perhaps in person, by other nuclear powers. Alas, even then, if the missile looks like a nuke (same trajectory as an ICBM/SLBM), it’s going to be difficult convincing folks that it’s conventional (hence why other concepts, such as FALCON/Common Aero Vehicle, might be better– different trajectory, it doesn’t *look* like an ICBM).

By: jay

jay — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:03:50 +0000

oops!
sorry!

By: jay

jay — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:02:19 +0000

hey brian, you are quite obviously right on this one. i was briefly trying to imagine what sort of diplomatic situation would allow for all countries to agree to give up sub-nukes in order to allow for a more practical use of those amazing boats.
it never ceases to amaze me that the world’s most destructive weapon functions best when never activated.
okay, how about every country in the world gets to keep a nuke in their embassies in another country’s capitals. that way, you could nuke anyone you wanted, but they could also immediately nuke you back. you wouldn’t need ANY of those table legs in order to have reliable MAD.
… i guess you’d need a REALLY reliable way to tell who set it off …
maybe not the best idea …

By: jay

jay — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:01:30 +0000

By: Underassitanttotheeditor

Underassitanttotheeditor — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:46:15 +0000

Our strategic competitors also feel that this article is incorrect:
…Although the article does not say the US operates 18 Ohio’s and by stating there are 18 boats is misleading.
– Two have been converted (SSGN)
– Two to go
– Two on hot reserve
…they emphasized that none one of the 154 Tomahawk’s are nukes and the Navy would never expedite a refit of the cruise missile launcher with the D5 or earlier Tridents.
Point well taken ;-)

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:25:49 +0000

Actually, I guess a Trident, even conventionally loaded, is by definition an SLBM. What I meant was since we CAN launch nuclear tipped SLBMs, the world will assume any Trident launched will BE a nuclear tipped SLBM.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:21:38 +0000

Jay,
It wouldn’t do any good to give up the SLBMs. Nobody is going to believe that you took out the nukes. The problem with using Tridents as a prompt global strike weapon is that everyone is afraid you’re lying to them, and that you stuck in some nukes. Even if you make a big show of removing nuclear warheads, no one is really going to believe that you don’t have a few tucked away for good measure (because it would be the smart thing to do). The fact that we CAN launch SLBMs means everyone believes that any Trident that launches WILL be an SLBM.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:45:56 +0000

1. Congratulations to the LMT and USN teams. The real winners are the free people of the world. The enduring value of the triad is primarily deterrence via optimal flexibilty of response. While “MAD”, may have evolved into just “AD” now, the outcome is the same–no nuclear weapons have been used in combat since 1945.
2. For what it’s worth on an older news point, the loaded ACMs inadvertently carried on a B-52 this year caused me no consternation. What better platform & team to carry the ACM? Granted, when handling any firearm, it’s always best to check the chamber first…
Merry Christmas all!

By: jay

jay — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:03:07 +0000

DECAPITATION SCENARIO might just be my new band name!
i think it might be worth the promt global strike to sacrifice the SLMBs. but i guess no nation would ever give up SLBMs, being the most utterly destructive overkill option on the table.