the end of overkill.

The title to this thread is taken from a Cato institute white paper published in September.




The paper calls for a reduction the methods of American nuclear weapons methods of deployment. It argues that submarine launched nuclear deterrent is the best option for use and all other methods are redundant, unessential and obsolete.
Submarines are the least vulnerable leg of the deterrent triad,
American Ohio class are some of the quietest on the planet. They are highly mobile and kept in numbers adding that the upcoming SSBN-X class. Where as missile silos are fixed targets and bombers offer limited loads, are slower to load and deploy and in many ways are probably better needed for conventional mission sets.

this makes a lot of sense to me. Eliminating the USAF triad legs would in my view best open up those resources to antiballistic missile missions and heightening conventional mission assets.
Cato estimated that eliminating the bomber and silo nuclear assets would make available 20billion a year. They point out that the cost of the current navy SSBN-X development program is estimated by the CBO at 87billion well the navy ship building budget will likely not exceed 20billion a year.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The title to this thread is taken from a Cato institute white paper published in September.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The paper calls for a reduction the methods of American nuclear weapons methods of deployment. It argues that submarine launched nuclear deterrent is the best option for use and all other methods are redundant, unessential and obsolete.
Submarines are the least vulnerable leg of the deterrent triad,
American Ohio class are some of the quietest on the planet. They are highly mobile and kept in numbers adding that the upcoming SSBN-X class. Where as missile silos are fixed targets and bombers offer limited loads, are slower to load and deploy and in many ways are probably better needed for conventional mission sets.

this makes a lot of sense to me. Eliminating the USAF triad legs would in my view best open up those resources to antiballistic missile missions and heightening conventional mission assets.
Cato estimated that eliminating the bomber and silo nuclear assets would make available 20billion a year. They point out that the cost of the current navy SSBN-X development program is estimated by the CBO at 87billion well the navy ship building budget will likely not exceed 20billion a year.

Click to expand...

And even a layman will find it improbable, if not impossible, for the USAF to relinquish its nuclear strike role...apart form such decision will be more than enough to anger General Arnold into come back from the dead, what kind of US Congress would propose such a bill, much less to vote on it?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

American Ohio class are some of the quietest on the planet.

Click to expand...

He seems, but maybe they say that because the Ohio move more slowly than SN, as all SSBN ofc, about 20 kn max, in patrol on zone about 10 ? in more Ohio has not pump jet and they were built during 70's, in conclusion i would go for one discretion equivalent to 688 or 688 I ?

I wait any comments.

Reasons pointed to for elimination of the USAF nuclear legs.

Bombers:
there are only three and a half strategic bomber forces on the planet today. The USAF B52,B1B and B2. The Russian Air force TU160, Tu22m and the Chinese H6 the remaining half is the occasional flirting of India with TU22M.
of the American bombers the most advanced in service is the B2 spirit. She is the only nuclear bomber who might actually be able to complete a nuclear strike mission if ever needed. However her small numbers mean that such an event would would likely have limited effect. The next bomber in USAF inventory is the Bone the B1B lancer has a good range but her top dash speed mach1 and her large RCS makes her easy to intercept. Additionally the numbers of B1 were reduced recently making it far less a nuclear threat. The last Bomber is the oldest the B52 slow lumbering with a cross section that reads like a flying barn her nuclear mission is more by tradition then tactics.
so for the nuclear bomber mission we have limited actual effectiveness. B2 is the only one that might stand up but at less then 50 with its bomb load and speed its not a reality.

Nuclear silos are fixed points in the US. They are expensive and already considered a dead end job by the USAF these days. The price of maintain theses high security holes in the ground are high. The actual ability to retain security has been brought into question when a group of nuclear protesters broke into a silo and vandalized it. The missiles are expensive and have offered little strategic or tactical advantage in the post 9/11 world.

With budgets being squished via sequestration, asymmetric conventional conflicts and Left leaning Administrations. the generals and admirals might be prompted to reevaluate the nuclear triad. As a result of the dollar crunch. Additionally this is actually a very opportune time for it as SALT, Replacement programs and the shifted priorities of the 21st century take place. The triad was set in the cold war and is maintained mostly due to that and tradition.

the white paper from Cato doesn't touch on ABMs but I add that with the introduction of the concepts of the anti ICBM, it may add additional fuel to the fire of reforming American deterrence. If antiballistic missile systems were fielded around America territories both continental and otherwise the US Would set a change in the direction of MAD in that the Shield would act as anti first strike and the remaining leg SSBN would serve as retaliation. Use of subs would still allow extension of the American nuclear umbrella over allies like Japan, South Korea, NATO And others.
the Ohio Class missile submarines offer the best of the triad. They are stealthy, powerful, have long legs and have mission capacity in other roles. The SSBN-x would farther improve that ability with a even quieter asset.

In order to convince Congress and the president as well as the services of the advantage of moving away from the triad cold war Dogma, the first step is pointing out the costs and effectiveness of the triad as it stands. Which is very expensive with little to show. Second it pointing out the reduced need of massive deterrence vs. The possible gains of a more flexible stealthy boomer force.

FORBIN said:

He seems, but maybe they say that because the Ohio move more slowly than SN, as all SSBN ofc, about 20 kn max, in patrol on zone about 10 ? in more Ohio has not pump jet and they were built during 70's, in conclusion i would go for one discretion equivalent to 688 or 688 I ?

I wait any comments.

Click to expand...

there are 18 Ohio class in the USN 4 of which have been retasked from SSBN to SSGN this four are the oldest of the class the remaining units were built from the 1980s until 1997 and although they lack a pump jet are still some of the most advanced boats on the planet.
the potential nuclear war load of those later boats is 24 PolarisII with 18 warheads per missile. Enough to make Half the planet into mars.the SSBN-X will be coming in the next decade and plans call for electronic driven pump jets, 16 Polaris updated missiles and advanced tech taken from both seawolf and Virginia class. I suspect it will be based on a modified Virginia derived hull. Current plans call for 12 boats. Which should farther show the reduced importance of nuclear deterrent. That still leaves 192 SLBMs in operational ready.