3 ms·

Surely I am missing something. Nuclear subs and Space deployments make these slides moot.

tyingq 9y ago
Submarines are covered on slide 4.
vtange 9y ago
The post did mention Nuclear subs. It cautioned that relying on them will add stress and risk to them since they had to be position/deployed constantly in specific areas of the Pacific to fulfill their role.
- stevarino 9y ago
  Which was weird, as subs are used to going out for months on end. Does he think submarines hang out at port all the time?
  - nikdaheratik 9y ago
    The slides went into this in some detail and assumed the audience was familiar with the issues. Namely: 1. The Pacific nuclear deterrence is currently based in WA. This means that deployments that cross the pacific would be much longer and much farther from base. Even subs that go out for months on end need to be resupplied. The proposed solution to this would be moving those subs to Hawaii. 2. The majority of the US sub deterrence is based in the Atlantic, because that's closer to Moscow. If you have a limited amount of subs, you would need to move some from there to cover the Pacific, which means you have less deterrence in the US-Russia standoff even if it gives you more options for US-NK or US-China.
    - Johnny555 9y ago
      Ohio class subs have a reported quiet cruising speed of 20 knots (23mph), so it would only take about 8 days to travel across the Pacific. Basing the sub in Hawaii might shave a couple days off of that. Doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference in a 90 day SSBN deployment.
    - dingaling 9y ago
      1. On paper the Trident D-5 can hit North Korea whilst the SSBNs are sitting in dock in Washington state. That's probably an unrealistic range with a useful payload, but there's certainly no need to cross the Pacific. 2. "As of 2016, nine Trident-armed submarines are deployed in the Pacific and five in the Atlantic."
      - nikdaheratik 9y ago
        1. Yes, but they would still need to cross further into the Pacific if they wanted to reach NK without passing over Russia. The slides showed more or less the issue with the angles needed for that. 2. You may be right, I'm not an expert on deployment locations, of course a source would still be nice.
  - hansthehorse 9y ago
    Each missle sub has two crews that man it in a 3 month rotation. When the sub returns there is a quick refit and resupply, everything that broke and couldn't be fixed at sea is repaired and it goes back out. The turn-around is very quick.
shangxiao 9y ago
Space deployments are banned by the Outer Space Treaty [1]. Slide 3 mentions Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) which was not banned by the Outer Space Treaty but subsequently by SALT II. Interestingly enough the US never ratified SALT II [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System#The_FOBS_and_SALT_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
gambiting 9y ago
I also don't understand why the missiles couldn't fly over the pacific and over japan, never crossing Russian territory? What am I missing here?
- planteen 9y ago
  I think they follow great circle routes. LGM-30 deployments all cross Russia & China to NK: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fnj-cys/mot/gtf http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fnj-cys/mot/gtf
  - gambiting 9y ago
    But seeing as NK is launching towards and over Japan, it looks like if they were to launch they would go "direct" over pacific, not over the arctic circle? Are they avoiding angering Russia too?
    - planteen 9y ago
      Presumably Russia would not be pleased if NK launched a missile over it. NK is aiming for the Pacific over Japan in the latest tests. So what do you mean "direct" over the Pacific? Direct to the continental US? NK can't hit the US other than Guam with their current range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12#/media/File:North_Korean_missile_range.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12#/media/File:North_K...

Submarines are covered on slide 4.

The post did mention Nuclear subs. It cautioned that relying on them will add stress and risk to them since they had to be position/deployed constantly in specific areas of the Pacific to fulfill their role.

stevarino 9y ago
Which was weird, as subs are used to going out for months on end. Does he think submarines hang out at port all the time?
- nikdaheratik 9y ago
  The slides went into this in some detail and assumed the audience was familiar with the issues. Namely: 1. The Pacific nuclear deterrence is currently based in WA. This means that deployments that cross the pacific would be much longer and much farther from base. Even subs that go out for months on end need to be resupplied. The proposed solution to this would be moving those subs to Hawaii. 2. The majority of the US sub deterrence is based in the Atlantic, because that's closer to Moscow. If you have a limited amount of subs, you would need to move some from there to cover the Pacific, which means you have less deterrence in the US-Russia standoff even if it gives you more options for US-NK or US-China.
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    Ohio class subs have a reported quiet cruising speed of 20 knots (23mph), so it would only take about 8 days to travel across the Pacific. Basing the sub in Hawaii might shave a couple days off of that. Doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference in a 90 day SSBN deployment.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    1. On paper the Trident D-5 can hit North Korea whilst the SSBNs are sitting in dock in Washington state. That's probably an unrealistic range with a useful payload, but there's certainly no need to cross the Pacific. 2. "As of 2016, nine Trident-armed submarines are deployed in the Pacific and five in the Atlantic."
    - nikdaheratik 9y ago
      1. Yes, but they would still need to cross further into the Pacific if they wanted to reach NK without passing over Russia. The slides showed more or less the issue with the angles needed for that. 2. You may be right, I'm not an expert on deployment locations, of course a source would still be nice.
- hansthehorse 9y ago
  Each missle sub has two crews that man it in a 3 month rotation. When the sub returns there is a quick refit and resupply, everything that broke and couldn't be fixed at sea is repaired and it goes back out. The turn-around is very quick.

shangxiao 9y ago

Space deployments are banned by the Outer Space Treaty [1]. Slide 3 mentions Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) which was not banned by the Outer Space Treaty but subsequently by SALT II. Interestingly enough the US never ratified SALT II [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System#The_FOBS_and_SALT_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gambiting 9y ago

I also don't understand why the missiles couldn't fly over the pacific and over japan, never crossing Russian territory? What am I missing here?

planteen 9y ago
I think they follow great circle routes. LGM-30 deployments all cross Russia & China to NK: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fnj-cys/mot/gtf http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fnj-cys/mot/gtf
- gambiting 9y ago
  But seeing as NK is launching towards and over Japan, it looks like if they were to launch they would go "direct" over pacific, not over the arctic circle? Are they avoiding angering Russia too?
  - planteen 9y ago
    Presumably Russia would not be pleased if NK launched a missile over it. NK is aiming for the Pacific over Japan in the latest tests. So what do you mean "direct" over the Pacific? Direct to the continental US? NK can't hit the US other than Guam with their current range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12#/media/File:North_Korean_missile_range.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12#/media/File:North_K...