4 ms·

Good point, and then there’s just the question of, why do it at all? Nuclear weapons on a submarine makes sense as a deterrent against first strikes, but a surf

Good point, and then there’s just the question of, why do it at all? Nuclear weapons on a submarine makes sense as a deterrent against first strikes, but a surface ship is as much of a target as a silo or ground based mobile launch platform. The whole idea reeks of BSD in the worst way.

cameldrv 9y ago
Because surface ships have better communications with shore, and would be more likely to receive a message quickly if AEHF, MILSTAR, and TACAMO are all destroyed in a surprise attack. That's useful both for ordering a retaliatory launch, and detecting if the ship has been attacked/destroyed. The Russians have also deployed a similar missile on surface ships, and the land based version is in violation of the INF treaty. There is a desire to show that we are willing to respond to an escalation, and to counter it without violating the treaty ourselves.
- dotancohen 9y ago
  > There is a desire to show that we are willing to respond to an escalation You mean to say that there is a desire to show that the US is willing to escalate, too.
  - eksu 9y ago
    If we’re not willing to escalate there’s no nuclear deterrence.
forapurpose 9y ago
I think it's a very bad idea, and I suspect it's merely the amateur misapplication of a faddish tactic, escalation, to every time and purpose, by people carried away with ideology and politics and who have forgotten boundaries of reason and consequence. That said, an existential problem the US Navy is facing (along with all branches of all militaries) is that precision, long-range missile technology is maturing and becoming widely available, making much of the Navy's massive capital investment, it's surface fleet, obsolete. How big a deal is it? Think of it this way (based only on reading foreign policy journals; I'm no expert in any sense): * Long ago, naval battles were fought by sailors boarding each others' ships and fighting hand-to-hand. * When cannon were developed and the tech matured, the enemy could sink you long before you got close enough to board them. The superior range of cannons made the boarding actions obsolete. Ships without cannon were merely floating coffins for their personnel. Eventually, cannon (guns) range increased to around a couple of dozen miles in battleships. * The cannon dominated the seas for generations, but were quickly made obsolete by planes flying off the decks of large ships, with ranges of hundreds of miles. IIRC, at the Battle of Midway in WWII, the first battle to heavily involve aircraft carriers, the Japanese battleships never even saw an American ship much less have a chance to shoot a cannon at one. The battleships were merely floating coffins for their personnel. These days, U.S. aircraft carriers' planes have a range of around 500 miles without refueling. * Precision missiles do or will have a range of thousands of miles. Those nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the core of U.S. military power projection, naval power and strategy, each carrying maybe $15-20 billion in capital plus ~5,000 lives, will become nothing more than floating coffins. The Chinese military is investing heavily in this prospect; those aircraft carriers have long protected Taiwan, and the Chinese government is investing heavily in missile batteries to make sure the carriers never get within range of a battle in Taiwan. Precision long-range missiles introduce another game-changing problem: they are far cheaper to attack with than to defend against. Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for sinking an aircraft carrier, whose defenses might have to shoot down 99% or more in order to survive. One counter-measure the US Navy is investing in is "distributed lethality": rather than concentrating investment and capability in one very attractive target (aircraft carriers), they want to put missiles and other capabilities on every ship, from destroyers to cargo ships, so the enemy can't take down your naval power with a few missiles. That's part of the reason, I would guess, for nuclear cruise missiles on Zumwalt destroyers.
- j9461701 9y ago
  > Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for sinking an aircraft carrier, whose defenses might have to shoot down 99% or more in order to survive. 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? 10,000 dollars of RPG can destroy an M1 Abrams. Is the Abrams obsolete? A single SAM site can destroy an entire squadron of F-16s. Are F-16s obsolete? Well...no. There is an ocean of difference between "can" and "will". Especially for something as insanely complicated as an anti-ship non-nuclear (read: needs a direct hit) ballistic missile (read: terminal course correction is going to be a bitch) trying to hit some of the fastest ships in the US Navy dodging like hell while being covered by a blanket of AA fire the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WW2. There is a very good reason China has recently started constructing its third aircraft carrier, and it's not because it looks pretty when you hang it over the fireplace.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface ships do not have effective defenses (or will not, when the missile technology matures). Tech does become obsolete; it happened to boarding parties and battleships; aircraft carriers are 80 year old tech, the distance in time between the US Civil War and WWII, and they'll become obsolete some day. I sure hope my side isn't still depending on them when they do - that has been the end of many nations throughout history. You may not believe it, but it's a pretty broad consensus among experts that I've read. Militaries are investing heavily in that outcome.
    - j9461701 9y ago
      What militaries? Because France, the UK, India and China are all investing further in carriers. The broad consensus is demonstrably the opposite of what you're claiming. E pur si muove
      - 9y ago

cameldrv 9y ago

Because surface ships have better communications with shore, and would be more likely to receive a message quickly if AEHF, MILSTAR, and TACAMO are all destroyed in a surprise attack. That's useful both for ordering a retaliatory launch, and detecting if the ship has been attacked/destroyed. The Russians have also deployed a similar missile on surface ships, and the land based version is in violation of the INF treaty. There is a desire to show that we are willing to respond to an escalation, and to counter it without violating the treaty ourselves.

dotancohen 9y ago
> There is a desire to show that we are willing to respond to an escalation You mean to say that there is a desire to show that the US is willing to escalate, too.
- eksu 9y ago
  If we’re not willing to escalate there’s no nuclear deterrence.

forapurpose 9y ago

I think it's a very bad idea, and I suspect it's merely the amateur misapplication of a faddish tactic, escalation, to every time and purpose, by people carried away with ideology and politics and who have forgotten boundaries of reason and consequence. That said, an existential problem the US Navy is facing (along with all branches of all militaries) is that precision, long-range missile technology is maturing and becoming widely available, making much of the Navy's massive capital investment, it's surface fleet, obsolete. How big a deal is it? Think of it this way (based only on reading foreign policy journals; I'm no expert in any sense): * Long ago, naval battles were fought by sailors boarding each others' ships and fighting hand-to-hand. * When cannon were developed and the tech matured, the enemy could sink you long before you got close enough to board them. The superior range of cannons made the boarding actions obsolete. Ships without cannon were merely floating coffins for their personnel. Eventually, cannon (guns) range increased to around a couple of dozen miles in battleships. * The cannon dominated the seas for generations, but were quickly made obsolete by planes flying off the decks of large ships, with ranges of hundreds of miles. IIRC, at the Battle of Midway in WWII, the first battle to heavily involve aircraft carriers, the Japanese battleships never even saw an American ship much less have a chance to shoot a cannon at one. The battleships were merely floating coffins for their personnel. These days, U.S. aircraft carriers' planes have a range of around 500 miles without refueling. * Precision missiles do or will have a range of thousands of miles. Those nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the core of U.S. military power projection, naval power and strategy, each carrying maybe $15-20 billion in capital plus ~5,000 lives, will become nothing more than floating coffins. The Chinese military is investing heavily in this prospect; those aircraft carriers have long protected Taiwan, and the Chinese government is investing heavily in missile batteries to make sure the carriers never get within range of a battle in Taiwan. Precision long-range missiles introduce another game-changing problem: they are far cheaper to attack with than to defend against. Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for sinking an aircraft carrier, whose defenses might have to shoot down 99% or more in order to survive. One counter-measure the US Navy is investing in is "distributed lethality": rather than concentrating investment and capability in one very attractive target (aircraft carriers), they want to put missiles and other capabilities on every ship, from destroyers to cargo ships, so the enemy can't take down your naval power with a few missiles. That's part of the reason, I would guess, for nuclear cruise missiles on Zumwalt destroyers.

j9461701 9y ago
> Right now, there is no effective defense against a large salvo of precision missiles; even 1,000 high-end missiles might cost $1 billion - a great bargain for sinking an aircraft carrier, whose defenses might have to shoot down 99% or more in order to survive. 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? 10,000 dollars of RPG can destroy an M1 Abrams. Is the Abrams obsolete? A single SAM site can destroy an entire squadron of F-16s. Are F-16s obsolete? Well...no. There is an ocean of difference between "can" and "will". Especially for something as insanely complicated as an anti-ship non-nuclear (read: needs a direct hit) ballistic missile (read: terminal course correction is going to be a bitch) trying to hit some of the fastest ships in the US Navy dodging like hell while being covered by a blanket of AA fire the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WW2. There is a very good reason China has recently started constructing its third aircraft carrier, and it's not because it looks pretty when you hang it over the fireplace.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > 20 cents of lead can kill a soldier. Are soldiers obsolete? Soldiers (and tanks and F-16s) have effective countermeasures. The difference is that surface ships do not have effective defenses (or will not, when the missile technology matures). Tech does become obsolete; it happened to boarding parties and battleships; aircraft carriers are 80 year old tech, the distance in time between the US Civil War and WWII, and they'll become obsolete some day. I sure hope my side isn't still depending on them when they do - that has been the end of many nations throughout history. You may not believe it, but it's a pretty broad consensus among experts that I've read. Militaries are investing heavily in that outcome.
  - j9461701 9y ago
    What militaries? Because France, the UK, India and China are all investing further in carriers. The broad consensus is demonstrably the opposite of what you're claiming. E pur si muove
    - 9y ago