5 ms·

> The US nuclear triad is way out of date and potentially vulnerable to a first strike. How are nuclear submarines vulnerable to a first strike?

staunch 8y ago
There's just a handful of Ohio class subs and all of them should have been replaced by more modern and stealthier designs by now. It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. And even if most of the active subs survived it might not be sufficient to ensure MAD because they don't carry all that many SLBMs.
- mathinpens 8y ago
  handful = 14 boats on deterrence patrols. there are literally 1000 warheads on active american boomers with superfusing..... If literally one submarine survives this amazing russian counterstrike by taking out every single other ohio class at once that still leaves a counterforce of at most 12*24 = 288 warheads. that is 144 to burn russian cities and 144 to burn chinese cities. to me that seems like a credible strike. and this is still assuming literally NO land based or air deliverable weapons are left. ... considering the spotty accuracy of russian missiles (seriously go look up their CEP ratios - do you even know what CEP stands for? ) I find that scenario very unlikely. China is widely believed to have only 270 warheads... https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u...
  - staunch 8y ago
    1. The US claims to have 14 active but that doesn't account for maintenance problems and the times when they're going in and out of port, something enemies track very closely. The real number is likely even lower than this already low number. 2. Why do you think superfuzes helps in a counter strike? They massively increase accuracy but that's not even the problem to solve in a MAD scenario. Superfuzes help in taking out an enemy's nuclear force while it's on the ground, as in the case of a first strike. You don't need them to hit cities. 3. Counting warheads is misleading because it ignores the possibility of interception or failure of the missiles themselves. Countering some number of those 24 missiles is entirely conceivable. 4. Yes, I know what CEP means because I too have read pages on Wikipedia. Is this your weak attempt at claiming expertise where none likely exists? 5. Here's an open letter from the actual experts that ran the US Strategic Command. They agree with me that the US nuclear triad is in dire need of modernization. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-upgrade-1484179459 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-... Some of their recommendations have already been implemented and a lot more needs to be done before we can rely on MAD being in effect in the future. 6. Putting the hopes of humanity on a few subs that were designed in the 1970s is a very dangerous idea. It's an admission that the triad is broken. When you've let two thirds of your redundant system fail, you've got a very urgent problem.
    - 0xdead_beef 8y ago
      Don't you think any of those 1970s subs have seen modernization efforts?
      - staunch 8y ago
        Have they been upgraded? Yes. Have they replaced those 1970s era engines with subs that have quieter electric drives as planned? Nope. From the open letter (linked above) by the experts: "The last concentrated investment to modernize the triad came during the Reagan administration." Even if you believe the subs are in great condition, that doesn't fix the other two fundamentally broken legs of the triad. The B-52 fleet would likely get shot down because they're very slow and non-stealthy. The ICBMs probably don't even work (no public evidence they do), they're in well known static silos, and have just a few minutes of "use or lose" time.
        mathinpens 8y ago
        you do realize the ohio replacement class is literally in development right now. > The ICBMs probably don't even work (no public evidence they do), they're in well known static silos, and have just a few minutes of "use or lose" time. They fire off a few randomly selected minuteman IIIs every so often and the footage is typically public. maybe not perfect evidence but it is some evidence.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  > It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. By 'conceivable', you mean 'I am able to think this thought, regardless of how tied to reality it is', right?
  - staunch 8y ago
    I actually mean something more like "plausible" here. If primary means of protection for these subs is stealth, and that stealth is no longer in effect, then it's logical to assume that they're vulnerable. The fact that the US Navy is trying to replace them with stealthier Columbia class submarines is good evidence that this is true. Do you any useful information or ideas to add?
- trhway 8y ago
  >It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. i kind of wondering which Navy in the world has (or going to have in the next 10 years - supposing that US would do nothing in those 10 years) sufficient number of such superior attack submarines (or how else you're going to attack these subs? ICBM or long range bombers are obviously out of question) Definitely it is beyond Russia and China capabilities (even if combined (not is going to happen))
  - staunch 8y ago
    What about massive nuclear mines laid in front of their routes? Or long range nuclear missiles fired from ships? Long range torpedoes? Kamikaze-style mini subs? A sneak attack would probably be creative. The Ohio subs are supposed to be hard to track. If they are being successfully tracked then they're vulnerable to attack. The point of the nuclear triad is to be triple redundant. The system is not designed to rely solely on the ability of the subs to survive an attack. That would be a single point of failure.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  but MAD is a very bad thing - why would we want this thing to work at all - the more that fail the better off we all are
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

staunch 8y ago

There's just a handful of Ohio class subs and all of them should have been replaced by more modern and stealthier designs by now. It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. And even if most of the active subs survived it might not be sufficient to ensure MAD because they don't carry all that many SLBMs.

mathinpens 8y ago
handful = 14 boats on deterrence patrols. there are literally 1000 warheads on active american boomers with superfusing..... If literally one submarine survives this amazing russian counterstrike by taking out every single other ohio class at once that still leaves a counterforce of at most 12*24 = 288 warheads. that is 144 to burn russian cities and 144 to burn chinese cities. to me that seems like a credible strike. and this is still assuming literally NO land based or air deliverable weapons are left. ... considering the spotty accuracy of russian missiles (seriously go look up their CEP ratios - do you even know what CEP stands for? ) I find that scenario very unlikely. China is widely believed to have only 270 warheads... https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578 https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-u...
- staunch 8y ago
  1. The US claims to have 14 active but that doesn't account for maintenance problems and the times when they're going in and out of port, something enemies track very closely. The real number is likely even lower than this already low number. 2. Why do you think superfuzes helps in a counter strike? They massively increase accuracy but that's not even the problem to solve in a MAD scenario. Superfuzes help in taking out an enemy's nuclear force while it's on the ground, as in the case of a first strike. You don't need them to hit cities. 3. Counting warheads is misleading because it ignores the possibility of interception or failure of the missiles themselves. Countering some number of those 24 missiles is entirely conceivable. 4. Yes, I know what CEP means because I too have read pages on Wikipedia. Is this your weak attempt at claiming expertise where none likely exists? 5. Here's an open letter from the actual experts that ran the US Strategic Command. They agree with me that the US nuclear triad is in dire need of modernization. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-upgrade-1484179459 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-... Some of their recommendations have already been implemented and a lot more needs to be done before we can rely on MAD being in effect in the future. 6. Putting the hopes of humanity on a few subs that were designed in the 1970s is a very dangerous idea. It's an admission that the triad is broken. When you've let two thirds of your redundant system fail, you've got a very urgent problem.
  - 0xdead_beef 8y ago
    Don't you think any of those 1970s subs have seen modernization efforts?
    - staunch 8y ago
      Have they been upgraded? Yes. Have they replaced those 1970s era engines with subs that have quieter electric drives as planned? Nope. From the open letter (linked above) by the experts: "The last concentrated investment to modernize the triad came during the Reagan administration." Even if you believe the subs are in great condition, that doesn't fix the other two fundamentally broken legs of the triad. The B-52 fleet would likely get shot down because they're very slow and non-stealthy. The ICBMs probably don't even work (no public evidence they do), they're in well known static silos, and have just a few minutes of "use or lose" time.
      - mathinpens 8y ago
        you do realize the ohio replacement class is literally in development right now. > The ICBMs probably don't even work (no public evidence they do), they're in well known static silos, and have just a few minutes of "use or lose" time. They fire off a few randomly selected minuteman IIIs every so often and the footage is typically public. maybe not perfect evidence but it is some evidence.
oh_sigh 8y ago
> It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. By 'conceivable', you mean 'I am able to think this thought, regardless of how tied to reality it is', right?
- staunch 8y ago
  I actually mean something more like "plausible" here. If primary means of protection for these subs is stealth, and that stealth is no longer in effect, then it's logical to assume that they're vulnerable. The fact that the US Navy is trying to replace them with stealthier Columbia class submarines is good evidence that this is true. Do you any useful information or ideas to add?
trhway 8y ago
>It's conceivable that an enemy could locate most of them and hit them with nuclear torpedos or similar. i kind of wondering which Navy in the world has (or going to have in the next 10 years - supposing that US would do nothing in those 10 years) sufficient number of such superior attack submarines (or how else you're going to attack these subs? ICBM or long range bombers are obviously out of question) Definitely it is beyond Russia and China capabilities (even if combined (not is going to happen))
- staunch 8y ago
  What about massive nuclear mines laid in front of their routes? Or long range nuclear missiles fired from ships? Long range torpedoes? Kamikaze-style mini subs? A sneak attack would probably be creative. The Ohio subs are supposed to be hard to track. If they are being successfully tracked then they're vulnerable to attack. The point of the nuclear triad is to be triple redundant. The system is not designed to rely solely on the ability of the subs to survive an attack. That would be a single point of failure.
Taniwha 8y ago
but MAD is a very bad thing - why would we want this thing to work at all - the more that fail the better off we all are

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]