3 ms·

Cost. Missile silos are by far the cheapest source of nuclear weapons for the US. That's why there are only 20 B-2 bombers, and 14 Trident submarines in servi

Cost. Missile silos are by far the cheapest source of nuclear weapons for the US. That's why there are only 20 B-2 bombers, and 14 Trident submarines in service right now.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
philipkglass 6y ago
Treaty obligations limit the count of American nuclear weapons before costs do. Minuteman III ICBMs are technically capable of carrying multiple independent reentry vehicles but treaty compliance means that they all carry one warhead in practice. Trident II SLBMs are still deployed in MIRV'd configurations -- though with fewer warheads than they are technically capable of -- so in practice there are more warheads deliverable by the American submarine fleet than by its land based ICBMs. Of the 280 submarine launch tubes, only 212 were counted as deployed with as many Trident II missiles loaded. The treaty counts a missile as deployed if it is in a launch tube regardless of whether the submarine is deployed at sea. The United States has declared that it will not deploy more than 240 missiles at any time. Assuming each deployed submarine carries a full missile load, the 212 deployed missiles correspond to 10 submarines fully loaded with a total of 200 missiles. The remaining 12 deployed missiles were onboard one or two submarines loading or offloading missiles at the time the count was made. The data shows that the 212 deployed missiles carried a total of 945 warheads, or an average of 4 to 5 warheads per missile, corresponding to 70 percent of the 1,344 deployed warheads as of September 1, 2017. The New START data shows the United States now has just under 400 Minuteman III ICBMs in silos, down from 405 in March 2017. Normally the Air Force strides to have 400 deployed but one missile was undergoing maintenance. Although the number of deployed ICBMs had declined from 450 to 400, the total numbers of missiles and silos have not. The data shows the Air Force has the same number of missiles and silos as in March 2017 because 50 empty silos are “kept warm” and ready to load 50 non-deployed missiles if necessary. Reduction of deployed ICBMs started in 2016, five years after the New START was signed. And the actual ICBM force is the same size as when the treaty was signed. The 399 deployed ICBMs carried 399 W78/Mk12A or W87/Mk21 warheads. Although normally loaded with only one warhead each, the Trump NPR confirms that “a portion of the ICBM force can be uploaded” if necessary. We estimate the ICBM force has the capacity to carry a maximum of 800 warheads. "New Data Shows Detail About Final Phase of US New START Treaty Reductions" https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/01/new-start-full-data/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/01/new-start-full-data/
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  Treaties are compromises among all parties involved, using a variety of interests. That includes many different kinds of costs.
erentz 6y ago
Land based missiles aren’t very useful in second strike scenarios because your enemy has already cratered your missile fields in North Dakota. Submarines launched missiles exist entirely for this true second strike capability, one that can’t easily be dispatched with. We must maintain that (presuming we want to maintain second strike capability). That means the land based missiles really are only useful as a first strike function. We take on huge risks at great cost for no good reason. Better to use that $100 billion elsewhere such as R&D for the submarine force.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Land based missiles aren’t very useful in second strike scenarios because your enemy has already cratered your missile fields in North Dakota. That's why you need your infrared, and radar satellites. > Submarines launched missiles exist entirely for this true second strike capability, one that can’t easily be dispatched with. At the peak of cold war, up to a half of US SSBNs fleet was tailed by union's submarines. With giant advances in sensing, and computing since the cold war, SSBNs became much easier targets. It's foregone conclusion that your deterrence is stronger if you increase the number of ways you can attack.
  - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
    Much like other fundamental mistakes in the article it makes one relevant to the nuclear triad you're discussing as well. > 3,800 warheads [..] for practical purposes, after the first few, they quickly grow redundant. “Once you've dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, if you drop a couple more, all you do is make the rubble shake,” I'm frankly not sure if this is deliberately disingenuous, intended to be hyperbole, or a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation or some combination of all three, but, this is exceptionally wrong. The reason you have 3,800 warheads isn't to aim them all at one city. Remember just as the soviets target our nuclear missile silos we must target theirs. Moreover, having such an extensive fleet of missiles ensures that even if we were caught entirely off-guard and the soviets did an impossibly good job of targeting our nuclear forces, and say took out 90% of nuclear strike capabilities we would still have sufficient capabilities to utterly devastate them. This is why the nuclear triad exists. How effective would a soviet first strike be at targeting our SSBNs? Can they really track and destroy them at will? Maybe. How effective would it be against our missile silos? Do they know where they all are? Probably. Can they get their bombs on the ground before we can get ours into the air? Maybe. How effective would a soviet strike be against our bomber fleets? Do they know where to strike? Perhaps. Can they disable or destroy our bomber fleets before we can get them into the air? Maybe. But, what are the odds that they can do ALL three simultaneously? Very, very unlikely. And therein lies the truth of deterrence and nuclear detente. If the enemy understands that even in their best case 99% victory scenario you still possess enough capability to utterly devastate them they can and will not risk it.

Cost. Missile silos are by far the cheapest source of nuclear weapons for the US. That's why there are only 20 B-2 bombers, and 14 Trident submarines in service right now.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

philipkglass 6y ago

Treaty obligations limit the count of American nuclear weapons before costs do. Minuteman III ICBMs are technically capable of carrying multiple independent reentry vehicles but treaty compliance means that they all carry one warhead in practice. Trident II SLBMs are still deployed in MIRV'd configurations -- though with fewer warheads than they are technically capable of -- so in practice there are more warheads deliverable by the American submarine fleet than by its land based ICBMs. Of the 280 submarine launch tubes, only 212 were counted as deployed with as many Trident II missiles loaded. The treaty counts a missile as deployed if it is in a launch tube regardless of whether the submarine is deployed at sea. The United States has declared that it will not deploy more than 240 missiles at any time. Assuming each deployed submarine carries a full missile load, the 212 deployed missiles correspond to 10 submarines fully loaded with a total of 200 missiles. The remaining 12 deployed missiles were onboard one or two submarines loading or offloading missiles at the time the count was made. The data shows that the 212 deployed missiles carried a total of 945 warheads, or an average of 4 to 5 warheads per missile, corresponding to 70 percent of the 1,344 deployed warheads as of September 1, 2017. The New START data shows the United States now has just under 400 Minuteman III ICBMs in silos, down from 405 in March 2017. Normally the Air Force strides to have 400 deployed but one missile was undergoing maintenance. Although the number of deployed ICBMs had declined from 450 to 400, the total numbers of missiles and silos have not. The data shows the Air Force has the same number of missiles and silos as in March 2017 because 50 empty silos are “kept warm” and ready to load 50 non-deployed missiles if necessary. Reduction of deployed ICBMs started in 2016, five years after the New START was signed. And the actual ICBM force is the same size as when the treaty was signed. The 399 deployed ICBMs carried 399 W78/Mk12A or W87/Mk21 warheads. Although normally loaded with only one warhead each, the Trump NPR confirms that “a portion of the ICBM force can be uploaded” if necessary. We estimate the ICBM force has the capacity to carry a maximum of 800 warheads. "New Data Shows Detail About Final Phase of US New START Treaty Reductions" https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/01/new-start-full-data/ https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/01/new-start-full-data/

brandmeyer 6y ago
Treaties are compromises among all parties involved, using a variety of interests. That includes many different kinds of costs.

erentz 6y ago

Land based missiles aren’t very useful in second strike scenarios because your enemy has already cratered your missile fields in North Dakota. Submarines launched missiles exist entirely for this true second strike capability, one that can’t easily be dispatched with. We must maintain that (presuming we want to maintain second strike capability). That means the land based missiles really are only useful as a first strike function. We take on huge risks at great cost for no good reason. Better to use that $100 billion elsewhere such as R&D for the submarine force.

baybal2 6y ago
> Land based missiles aren’t very useful in second strike scenarios because your enemy has already cratered your missile fields in North Dakota. That's why you need your infrared, and radar satellites. > Submarines launched missiles exist entirely for this true second strike capability, one that can’t easily be dispatched with. At the peak of cold war, up to a half of US SSBNs fleet was tailed by union's submarines. With giant advances in sensing, and computing since the cold war, SSBNs became much easier targets. It's foregone conclusion that your deterrence is stronger if you increase the number of ways you can attack.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
  Much like other fundamental mistakes in the article it makes one relevant to the nuclear triad you're discussing as well. > 3,800 warheads [..] for practical purposes, after the first few, they quickly grow redundant. “Once you've dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, if you drop a couple more, all you do is make the rubble shake,” I'm frankly not sure if this is deliberately disingenuous, intended to be hyperbole, or a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation or some combination of all three, but, this is exceptionally wrong. The reason you have 3,800 warheads isn't to aim them all at one city. Remember just as the soviets target our nuclear missile silos we must target theirs. Moreover, having such an extensive fleet of missiles ensures that even if we were caught entirely off-guard and the soviets did an impossibly good job of targeting our nuclear forces, and say took out 90% of nuclear strike capabilities we would still have sufficient capabilities to utterly devastate them. This is why the nuclear triad exists. How effective would a soviet first strike be at targeting our SSBNs? Can they really track and destroy them at will? Maybe. How effective would it be against our missile silos? Do they know where they all are? Probably. Can they get their bombs on the ground before we can get ours into the air? Maybe. How effective would a soviet strike be against our bomber fleets? Do they know where to strike? Perhaps. Can they disable or destroy our bomber fleets before we can get them into the air? Maybe. But, what are the odds that they can do ALL three simultaneously? Very, very unlikely. And therein lies the truth of deterrence and nuclear detente. If the enemy understands that even in their best case 99% victory scenario you still possess enough capability to utterly devastate them they can and will not risk it.