7 ms·

> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect

> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority. Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.

dataflow 3y ago
Doesn't this project weakness? Is there any reason to believe China or Russia have had doubts about US capabilities that this would now... resolve?
- Semaphor 3y ago
  I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  given two consecutive failures of uk launched tridents, i think a lot of people have doubts, and that is very dangerous.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.
  - gherkinnn 3y ago
    Some loose thoughts on Trident - Yes, Minister was a prescient show - Trident is the UK's only nuclear deterrent. - While the UK fired them, they are taken from a common US-UK pool of interchangeable missiles. - NATO governments are on the open side. Failures are likely to be made public. - It is, of course, embarrassing
    - arethuza 3y ago
      The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?
- paganel 3y ago
  It's interesting because when it comes to submarines and related nuclear deterrence the US are at least a head in front compared to the Russians (and obviously much more advanced compared to the Chinese), unlike the other two forms of deterrence (land-based and aerial). The Russians themselves are aware of that gap and have started to try and close it, they've just launched two new nuclear submarines recently [1] and others are on their way. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/12/putin-views-russias-new-nuclear-submarines-says-more-being-rolled-out https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/12/putin-views-rus...
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  This is sabre-rattling belligerence, plain and simple. There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps .. Alas, America doesn't have one of those any more - so it has to rattle sabres to get its way, instead. The cost of half a submarine such as this would go a long way to restoring peace in the world, were it spent on diplomacy and good will instead of jobs programs for domestic war profiteers...
  - bertil 3y ago
    > There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps I feel like Ukrainians would disagree with you. And Taiwanese. And people using chips made in Taiwan.
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      Such a fallacy. The Ukrainians don't have a functioning diplomatic or ambassador corps, either. Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag, Ukrainians aren't American citizens whose taxes get wasted on these ridiculous submarines, and the Ukrainian people don't pay for the US' military junta's favorite toys of the month. It buys the old ones for its war. If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. That'll be as true of any war in Taiwan as it is in Ukraine.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        > Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag Bothsidism is a strong in this one. Why am I not surprised it comes from an Austrian? > If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. First, diplomacy must be backed by strength, leverage, without it there's nothing to negotiate, because the other side can simply take what it wants. As such, sabre rattling is part of diplomacy. Nuclear deterrence is part of diplomacy. Second, diplomacy may fail. Western diplomacy failed in 1938 and 1939, and there was war. Sometimes such failures happen and you need to be prepared for that. Layered defense. I'm quite curious what would be your diplomatic solution to the Taiwan problem, hopefully it would respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents.
littlecranky67 3y ago
Did a spokesperson say that? Else just another case where the authors opinion and hyperthetical is presented as fact.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  It’s presented as the authors' opinion, imo?
  - littlecranky67 3y ago
    By adding a single "aparently" in the paragraph?
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      "seemed" and "apparently". I don’t think they are hiding it from anyone but you. The author reflecting why they got this much-valued access is the actually interesting part of this.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        How is the author's misguided speculation interesting? If that was supposed to be the interesting part the title wouldn't be: > Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine Just report what you saw, not what you feel. Reporters used to know to not be the subject. They were invited on and that wasn't good enough. They had to make up some plot in their head why they were invited on to confirm their bias and influence others.
        skavi 3y ago
        You’d rather they be a transparent conduit for state propaganda? Better to remind readers that the military sees value in this article existing.
        theultdev 3y ago
DinaCoder99 3y ago
Interesting that the military would willingly present themselves as the single greatest threat to american security.
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  .. and not America's utter failure to produce any diplomacy worth its salt in the world today.
dilyevsky 3y ago
The potential (and very likely at this point) US nuclear rearmament is hotly discussed topic atm
- sillywalk 3y ago
  It's already underway, and already ballooning in cost. It started under Obama. $1.5 Trillion as a minimum[0]. Sentinel ICBMs, B-21 bombers, and Columbia Class SSBNs. "The Air Force told Congress January 18 that the newly estimated cost of each LGM-35A Sentinel has jumped from $118 million in 2020 to $162 million today. That’s a 37% spike." ... The service’s original 2016 estimate for the program was $62.3 billion. Then it ballooned to $95.3 billion. The latest projection suggests its new cost could be nearly $132 billion."[1] [0]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-1-5-trillion-nuclear-weapons-program-youve-never-heard-of/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-1-5-tr... [1] https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-the-skys-the-limit https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-the-s...

dataflow 3y ago

Doesn't this project weakness? Is there any reason to believe China or Russia have had doubts about US capabilities that this would now... resolve?

Semaphor 3y ago
I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.
zabzonk 3y ago
given two consecutive failures of uk launched tridents, i think a lot of people have doubts, and that is very dangerous.
- cm2187 3y ago
  This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.
- gherkinnn 3y ago
  Some loose thoughts on Trident - Yes, Minister was a prescient show - Trident is the UK's only nuclear deterrent. - While the UK fired them, they are taken from a common US-UK pool of interchangeable missiles. - NATO governments are on the open side. Failures are likely to be made public. - It is, of course, embarrassing
  - arethuza 3y ago
    The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?
paganel 3y ago
It's interesting because when it comes to submarines and related nuclear deterrence the US are at least a head in front compared to the Russians (and obviously much more advanced compared to the Chinese), unlike the other two forms of deterrence (land-based and aerial). The Russians themselves are aware of that gap and have started to try and close it, they've just launched two new nuclear submarines recently [1] and others are on their way. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/12/putin-views-russias-new-nuclear-submarines-says-more-being-rolled-out https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/12/12/putin-views-rus...
boffinAudio 3y ago
This is sabre-rattling belligerence, plain and simple. There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps .. Alas, America doesn't have one of those any more - so it has to rattle sabres to get its way, instead. The cost of half a submarine such as this would go a long way to restoring peace in the world, were it spent on diplomacy and good will instead of jobs programs for domestic war profiteers...
- bertil 3y ago
  > There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps I feel like Ukrainians would disagree with you. And Taiwanese. And people using chips made in Taiwan.
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    Such a fallacy. The Ukrainians don't have a functioning diplomatic or ambassador corps, either. Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag, Ukrainians aren't American citizens whose taxes get wasted on these ridiculous submarines, and the Ukrainian people don't pay for the US' military junta's favorite toys of the month. It buys the old ones for its war. If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. That'll be as true of any war in Taiwan as it is in Ukraine.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag Bothsidism is a strong in this one. Why am I not surprised it comes from an Austrian? > If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. First, diplomacy must be backed by strength, leverage, without it there's nothing to negotiate, because the other side can simply take what it wants. As such, sabre rattling is part of diplomacy. Nuclear deterrence is part of diplomacy. Second, diplomacy may fail. Western diplomacy failed in 1938 and 1939, and there was war. Sometimes such failures happen and you need to be prepared for that. Layered defense. I'm quite curious what would be your diplomatic solution to the Taiwan problem, hopefully it would respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents.

littlecranky67 3y ago

Did a spokesperson say that? Else just another case where the authors opinion and hyperthetical is presented as fact.

Semaphor 3y ago
It’s presented as the authors' opinion, imo?
- littlecranky67 3y ago
  By adding a single "aparently" in the paragraph?
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    "seemed" and "apparently". I don’t think they are hiding it from anyone but you. The author reflecting why they got this much-valued access is the actually interesting part of this.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      How is the author's misguided speculation interesting? If that was supposed to be the interesting part the title wouldn't be: > Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine Just report what you saw, not what you feel. Reporters used to know to not be the subject. They were invited on and that wasn't good enough. They had to make up some plot in their head why they were invited on to confirm their bias and influence others.
      - skavi 3y ago
        You’d rather they be a transparent conduit for state propaganda? Better to remind readers that the military sees value in this article existing.
        theultdev 3y ago

DinaCoder99 3y ago

Interesting that the military would willingly present themselves as the single greatest threat to american security.

boffinAudio 3y ago
.. and not America's utter failure to produce any diplomacy worth its salt in the world today.

dilyevsky 3y ago

The potential (and very likely at this point) US nuclear rearmament is hotly discussed topic atm

sillywalk 3y ago
It's already underway, and already ballooning in cost. It started under Obama. $1.5 Trillion as a minimum[0]. Sentinel ICBMs, B-21 bombers, and Columbia Class SSBNs. "The Air Force told Congress January 18 that the newly estimated cost of each LGM-35A Sentinel has jumped from $118 million in 2020 to $162 million today. That’s a 37% spike." ... The service’s original 2016 estimate for the program was $62.3 billion. Then it ballooned to $95.3 billion. The latest projection suggests its new cost could be nearly $132 billion."[1] [0]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-1-5-trillion-nuclear-weapons-program-youve-never-heard-of/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-1-5-tr... [1] https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-the-skys-the-limit https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-the-s...