5 ms·

There have been many broken arrows¹. Each one is a terrifying and fascinating story and it's one of my favorite Wikipedia rabbit holes which I think everyone s

There have been many broken arrows¹. Each one is a terrifying and fascinating story and it's one of my favorite Wikipedia rabbit holes which I think everyone should be at least somewhat familiar with. At least to appreciate the real, terrible costs of developing, and then maintaining these weapons, in a high alert operational state, continuously for many decades. The fact that most of these accidents were classified and hidden from the public, for 20 or 30 years, is troubling. The military (correctly) assumed that they would lose a lot of public support had the truth been known at the time. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology#Broken_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

walrus01 2y ago
You can also thank Curtis LeMay for maintaining the practice of 24x7 alert heavy bomber aircraft carrying live weapons many years after the point where they were no longer necessary, once long range ICBM tech had advanced to the point that a credible MAD deterrence force could be implemented by land based silo alert missiles and crews. By the late 1960s land based ICBMs were significantly improved from the early liquid fueled absurdities, and submarine based missiles were also advancing rapidly in range and reliability.
- 20after4 2y ago
  It seems insane to me that anyone ever thought that was a good idea.
  - jgeada 2y ago
    It was a very profitable idea, either in actual $$$ or in access to power, for some. That is all that usually matters around here.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    Airbases are in well known fixed locations. If your nuclear bomber fleet, and it's armaments, are all on the ground then it is entirely plausible that a sneak attack could decapitate the entire force. If that's your only nuclear force, then you have suddenly and immediately lost the war, lest the successful enemy then proceed to simply bomb your cities with impunity. The whole problem with nuclear weapons was you only needed a handful to annihilate the entire opposing force.
    - red_admiral 2y ago
      And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big, and even ICBMs would take enough time, presumably even if they're fired from a sub just off the coast, that you could get some of your bombers and silo missiles airborne. Submarines are an extra layer of insurance on top of that. The UK is not that big, so their backup is a letter from the prime minister in a safe inside the submarine, with instructions what to do if they find the UK has been destroyed.
      - jajko 2y ago
        Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.
        thaGf 2y ago
        Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
  - denkmoon 2y ago
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Curtis LeMay was far from insane, to write off the thoughts of those who influenced early nuclear doctrine as insane doesn't do the topic justice. The book Command & Control is a great read on nuclear doctrine.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- themadturk 2y ago
  But this is the whole concept of the "nuclear triad" -- bombers, land-based missiles and submarine-based missiles. It would be nearly impossible to stage an attack so stealthily that all three legs of the triad would be unable to respond. It's like keeping backups of your data in multiple places and/or on multiple media, a method of assuring recoverability when part of the solution inevitably fails.
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]
Hilift 2y ago
It's the main reason that tactical nukes were removed from surface ships in 1991. When a carrier deploys, the airwing flies aboard. Then ordnance is loaded during underway replenishment. For the warheads, this was almost a full day of parts of the ship on lockdown with armed marines, while warhead cases were loaded. Suffice it to say that all of this activity was ripe for an accident or loss of a warhead (if the container sinks). Having nukes on standby is one thing. Frequently moving them around is inherently problematic. In 2007, the USAF mistakenly loaded six cruise missiles with live W-80 warheads on a B-52, flew it from North Dakota to Louisiana, and left it sitting on the runway overnight with the bombs. Additionally, they were not reported missing for 36 hours. USAF also had a nuclear command general Michael Carey that was fired in 2013 for getting drunk with Russians in Moscow and talking crazy stuff. He was in charge of 450 missiles. I believe the US sent 100 B-61s to Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine.

walrus01 2y ago

You can also thank Curtis LeMay for maintaining the practice of 24x7 alert heavy bomber aircraft carrying live weapons many years after the point where they were no longer necessary, once long range ICBM tech had advanced to the point that a credible MAD deterrence force could be implemented by land based silo alert missiles and crews. By the late 1960s land based ICBMs were significantly improved from the early liquid fueled absurdities, and submarine based missiles were also advancing rapidly in range and reliability.

20after4 2y ago
It seems insane to me that anyone ever thought that was a good idea.
- jgeada 2y ago
  It was a very profitable idea, either in actual $$$ or in access to power, for some. That is all that usually matters around here.
- XorNot 2y ago
  Airbases are in well known fixed locations. If your nuclear bomber fleet, and it's armaments, are all on the ground then it is entirely plausible that a sneak attack could decapitate the entire force. If that's your only nuclear force, then you have suddenly and immediately lost the war, lest the successful enemy then proceed to simply bomb your cities with impunity. The whole problem with nuclear weapons was you only needed a handful to annihilate the entire opposing force.
  - red_admiral 2y ago
    And the six-day war showed that destroying someone's air force on the ground can actually be done - twice, I think (Egypt and Syria). Mind you, the US is big, and even ICBMs would take enough time, presumably even if they're fired from a sub just off the coast, that you could get some of your bombers and silo missiles airborne. Submarines are an extra layer of insurance on top of that. The UK is not that big, so their backup is a letter from the prime minister in a safe inside the submarine, with instructions what to do if they find the UK has been destroyed.
    - jajko 2y ago
      Technically three times now, Israel in past few days wiped out any air force or air defenses in Syria. They moved the country basically to the level of say Afghanistan re air defenses, so they can do whatever they want. So can others. Till current jihadists will agree with russians to have some pantsirs and S-300/400 on the ground for keeping their bases there and situation changes again. If russians can get friendly with Taliban they can be friends with anybody so thats just question of time.
      - thaGf 2y ago
        Ugh, the U.S. supported the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The current Syrian rebels, despite being partly a rebranding of Al-Quaeda, are supported by the U.S., which will recognize the new government under certain conditions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syrian-regime-if-it-renounces-terror-supports-women/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-will-recognize-new-syr... The regime change in Syria has been one of the primary U.S. foreign policy goals for decades. Of course, the Jihadists may turn on a dime and indeed cooperate with Russia in the future.
- denkmoon 2y ago
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Curtis LeMay was far from insane, to write off the thoughts of those who influenced early nuclear doctrine as insane doesn't do the topic justice. The book Command & Control is a great read on nuclear doctrine.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
themadturk 2y ago
But this is the whole concept of the "nuclear triad" -- bombers, land-based missiles and submarine-based missiles. It would be nearly impossible to stage an attack so stealthily that all three legs of the triad would be unable to respond. It's like keeping backups of your data in multiple places and/or on multiple media, a method of assuring recoverability when part of the solution inevitably fails.

bigbacaloa 2y ago

[dead]

Hilift 2y ago

It's the main reason that tactical nukes were removed from surface ships in 1991. When a carrier deploys, the airwing flies aboard. Then ordnance is loaded during underway replenishment. For the warheads, this was almost a full day of parts of the ship on lockdown with armed marines, while warhead cases were loaded. Suffice it to say that all of this activity was ripe for an accident or loss of a warhead (if the container sinks). Having nukes on standby is one thing. Frequently moving them around is inherently problematic. In 2007, the USAF mistakenly loaded six cruise missiles with live W-80 warheads on a B-52, flew it from North Dakota to Louisiana, and left it sitting on the runway overnight with the bombs. Additionally, they were not reported missing for 36 hours. USAF also had a nuclear command general Michael Carey that was fired in 2013 for getting drunk with Russians in Moscow and talking crazy stuff. He was in charge of 450 missiles. I believe the US sent 100 B-61s to Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine.