6 ms·

> Should we eliminate one leg of the nuclear triad? Yes, actually; two of them. Air-based nuclear bombs barely made sense in WWII; with modern IADS, the idea

> Should we eliminate one leg of the nuclear triad? Yes, actually; two of them. Air-based nuclear bombs barely made sense in WWII; with modern IADS, the idea that you're going to get nuclear bombers through to target is laughable. As for land-based assets, they're all in known locations built to withstand strikes that even conventional weaponry can take out these days. Sure, you can put them on mobile launchers and move them around like Russia, but then you have major security problems with hauling them around the country where people can potentially get near them. The only part of the nuclear triad that actually matters for deterrence is the SLBMs.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
I read suggestions at least 40 years ago that we should get rid of all land based nuclear assets because, in the case of an actual nuclear war, they will massively increase the amount of radioactive fallout and long term contamination the survivors will have to deal with.
icegreentea2 2y ago
I agree that you could cut the other two legs and still retain >90% of value with just the SLBMs. What's nearly always disappointing with these types of cuts is what happens when you actually look at the numbers. CBO's 2021 estimate of 2021-2030 Nuclear Force costs are here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/57130-Nuclear-Forces.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/57130-Nuclear-Force... The estimated total costs over that time frame (this includes spending on B-21+LRSO, Columbia Class SSBN and Sentinel ICBM development) is 634 billion dollars. ICBMs and strategic bombers are budgeted at ~130 billion, and SSBNs are 145 billion. If you took the 634 billion, and cut out the ICBM and Bombers and tactical weapons, and cut the nuclear weapons lab/support facility cost by 2/3 (this is way optimistic), and cut the communications and C&C cost by 2/3 (this is also way optimistic), you end up with total savings over the 10 years of ~275 billion (44%). This is not chump change. Unfortunately, the current (2024) DoD yearly budget (note that many of the costs above are split between DoD and DoE) is 825 billion. The same CBO estimate puts the nuclear budget at ~7% of the total defense budget over the same 10 year period. So these cuts get us a ~3% overall decrease to the DoD budget. This is certainly a major achievement, but unfortunately it's probably the single largest/easiest decision to make. Every single choice past this just gets harder and harder with smaller and smaller wins.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

I read suggestions at least 40 years ago that we should get rid of all land based nuclear assets because, in the case of an actual nuclear war, they will massively increase the amount of radioactive fallout and long term contamination the survivors will have to deal with.

icegreentea2 2y ago

I agree that you could cut the other two legs and still retain >90% of value with just the SLBMs. What's nearly always disappointing with these types of cuts is what happens when you actually look at the numbers. CBO's 2021 estimate of 2021-2030 Nuclear Force costs are here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/57130-Nuclear-Forces.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/57130-Nuclear-Force... The estimated total costs over that time frame (this includes spending on B-21+LRSO, Columbia Class SSBN and Sentinel ICBM development) is 634 billion dollars. ICBMs and strategic bombers are budgeted at ~130 billion, and SSBNs are 145 billion. If you took the 634 billion, and cut out the ICBM and Bombers and tactical weapons, and cut the nuclear weapons lab/support facility cost by 2/3 (this is way optimistic), and cut the communications and C&C cost by 2/3 (this is also way optimistic), you end up with total savings over the 10 years of ~275 billion (44%). This is not chump change. Unfortunately, the current (2024) DoD yearly budget (note that many of the costs above are split between DoD and DoE) is 825 billion. The same CBO estimate puts the nuclear budget at ~7% of the total defense budget over the same 10 year period. So these cuts get us a ~3% overall decrease to the DoD budget. This is certainly a major achievement, but unfortunately it's probably the single largest/easiest decision to make. Every single choice past this just gets harder and harder with smaller and smaller wins.