5 ms·
Why exactly do we still need nuclear subs? I'm not trying to be a troll, or funny. What threat is currently best dealt with by deploying ICBMs in nuclear subs?
by jleader 13y ago
Why exactly do we still need nuclear subs?
I'm not trying to be a troll, or funny. What threat is currently best dealt with by deploying ICBMs in nuclear subs? And why is the money better spent on that than on any other alternative use?
- rayiner 13y agoChina and Russia.
- jvm 13y agoAre those really not dealt with via ICBMs? Why do we need the capacity to destroy them 20x over within 25 minutes when 1x with 3 hours notice would suffice? It seems like the downside risk of rogue actors or accidents causing a nuclear holocaust far outweighs the benefits of additional weapons at the margin.
- shirro 13y agoPerhaps on paper. But being a global power gives the US a special relationship with friendly countries as well. The dependency on US military protection subverts the sovereignty of allied nations causing them to harmonise laws on intellectual property, drugs, share intelligence including information about businesses in competition with US ones amongst other things. It is a very advantageous situation for the USA and I think it is wrong to think the only point of being a global superpower is to keep the Russians and Chinese in line. It is as much about maintaining the Empire and keeping the client states in line. Hail Caeser!
- baddox 13y agoTwo countries that have never used nuclear weapons against their enemies.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y agoOn the other hand, they've both killed tens of millions of their own citizens. Each. And the U.S. killed more people using conventional ordnance in a single night in Tokyo than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined from the atomic bombings, so what is it that you're actually upset about? Because it's obviously not the number of Japanese killed.
- baddox 13y agoI wasn't commenting on total number of people killed by each government. We were talking about nuclear weapons (specifically nuclear subs).
- mpyne 13y agoYes, but you say that as if being killed by a nuclear weapon is somehow more traumatic than being burned alive in a city-sized Holocaust incited by incendiary weaponry. Or even that being blown to bits by conventional weaponry is somehow better. Think about it: Germany never used nuclear weapons on the U.S.S.R., were they somehow more moble?
- nck4222 13y agoNuclear submarines typically refer to submarines that are nuclear powered, not submarines that carry nuclear missiles. Although some submarines do carry ICBMs.
- mpyne 13y agoIf anything, China and Russia are more interested in the locations of the SSNs than the SSBNs, at any given time in the modern age.
- bicknergseng 13y agoI'm curious why we need both a nuclear deterrent and a standing army of 1,127,801 people. Seems like more of an XOR.
- rayiner 13y agoBecause we subsidize world peace (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-22/india/30652668_1_steven-pinker-wmds-violence http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-22/india...). Maybe it's a business we need to get out of, but at the moment, the reason Europe, etc, get away with spending so little on defense is that they can count on NATO, and the U.S. basically carries NATO.
- ekianjo 13y agoNATO's record to keep the world safe and peaceful is nothing short of a disaster. Arriving too late with too little is often how NATO's interventions can be described. Laughable at best, and in return people end up hating NATO for their lack of timely action to save lives.
- rayiner 13y agoThe purpose of NATO isn't to keep the world safe. The purpose of NATO is for Europe to outsource its collective defense to the U.S., specifically to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. It worked, at tremendous cost to the U.S.
- tptacek 13y agoSo, when some large military power cuts off shipping lanes in the Pacific, we'd, what, threaten to nuke them? That's a better state affairs than what we have today? Conversely: what goes does a standing army of 1,127,801 people do you if your adversary has nuclear weapons?
- johncoltrane 13y agoThe adversary has nuclear weapons because you (assuming you are a citizen od the US of A) have nuclear weapons.
- michaelwww 13y agoI rode subs for awhile and your question is a fair question. Subs with nuke missiles are an insurance policy. They are a deterrent, insuring no country can attack the U.S. - no matter how successful - and not expect a massive and devastating counter-attack. Run silent, run deep.
- ekianjo 13y agoThat argument is flawed. You can destroy each other, so what? Everybody loses. We know that some countries have their weapons ready to go at the will of a single person or very few. What if that leader becomes crazy or incapable of reasoning? Your subs you't protect you in that scenario. There are so many other ways you can prevent such attacks. Diplomacy, commerce, keeping good relations, etc. The threat of an axe on your neck makes it hard to look like you have good intentions in the first place.
- michaelwww 13y agoThat's why it was called M.A.D. - Mutual Assured Destruction - with dark humor. Nobody chose it, the world just evolved that way until it became codified.
- einhverfr 13y agoIn his book, "Star Wars," Lt. Bowman makes the case that the Strategic Defence Initiative (and similar missile defence systems) are bad ideas specifically because they disrupt MAD. His argument is that as long as we KNOW we are not being under attack, then we can all sleep at night. There is a point to this. MAD wasn't just about deterrence, but also about ensuring mutual access to early warning information. The combination of the two is actually not a bad thing. "I know you can destroy me if I attack you, and I know you can see me if I start to do so" is not a bad set of factors. Unfortunately things like anti-satellite missiles and weapons in space really endanger that because if a small piece of space junk collides with a satellite over the other guy's territory, you may not know for sure that this is not the prelude to an attack. So the actual MAD strategies as they developed through the Ford years were actually quite sophisticated and stabilizing. But what happens when your threat is a nuclear weapon in a twenty-foot container instead of an ICBM (because some country like North Korea knows we can have 747's with lasers shoot down launching missiles if we launch a first strike)?
- fixxer 13y agoMAD works.
- einhverfr 13y agoBut only when combining deterrence with early warning and an agreement not to develop weapons to target early warning systems. Otherwise it is a recipe for "oops, I guess we weren't really being attacked. Sorry for the nuclear war."
- fixxer 13y agoReally? All evidence to the contrary.