Point of view:US Nuclear deterrent at risk

[Afro-European]

by Loren B. Thompson
Arlington, Va. (UPI) Sep 18, 2008
Here's a quick quiz about national security. What is the single greatest danger to America's survival? Global terrorism? Biological warfare? Cyberattacks? Nope, none of the above. The biggest threat by far is still the Russian nuclear arsenal. If Russian leaders decided to launch a large-scale strategic missile attack against America right now, most of the people you know would be dead by sunset. And there's basically nothing we could do about it -- nothing, that is, except destroy Russia in retaliation.

Few Americans today still worry about the huge destructive power of the Russian nuclear force or the growing reach of Chinese intercontinental missiles. We have learned to live with the possibility of nuclear annihilation to such a degree that it seldom intrudes on our thoughts. Perhaps the biggest reason is that during the Cold War the United States constructed a secure "triad" of retaliatory forces that the Russians and Chinese could not destroy in a surprise attack. They know that attacking our forces or our society with nuclear weapons would bring swift retaliation in kind, making it an act of suicide.
The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 50 years trying to escape from this "delicate balance of terror," and in the process it has developed some very sophisticated defensive weapons, such as the present ground-based interceptor system. But those defenses can only stop a relatively small attack, such as North Korea might launch. We gave up on trying to stop a large-scale attack some time ago, because the prospects for success were too bleak. So instead we count on our own nuclear weapons to deter the Russians and Chinese from contemplating World War III.
However, if you want to build a defense posture based on deterrence, then you have to maintain a credible deterrent. In other words, potential aggressors have to be convinced that no matter what they throw at you in a surprise attack, you can retaliate with devastating force. Unfortunately, recent revelations about U.S. Air Force nuclear surety practices have called into question whether the strategic deterrence mission is still getting the high-level attention it deserves.
One area of concern is the 450 Minuteman III missiles maintained by the U.S. Air Force at bases in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. There used to be 1,000 Minutemen, half of which carried multiple warheads, but as a result of arms-control treaties and economy moves, the number has been cut by more than half and the payloads reduced to one warhead each -- at the same time the U.S. Air Force was gradually removing long-range bombers from the nuclear-deterrence role to conduct conventional missions.
That leaves only 450 single-warhead Minutemen plus a handful of Trident submarines -- say about 10 at any given time -- to ride out a surprise attack and retaliate.
The U.S. Air Force has decided to further compromise the credibility of our nuclear deterrent by ceasing production of Minuteman missile motors next year for the first time since construction began 50 years ago.
Once production ceases, skills unique to the Minuteman will quickly wither away. And yet the service cannot prove today that its missiles will remain workable until 2030, as mandated by law. That evidence will not be available until 2014, long after production capability to respond to any performance shortfalls has disappeared.
This is a dangerous move that can be avoided at very modest cost by continuing to build a dozen motors per year. What kind of thought process leads a service to undercut nuclear deterrence in order to save a few million dollars each year? (Loren B. Thompson is chief executive officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thompson_Files_Nuclear_deterrent_at_risk_999.html

[Firefly26]

IMO neither country is ever going to use nukes again. We have been so sensitized to the fear of nukes that just one going off in your territory is consequence enough to always make it an illogical move. Even if one of those rogue states managed to launch one and score a hit, I doubt that we would retaliate with a nuclear response unless they had the capability to launch more; even then there would be conventional ways of preventing them from launching any more. 450 Minutemen is more than enough for a deterrent and one is really all you need, which is likely why Iran would be pushing so hard for it. For the major players a nuclear strike will always be suicide and fortunately all the big parties realize that.

[TwoFistedFlava]

Yeah that's kind of a stupid article, I really doubt that Russian nukes are our biggest threat. We have a lot more to worry about with the world economy than we do with nuclear proliferation.

[Mu-Meson]

Don't worry. Obambi wants to eliminate all nukes, so everyone call live in peace, and harmony and love, and sing kumbayah, and put flowers in our hair. US: Enjoy whats left of your deterent now, coz it might not be around for long.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

For the major players a nuclear strike will always be suicide and fortunately all the big parties realize that.

I think the article's point is that it won't be suicide for one side at the rate that American deterrence is deteriorating.

And on top of this Obama wants to take our nuclear forces off of hair-trigger alert, virtually eliminating our second strike capability.

[Laworkerbee]

That leaves only 450 single-warhead Minutemen plus a handful of Trident submarines -- say about 10 at any given time -- to ride out a surprise attack and retaliate.

Which is more than enough for deterrence, such numbers would have been good enough for 1962, what the hell is this author advocating?

He leaves out the USN carriers and surface ships which are all capable of delivering nuclear weapons and FFS leave out our premiere first strike weapon....the B2 :cantbeli:


IMO neither country is ever going to use nukes again.
Never say never.


Megaraptor;3560099']I think the article's point is that it won't be suicide for one side at the rate that American deterrence is deteriorating
How so? no other country can currently or in the near future can match the US stockpile and its delivery systems.


If Russian leaders decided to launch a large-scale strategic missile attack against America right now, most of the people you know would be dead by sunset. And there's basically nothing we could do about it -- nothing, that is, except destroy Russia in retaliation.

O'rly? Thanks genuis I could have never have figured that out having lived through the Cold War. I hate articles like this, I hate even more that this douchebag got paid to write this tripe.

[aed1980]

It will be impossible to penetrate russia, they have the S-400:)


Im being sarcastic rofl

[Afro-European]

Laworkerbee>what the hell is this author advocating?
That the US should restart building up its nuke forces:
-fit all 450 minuteman III missiles with 10 warheads
-Deploy all 14 Ohio Class subs at sea at any given time
-That B-52 and B-2 should again be carrying nuke armed Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

and FFS leave out our premiere first strike weapon....the B2 :cantbeli:
I thought B-2 was a second strike weapon.

[Vorian]

450 warheads are enough to cover Russia AND Asia. So what if you can't re-nuke the already nuked cities just to be sure you didn't leave a cockroach alive...

[aed1980]

That the US should restart building up its nuke forces:
-fit all 450 minuteman III missiles with 10 warheads
-Deploy all 14 Ohio Class subs at sea at any given time
-That B-52 and B-2 should again be carrying nuke armed Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

I thought B-2 was a second strike weapon.

I thought it was forbidden to have multiple warheads in a missile.

[Laworkerbee]

That the US should restart building up its nuke forces:
-fit all 450 minuteman III missiles with 10 warheads
-Deploy all 14 Ohio Class subs at sea at any given time
-That B-52 and B-2 should again be carrying nuke armed Air Launched Cruise Missiles.

I thought B-2 was a second strike weapon.

A Stealth bomber than avoids detection is a first strike weapon, don't be fooled, imagine if the Russians had such a system and the United States did not.

This guy advocates all of this at but doesn't mention a reason why nor does he justify the cost in terms of money or frightening the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese which would force them to bring their systems up to higher alert levels.

the whole thing is just dumb in my opinion.

[Kilgor]

More Rubbish, some people deeply wish to be American's no 1 threat and be respected and feared.

America's great threat is dependence on foreign oil and its economy.

[GazB]

This guy advocates all of this at but doesn't mention a reason why nor does he justify the cost in terms of money or frightening the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese which would force them to bring their systems up to higher alert levels.

The guy also doesn't mention that while American nuclear forces have been reduced over the years, the Russian forces have also reduced as well. The main warhead carrier in the Russian arsenal is the SS-18, which is made in the Ukraine. Each SS-18 carries 10 warheads but they only actually made 308 of them to begin with. Many have been withdrawn and a few more have been used to launch satellites. Even with 450 Minutemen with 10 warheads each, that is 4,500 warheads in ICBMs alone. The Moscow treaty requires both sides to get down to a maximum of 2,200-1,700 warheads each side. This means putting 10 warheads in each Minuteman would already be two times too many warheads... not even taking into account B-52 and B-2 and B-1B aircraft and SSBNs.


I thought it was forbidden to have multiple warheads in a missile.

That was going to be part of START II. The US never signed it so it never came into effect. (BTW START II also banned heavyweight ICBMs like the SS-18 and Minuteman.)

[Afro-European]

.
That was going to be part of START II. The US never signed it so it never came into effect. (BTW START II also banned heavyweight ICBMs like the SS-18 and Minuteman.)
But why do they still have those missiles in their nuke arsenals?
Further on those START treaties,Russia is still abiding by them:


Russia has dismantled another six outdated Topol mobile ballistic missile systems under a major international treaty on strategic arms reduction, the Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement on Thursday.
"We scrapped six outdated Topol mobile systems. This is the third such procedure conducted this year," the statement said.
The first two batches totaling 12 Topol systems this year were scrapped in March and May. All of the systems were based in the Udmurt Republic in the eastern Urals.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-I) was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union on July 31, 1991, five months before the Union collapsed, and remains in force between the U.S., Russia, and three other ex-Soviet states.
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since disposed of all their nuclear weapons or transferred them to Russia, and the U.S. and Russia have reduced the number of delivery vehicles to 1,600, with no more than 6,000 warheads. The treaty is set to expire December 5, 2009.
Topol (SS-25 Sickle) is a single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) approximately the same size and shape as the U.S. Minuteman ICBM.
The first Topol missiles became operational in 1985, and at the time the START I Treaty was signed, the Soviet Union had some 290 Topol ICBMs deployed.
Although the service life of the SS-25 was extended to 21 years after a series of successful test launches last year, the missile will be progressively retired over the next decade and be replaced by a mobile version of the Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle B) missile.
The Strategic Missile Forces press service earlier said 36 mobile Topol ICBMs were dismantled in 2007 under close monitoring by U.S. inspectors

http://news.russiannewsroom.com/details.aspx?item=21575

Yo GazB,talks havent yet begun between US and Russia on START treaty III.What will happen when START treaty II expires on dec.31,2009?
Given tension between both countries on Nato expansion,missile shield and war in Georgia,are there chances that they can still reach some agreements?

[domokun]

That was going to be part of START II. The US never signed it so it never came into effect. (BTW START II also banned heavyweight ICBMs like the SS-18 and Minuteman.)

Aren't you meaning Peacekeeper instead of Minuteman. (Seeing you or Lokos making a clear factual error is something like Christmas or total eclipse of sun... don't happen as frequently as we would like. p-))

Soviets actually planned during darkest moments of cold war to make 40 warhead version of R-36 (SS-18) (or was it 38 warheads, too recently woken up to check fact right now... need more coffee.:oops:). Warheads in that version was planned to be 250kt's, bit smaller than 500kt and 750kt ones used built versions. Still it's massive amount of brutal force.

Personally I don't like the fact that START II got sacked. But now as USA is building "limited missile shield" MIRV's are only economical way saturate said defense. Still nukes are greatest threat to existence of our species, none of newer threats like terrorists or roque states with possible nuclear/other WMD capability can't change that fact. They are vicious threat to our way of living, but they can't cause global extintion. Smaller nuclear armed states like Israel, India, Pakistan and China, they do pack punch to send all their neighbors to kindom come, but they lack fire power USA and Russia has.

Still USA and Russia both have "healthy" deterrence to kill us all many times over, difference between can they do it 4,8 or 20 times isn't big when concidering end result.

[GazB]

But why do they still have those missiles in their nuke arsenals?
Further on those START treaties,Russia is still abiding by them:

The START II agreement was written and was supposed to be signed by both parties.
It banned heavyweight ICBMs and any ICBM designed to be able to carry more than one warhead. The only ICBM I am aware of that was developed after the START II treaty was written was the original TOPOL missile. This could only carry one warhead as was designed to carry only one warhead.
The Russians signed the START II treaty but the US Congress refused to. The treaty is binding only if both sides sign it. They haven't and they wont now because they have agreed on the Moscow Treaty to replace it. The Moscow Treaty is basically limiting both sides to between 2,200 and 1,700 strategic warheads each on a specific date... from memory that date is something like 12 Dec, 2012. (ie ICBM/SLBM/strategic bomber delivered bomb or cruise missile).

Due to the fact that the solid fuel in the TOPOLs only lasts for 10-15 years many have already been dismantled while the missiles they were supposed to replace, the SS-18s and SS-19s are still OK for another half decade or so. It seems to me that having one SS-18 with 10 warheads makes a lot more sense than 10 Topols that only last 10 years each. I assume the TOPOL-Ms will last longer.


Yo GazB,talks havent yet begun between US and Russia on START treaty III.What will happen when START treaty II expires on dec.31,2009?

START II never actually went into effect and was replaced by the Moscow Treaty.


Given tension between both countries on Nato expansion,missile shield and war in Georgia,are there chances that they can still reach some agreements?

With the expansion of NATO and the "missile shield" in Europe, and now talk of a radar system in Japan I doubt the Russians will want to reduce warhead numbers any further.


Aren't you meaning Peacekeeper instead of Minuteman. (Seeing you or Lokos making a clear factual error is something like Christmas or total eclipse of sun... don't happen as frequently as we would like. )

I think you might be right, but actually any ICBM that carries more than one MIRV warhead is banned by START II. It would have been enormously expensive to impliment as old perfectly good missiles would need to have been destroyed and to carry 650 warheads in your ICBMs (and about 650 SLBM and 650 aircraft launched cruise missiles would give a total of about 1,950 warheads) you would need 650 new ICBMs. That isn't cheap.


Soviets actually planned during darkest moments of cold war to make 40 warhead version of R-36 (SS-18) (or was it 38 warheads, too recently woken up to check fact right now... need more coffee.). Warheads in that version was planned to be 250kt's, bit smaller than 500kt and 750kt ones used built versions. Still it's massive amount of brutal force.

Indeed, which is why heavyweight ICBMs were banned. But most of the space in an SS-18 is used for jammers and decoys and other bits of electronic wizardry.


Still USA and Russia both have "healthy" deterrence to kill us all many times over, difference between can they do it 4,8 or 20 times isn't big when concidering end result.

The point is that if they ever reduce to the point where one side thinks they might have a chance of taking out most of the enemies strategic forces... ie B-2 stealth bombers attacking ICBM bases, Seawolfs attacking any Russian SSBNs at sea and a few SLBMs fired at Murmansk at the Russian sub base to get any SSBNs tied up at port with depressed trajectory SLBMs that take minutes to reach their target, and of course 10 interceptor missiles in Europe and 60 in the US and perhaps another 10 in Japan and all of a sudden one side might get the idea they might be able to get away with a surgical attack. Even if I didn't mention specific types of equipment my mention of "surgical strike" should make it clear who I mean. Even a GPS and laser guided bomb is anything but surgical...

MAD works only when both sides realise a confrontation will be suicide. MAD is the only thing that can be relied upon to work because the alternative is trust and neither side are ready for that.

[Laworkerbee]

I think you might be right

domokun - 1

GazB - 0


p-)

[James]

The biggest threat by far is still the Russian nuclear arsenal. If Russian leaders decided to launch a large-scale strategic missile attack against America right now, most of the people you know would be dead by sunset. And there's basically nothing we could do about it -- nothing, that is, except destroy Russia in retaliation.

This has been a threat for my entire lifetime. I am 34 years old. How is this "news"?

[James]

The biggest threat by far is still the Russian nuclear arsenal. If Russian leaders decided to launch a large-scale strategic missile attack against America right now, most of the people you know would be dead by sunset. And there's basically nothing we could do about it -- nothing, that is, except destroy Russia in retaliation.

This has been a threat for my entire lifetime. I am 34 years old. How is this "news"?

[Euroamerican]

A Stealth bomber than avoids detection is a first strike weapon, don't be fooled, imagine if the Russians had such a system and the United States did not.

This guy advocates all of this at but doesn't mention a reason why nor does he justify the cost in terms of money or frightening the hell out of the Russians and the Chinese which would force them to bring their systems up to higher alert levels.

the whole thing is just dumb in my opinion.

don't forget stealth cruise missles. Oh, and we're retiring ours...:roll:

I'm sure some of our rivals have some pretty interesting stealthy cruise missles now, or really really fast ones.

[GazB]

I'm sure some of our rivals have some pretty interesting stealthy cruise missles now, or really really fast ones.

That would be the Kh-101 and Kh-102. Both are high subsonic stealthy cruise missiles that have rather long flight ranges. 5,000km each. The Kh-101 has TV/IIR based terminal homing and a conventional warhead, while the Kh-102 is nuclear armed. They will be integrated into the the Tu-160, Tu-22M3, and Tu-95 bombers.