Deconstructing the Nuclear Triad

[Kolesar]

My opinion is that we should reduce the "legs of the triad" with high personnel and operating costs: bombers and *all* of the ICBM subs. Land based missiles were destabilizing during the Cold War, but we don't face a scenario of mass destruction and a "use it or lose it" gambit. Read what the authors say:

By AJAY PATEL and BEN WACHENDORF
There are huge decisions that must be made soon on U.S. national defense. Most Americans have no idea what is at stake.

Like other military hardware designed in the Cold War, all three legs of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent are rapidly reaching retirement age. Traditional thinking suggests replacing all three legs. The cost to do that is more than $200 billion. A more prudent choice is to reduce strategic nuclear forces now by eliminating ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and accelerating reductions in submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to levels that the Pentagon has already recommended for the future.

Making these choices now would save hundreds of millions per year in operating costs and avoid at least $50 billion in costs to develop a new ICBM.

...more!...
http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012309170005

[Stargazer09]

1. The problem is...

...most of the world is ignoring the fact that China and Russia are building their nuclear arsenals, not reducing them. They aren't really our friends, and if we unilaterally disarm our weapons, we are going to be seen as a choice target that's ripe for the picking.

Believe me, I'd love to live in a world without nukes. But that is not our reality, and we still desperately need these weapons for deterrence.

A large part of the operating costs involved with these weapons involves people and jobs, so look at it as an investment in the economy. It's easy to say that we will save so much money by eliminating the weapons, but in reality, we stand to lose a great deal more if we lose the protection they provide.

[Kolesar]

2. Weapons are an inflationary use of public resources

Because they take value and resources out of the economy. That money would be better spent on infrastructure or just "never spent".

BTW, Russia is reducing its nuclear arsenal

[Stargazer09]

3. Actually,

Russia is modernizing their arsenal, and adding more weapons. They are about to reactivate their missile defense system around Moscow, which is not a good sign.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. My husband works in this arena, so I hear a lot about it. Russia is his specialty, but he keeps tabs on the other countries, too.

Like I said, the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, but our country can't afford to get rid of them. Too much is at stake.

[bemildred]

4. Land systems just make you a target. nt

[Kolesar]

5. of Iran? eom

[bemildred]

6. Of anybody.

Nukes are defensive weapons, so thay have to be defensible. But very little is defensible against nukes, yes?

So what's the answer? Redundancy so you can't get them all at once, dispersal so they are not all in the same place, and mobility so they are not anywhere in particular. Those things create survivability, and survivability is what makes a nuclear deterrent effective.

So you want plenty of nukes, dispersed all over somewhere else, preferably off your enemies shore in fact, and able to move around. What does that sound like?

Were it not for a desire to not put ones eggs ever all in one basket, I would favor nothing but subs, if you must have nukes at all.