U.S. Deploys New Nuclear Submarine Warhead To Deter Russia

[Rogue Valley]

U.S. Deploys New Nuclear Submarine Warhead To Deter Russia

2/5/20
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Navy announced it has put into operation a low-yield, nuclear ballistic missile aboard a submarine as it seeks to deter adversaries like Russia. “This supplemental capability strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence,” Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood said in a statement on February 4. The administration of President Donald Trump first announced its intention to deploy the W76-2 low-yield weapon in February 2018 after a review concluded there was a perception of a gap in U.S. deterrence capabilities. The Nuclear Posture Review concluded that Russia has a strategy known as "escalate to de-escalate," in which the Kremlin would use or threaten to use low-yield nuclear weapons in a limited conventional conflict in Europe to compel the United States and NATO to back down. "Recent Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow's first-use of nuclear weapons," the 2018 review said.

Democrats in the House of Representatives criticized the deployment of the W76-2 as “dangerous” and said the Pentagon has refused to answer Congressional questions about the weapon. “The deployment of this warhead does nothing to make Americans safer. Instead, this destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (Democrat-Washington) said in a statement. Russia would not be able to determine if a weapon launched from a nuclear submarine is low-yield or not, adversaries say. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said that despite the focus on deploying the weapon to deter Russian aggression, the real target “is much more likely” to be North Korea or Iran.

The Trump administration and the Pentagon have apparently embraced the Russian doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate". A dangerous development.

Only with the advent of Trump are US government agencies refusing to answer Congressional questions about their programs. Perhaps ... a more dangerous development.

 

[Cordelier]

U.S. Deploys New Nuclear Submarine Warhead To Deter Russia

The Trump administration and the Pentagon have apparently embraced the Russian doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate". A dangerous development.

Only with the advent of Trump are US government agencies refusing to answer Congressional questions about their programs. Perhaps ... a more dangerous development.

It's a very dangerous development. If you want to know why, I'll refer you to the May 22, 2018 letter sent to Senator McConnell and signed by then-California Governor Jerry Brown, Former Secretary of State George Schultz and a lot of other knowledgeable people on the matter. The notion of "manageable" nuclear conflict using low-yield warheads is a dangerous myth. Once you cross that line of using one, events have a way of quickly spiraling out of control.

I don't know about anyone else in here, but I've based a lot of my thinking on geopolitics over the last 30-odd years on the simple principle of not going against the advice of George Schultz. I can't think of a case where it has steered me wrong yet.

 

[Dayton3]

Once you cross that line of using one, events have a way of quickly spiraling out of control.

.

Given nuclear weapons haven't been used in 75 years we actually have no evidence to support this conclusion.

Not that I'm interested in finding out mind you.

 

[Port & Starboard]

U.S. Deploys New Nuclear Submarine Warhead To Deter Russia

The Trump administration and the Pentagon have apparently embraced the Russian doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate". A dangerous development.

Only with the advent of Trump are US government agencies refusing to answer Congressional questions about their programs. Perhaps ... a more dangerous development.

Only with the advent of Trump?

We've been playing the game since WWII.

Star Wars ring a bell? Could you even hear the bell with all the "anti Trump" noise going on between your ears?

 

[PirateMk1]

Only with the advent of Trump?

We've been playing the game since WWII.

Star Wars ring a bell? Could you even hear the bell with all the "anti Trump" noise going on between your ears?

We really need to start the Star Wars program back up if only to counter the hypersonic high altitude conventional stuff. If we had the full system right now everybody with nukes would be hard pressed on getting them into the states. The programs goal was to be able to engage over 50,000 missiles their bussed warheads and decoys with a 1% leakage rate. While that didnt make sense then it makes more sense now because with that capability as the missile numbers go down the leakage rate goes down in orders of magnitude. So if 1000 missiles with bussed warheads and decoys were launched the chances of them getting through the same system designed for a far more intense attack would only see a leak rate of .001 or even less. Then there is the problem of the opposing side trying to build 50,000 missiles. That gets expensive.

 

[Cordelier]

Given nuclear weapons haven't been used in 75 years we actually have no evidence to support this conclusion.

Not that I'm interested in finding out mind you.

It doesn't take a whole lot of game theory to come to the conclusion I laid out, though. The Russians detect a Trident missile launch in the North Sea... are they going to assume it's "Nuke Light"? Do you figure it'd make a difference if they did?

 

[Port & Starboard]

We really need to start the Star Wars program back up if only to counter the hypersonic high altitude conventional stuff. If we had the full system right now everybody with nukes would be hard pressed on getting them into the states. The programs goal was to be able to engage over 50,000 missiles their bussed warheads and decoys with a 1% leakage rate. While that didnt make sense then it makes more sense now because with that capability as the missile numbers go down the leakage rate goes down in orders of magnitude. So if 1000 missiles with bussed warheads and decoys were launched the chances of them getting through the same system designed for a far more intense attack would only see a leak rate of .001 or even less. Then there is the problem of the opposing side trying to build 50,000 missiles. That gets expensive.

If Trump sits idle.......this OP would be blasting him for being behind.

We are already are in a "Star Wars" situation. Our satellites are getting better every day with tracking subs and other things out there.

 

[PirateMk1]

If Trump sits idle.......this OP would be blasting him for being behind.

We are already are in a "Star Wars" situation. Our satellites are getting better every day with tracking subs and other things out there.

Not really. We have always had better satellite coverage via the GPS and Keyhole Birds and some other lesser known systems.

What we need now is the physical capability to handle multiple launch scenarios. We dont really have that. We need to bring back Brilliant Pebbles and the other systems.

Iran wants nukes and they have been developing them and the ICBM capability to use them. the Chinese also have nukes as well as ballistic conventional missiles.

We need to neutralize that threat to such that it would be difficult for them or others in their class to use those weapons against us or our allies. It also makes their investment more expensive and time consuming, because they would have to develop much more sophisticated systems to give them a chance to succeed in an attack. Oversizing the system makes it that much more difficult to penetrate and provides layers of redundancy.

 

[Cordelier]

We really need to start the Star Wars program back up if only to counter the hypersonic high altitude conventional stuff. If we had the full system right now everybody with nukes would be hard pressed on getting them into the states. The programs goal was to be able to engage over 50,000 missiles their bussed warheads and decoys with a 1% leakage rate. While that didnt make sense then it makes more sense now because with that capability as the missile numbers go down the leakage rate goes down in orders of magnitude. So if 1000 missiles with bussed warheads and decoys were launched the chances of them getting through the same system designed for a far more intense attack would only see a leak rate of .001 or even less. Then there is the problem of the opposing side trying to build 50,000 missiles. That gets expensive.

They've put so much into hypersonic technology to counter BMD, though. I've got my doubts about how viable their program is anyway... our technology is way ahead of their's, and our's range out at a few hundred klicks.

 

[PirateMk1]

They've put so much into hypersonic technology to counter BMD, though. I've got my doubts about how viable their program is anyway... our technology is way ahead of their's, and our's range out at a few hundred klicks.

The hypersonic technology at this point is very high altitude. Perfect for the Star Wars system to intercept. Easier than the ballistic missiles actually. The hypersonic missiles if they stay in atmosphere are a lot slower than ballistic missiles.

 

[Cordelier]

The hypersonic technology at this point is very high altitude. Perfect for the Star Wars system to intercept. Easier than the ballistic missiles actually. The hypersonic missiles if they stay in atmosphere are a lot slower than ballistic missiles.

Their trajectories are a lot less predictable as well.

 

[PirateMk1]

Their trajectories are a lot less predictable as well.

The thing about hypersonic missiles is they are easy to find with radar because give themselves away with the wake they leave which detectable with radar. Case in point the SR71 which was not hypersonic left a wake that was detectable by Soviet radar of the time. The aircraft compress and heat the sir which leaves very large disturbance to find.

 

[Cordelier]

The thing about hypersonic missiles is they are easy to find with radar because give themselves away with the wake they leave which detectable with radar. Case in point the SR71 which was not hypersonic left a wake that was detectable by Soviet radar of the time. The aircraft compress and heat the sir which leaves very large disturbance to find.

Sure... but being to tell where they are isn't going to be a lot of help in telling you where they're going to be. It's not like they're going be flying in a straight line.

 

[PirateMk1]

Sure... but being to tell where they are isn't going to be a lot of help in telling you where they're going to be. It's not like they're going be flying in a straight line.

If you know where they are you can shoot them.

 

[Drawdown]

Can't be true. Trump is Putin's pawn to hear the dems tell it.

 

[Cordelier]

If you know where they are you can shoot them.

Absolutely. If they're standing still.

 

[PirateMk1]

Absolutely. If they're standing still.

While in flight actually.

 

[Cordelier]

While in flight actually.

You're not that familiar with plasma stealth, are you?

 

[PirateMk1]

You're not that familiar with plasma stealth, are you?

I am actually, however compressed heated roiling air masses tend to show up on radar. They kinda hard to hide.

 

[Cordelier]

I am actually, however compressed heated roiling air masses tend to show up on radar. They kinda hard to hide.

The problem is precision... Mach 15+ closing speeds don't tend to give you much of a margin of error.

 

[PirateMk1]

The problem is precision... Mach 15+ closing speeds don't tend to give you much of a margin of error.

True. But we can hit ballistic missiles at much faster closing speeds. Not easy, but definitely doable.

 

[Cordelier]

True. But we can hit ballistic missiles at much faster closing speeds. Not easy, but definitely doable.

It's not the speed of a fastball that makes it hard to hit... it's the movement.

 

[PirateMk1]

It's not the speed of a fastball that makes it hard to hit... it's the movement.

Thats the knuckle ball.

 

[Cordelier]

Thats the knuckle ball.

It's any pitch... there's a world of difference between a Cutter and a 4-Seamer.