
US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert - smacktoward
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/
======
theyregreat
General "Buck" Turgidson: _Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to
each man. Now, wouldn 't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called
monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?_

Dr. Strangelove: _Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required
for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be
required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to
be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly
stimulating nature._

Ambassador de Sadesky: _I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea
there, Doctor._

Of course, what a waste of money (eg ICBMs and SLBMs are superior in every
respect) and unnecessary escalation of risk.

~~~
microcolonel
It's a waste of money if you and your allies aren't under constant, repeated
threat.

~~~
mikeash
Even if you are under threat, what purpose is served in the modern age by
putting bombers on alert? The war would be over before they reached an
interesting target.

~~~
ChuckMcM
As I am sure you are aware, there is quite a bit of solid policy discussion on
the various nuclear engagement scenarios. For this particular question the
idea that if you can respond after a pre-emptive first strike then your enemy
will have killed themselves by killing you. Since self preservation is a
common thing, the ability to respond post initial strike is essential.

~~~
mikeash
Missiles do that job just fine.

~~~
techdragon
... Unless the silos are attacked by Submarine launched ballistic missiles
using depressed trajectories as part of a neutralising/decapitation first
strike.

See it's the complicated, many possible options, nature of war planning that
makes stuff like this much less black and white.

~~~
eesmith
Whose submarines are you thinking of that could destroy all of the US ground-
based missile launch facilities in a first strike?

The war planning based around what you describe assumed the Soviet submarine
fleet, yes?

Are you worried about Russia, China ("the Type 094s noisiness would make it
difficult for it to reach and maintain patrol areas where it could strike at
the contiguous United States"), or India?

------
Gustomaximus
"Air Force’s top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asking
his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for
deterrence, or even combat"

That last line about using nukes for combat is scary. Every country should
take a stance they wont be first to fire. It reduces the likelyhood of
actually having to use them. Once US is talking pre-emptive tactical strikes
now Russia and China are much more likely to gear up for the same and sit
there guessing if they should launch first next time tensions increase.

We really need to cage these war hawks that get into power. My jaw hit the
ground at the stupidity of that statement. They just made the world and their
country a significantly more dangerous place. Thats far from defending their
nation.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Every country should take a stance they wont be first to fire. It reduces
the likelyhood of actually having to use them."_

What makes you think they want to reduce the likelihood of actually having to
use them?

It's like another part of the article:

 _" One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52
with the words 'Peace The Old Fashioned Way,' written underneath."_

There's a gigantic military-industrial complex that is built around the
virtually unquestioned assumption that military force is an excellent solution
to many of the world's problems -- and that often such force is best used
"preemptively". Many if not most politicians in power around the world share
these assumption, as does much of the general population.

There have been multiple very serious pushes towards preemptively initiating
nuclear war throughout history, and certainly no shortage of preemptive
conventional conflict.

I am continually astonished that the world hasn't already ended in a nuclear
conflagration by now.

------
cyberferret
> “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the
> reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re
> prepared going forward.”

The global situation that 'we find ourselves in', or the global situation that
we have actually _created_?

~~~
ghettoCoder
Not sure what you're alluding to since they're one and the same. This
situation's been building for well over a decade. Bush talked tough but did
nothing when he was in Office, Obama chose to pull a Chamberlain (same with
Iran) and now Trump is swinging the pendulum the other way. Hopefully he
doesn't swing too far too fast.

It's like watching a slow motion train wreck, kind of satisfying but damn is
it terrifying.

------
cameldrv
This isn't posturing, this isn't Trump bullshit, and it isn't about NK. It's
about Russia.

This situation has been poorly reported, and I don't think many people without
a security clearance understand what's been happening in the past few years.
The threat is a Russian decapitation strike. Non-alert bombers are trivially
easy to destroy. The ICBM fleet now depends on 40 launch control centers, or
one of a few special aircraft in order to be able to launch. These aircraft,
prior to 1991, were on continuous airborne alert. There are now three of them
on ground alert, with (my guess) 15-30 minute response time.

These aircraft are also the primary communications mechanism with the missile
subs. The subs are also capable of raising a communications buoy and
communicating via satellite, but this is not normal operating procedure, and
there are only about five satellites that they can use.

The Russians have a number of new weapons systems, some public, some not. They
appear to have a maneuvering reentry vehicle that could allow depressed
trajectories, which means sub-10 minute warning times. This is not enough time
for the President to be located, make a decision, transmit it to the silos,
and have the missiles away. There are also several new Russian anti-satellite
weapons, including one that appears to be in geosynchronous orbit, which could
knock out the communications satellites to talk to the subs. With a
communications blackout, there would potentially be time to destroy the subs
before they could launch.

Having bombers on alert is not a real solution to this problem, but it's
better than nothing. Potentially, the bombers could be ordered to launch at
the first warning, and might make it away from the airfield in time. They
could start flying to targets immediately, but wouldn't have to strike if it
were a false warning. The better solution would be to put the special planes
(the E-6Bs) back on continuous airborne alert, but according to what the
generals said at some congressional hearings back in March, the problem is
that the E-6Bs are too old, and there aren't enough of them to be able to
maintain airborne alert. Unfortunately we don't even have a budgeted program
to design a replacement, and the airframe they're based on is obsolete.

~~~
matt4077
I notice you're getting a bit handwavy when it gets to Russia destroying all
US (British/French/...) submarines before they notice that their headquarters
no longer exist.

Also, you may have missed the cold war ending. Despite all that's going on,
there really is no argument why Russia would prefer post-armageddon hellscape
to the SQ.

~~~
bactrian
How about a super EMP that wipes out millions of Americans and brings it down
to Russia's level?

Russia started helping North Korea with ICBM and super EMP technology after
Bush pulled out of the anti ballistic missile treaty unilaterally.

Putin realized there was no way to catch up to US technology. The only
solution is to damage the US enough that Russia can catch up.

Trump is the fool and Kim Jung Un is the patsy. Putin is the puppet master.

------
Animats
Well, when the enemy posts a target chart with your air base on it, you do
that.[1]

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-
kor...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-korea-launch)

~~~
thethirdone
The 3d-ish animation in that article is atrocious. I fails to provide any
meaningful insight other than the raw heights, the trajectories are not actual
trajectories (they aren't elliptical and that includes the ISS), and the scale
is way off.

------
holydude
Those who never lived under the boots of the Soviet Union are forever doomed
to scream about "peace" and "USA warmongering"

------
dsfyu404ed
Meh. This is is just extra training for the ground crews with a layer of
political posturing on top.

~~~
DrScump
A lot of commenters seem to interpret this status as keeping bombers _armed
and airborne 24 /7_ (DEFCON 3 or higher) as opposed to heightened readiness on
the ground.

------
Analemma_
Sure is a good thing we didn’t elect that warmonger Hillary Clinton.

