
U.S. considers adding nuclear cruise missiles to destroyers and submarines - IntronExon
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18804/us-eyes-adding-nuclear-cruise-missiles-to-zumwalt-stealth-destroyers-as-well-as-submarines
======
maxander
One wonders what these people are thinking, when the very suggestion of having
these weapons available to use puts the whole planet incrementally nearer to
nuclear catastrophe. The cost-benefit analysis is so painfully slanted against
_anything like this_ that it's absolutely absurd- we have the nuclear triad
already, for what it's worth, and it can do it's job better than we need.
These toys have no well-defined safe use case and risks that the human mind
can scarcely comprehend.

Is this part of some diplomatic tit-for-tat against the Russians over the
attack in Syria last week? That's the most reasonable explanation that occurs
to me, which is saying something.

~~~
wavefunction
Russia is developing smaller tactical nukes in a similar vein which is what I
heard on NPR as the rationale for our own development and deployment of these
weapons.

NPR also asserted that there is a feeling among Russians (?) that they could
use a small nuke against the US and we wouldn't retaliate because we only have
overwhelmingly large nuclear weapons.

I don't know what the basis is for the claim of non-retaliation though NPR
isn't necessarily known as some sort of portal of nationalist rhetoric so I'm
left confused by the report.

~~~
mikeash
Our response to 9/11 was to invade two countries, one of which wasn’t even
involved. I’m pretty sure that even a small nuke detonating on American
territory would be met with the complete destruction of the attackers. We
don’t really have the concept of a proportional response for this sort of
thing.

------
jedc
Speaking as a former Navy submariner, this isn't going to happen. The surface
Navy doesn't have the background or training to handle nuclear weapons - nukes
are (and should be) taken extraordinarily seriously. They're not just an add-
on weapon, they simply have to be the core of what that ship does in order to
be treated properly.

~~~
vilhelm_s
Until 1991, the surface navy did carry nuclear weapons, e.g. cruise missiles,
nuclear anti-air missiles, nuclear depth charges, and tactical nuclear weapons
for aircraft on aircraft carriers. In 1991 these were offloaded, but until
2010 the attack submarines still had the capability of carrying nuclear cruise
missiles (the nuclear tomahawk), although the missiles themselves were in
storage. [1]

I still remember the 1980s when American navy ships visiting Europe were
generally assumed to carry nuclear weapons (and caused protests), it was not
so long ago.

[1] [https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-
se...](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/)

~~~
Simon_says
> nuclear depth charges

Wow, that's one I haven't heard before. Sounds radical.

~~~
mikeash
It’s an interesting consequence of the fact that nuclear bomb technology got
really good well before electronics and computers did. There was a period of a
decade or two where the ability to put a bomb close to a target wasn’t really
there, but the ability did exist to make a small bomb with a _really_ big
bang. The solution is logical even if crazy: use a nuke, and then it’s ok if
you can barely get the weapon within a quarter mile of your target. Thus we
saw nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear anti-aircraft missiles,
nuclear anti-missile missiles, and even nuclear bazookas.

------
notatoad
Are these the same destroyers that drove into merchant ships twice last
summer?

------
njarboe
The world would be much better off if the only nuclear weapons were ICBMs
based in the heart of the country that would be launching them. There would be
no ambiguity on who has attacked when everyone can see where the missile came
from.

Does the US really need a nuclear cruise missile now that they are not needed
to destroy Soviet tank battalions invading Europe? Nuclear powers ought to try
really hard not to be shooting at each other and have clear Schelling points
not to cross so that nuclear exchange does not happen by a series of small
scale escalations. More people who can launch nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

~~~
nabla9
US provides nuclear umbrella to several allies. To maintain credible nuclear
deterrence escalation ladders are needed. It's not credible to assume that US
would be willing to lose millions of citizens in major US metropolitan areas
to revenge Warsaw or Tokyo in nuclear tit-for-tat.

NATO has nuclear sharing arrangement to maintain steps in the nuclear
escalation ladder (B61 bombs dropped by aircraft operated by host country).
Nuclear Tomahawks were used in 80's to provide similar nuclear umbrella to
Japan. US was never willing to launch ICBM's from US soil to defend Japan. Any
response would have been from Tomahawks launched from US subs, aircraft os
surface vessels close to Japan. When US retired Nuclear Tomahawks there were
long discussions with Japanese on how to maintain the deterrence.

There is no ideological competition anymore. As a result the probability of
regional nuclear conflict has increased not decreased. Shelling points would
become unclear if US would only have ICBM's.

~~~
njarboe
I would agree with you on the current situation. It would be nice if the US
did not have to nuke anyone if Japan or Germany were invaded. WWII ended a
long time ago and almost everyone who fought in that war is dead. Maybe the
occupation should end also.

I guess my post was part of a bigger idea about reducing the need for US
overseas occupation of the Axis powers and its huge military industrial
complex. Most countries could have a small number of nuclear ICBMs, well
defended but transparently held. A little shooting among neighbors would still
happen like with China, India, and Pakistan today, but such a setup might
reduce the probability of a large nuclear exchange causing a nuclear winter
while still preventing the horrible conventional world wars that seem to
happen when nuclear weapons don't exist. It would be nice if nuclear weapons
could move to a tit-for-tat posture instead of MAD. I think the tail risk for
a MAD strategy is highly underestimated by almost everyone.

------
tritium
In a shooting war, you wouldn’t want a large conventional rocket attack or
zodiac-delivered explosion, to disable the controls for scuttling the ship,
and disrupt the chain of command for orders to scuttle due enemy action
killing key crew members. The fog of war could lead to enough confusion and
damage, such that a seaworthy ship is left afloat with no leadership, in
dangerous waters.

Military ships can be difficult to sink, and willfully sinking them might not
always be an option. So if the ship is captured, and held long enough to put
warheads in the hands of a dangerous people, the weapons could disappear and
appear in the hands of someone looking to extract a ransom to return them
unused.

With submarines, this is not the case, even if the bottom of the ocean isn’t
always unreachable. At least the bottom of the ocean sufficiently complicates
salvage, past a certain depth.

------
SN76477
No one wants another arms race.

~~~
Caveman_Coder
The defense industry, weapons manufacturers, and, by extension, the
congressmen and congresswomen they own certainly do...

------
000000000000001
Chutiyapanti ki bhi hadd hoti hai

------
Feniks
I thought we had agreed that tactical nuclear weapons are an evolutionary dead
end? Are nuclear options on the table again?

