
ICBMs Still Matter - drocer88
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/07/04/intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_still_matter_115440.html
======
credit_guy
The argument is not quite well constructed. Let me try to improve on it a
little:

1\. The program is dirt cheap as far as military expenditures go: it will cost
about $86 BN for a lifecycle of 50 years, which comes to less than $2 BN per
year [1]. For comparison only maintaining the nuclear stockpile safe and ready
costs about $4 BN per year [2]. Another comparison is the cost of the French
submarine launched missile M5.1: €3-4 BN for 10 years [3], which will cover
only between 16 and 64 missiles (1 to 4 submarines, 16 each), versus 450 for
the American ICBM project.

2\. While it is true that currently all the nuclear deterrence can be
performed by the nuclear submarines, it's difficult to be 100% sure there
won't be some technological breakthrough during the next 50 years to make them
vulnerable. The Columbia class boomers will cost $110BN [4], and that's
without the missiles they'll carry. Currently those missiles are Trident II,
and their latest version is supposed to be good until 2042, after which there
needs to be a replacement that will come at a cost too. So one can think of
the $86 BN price tag for the ICBMs as a somewhat inexpensive insurance policy
for the SLBMs.

[3] The main role of the ICMBs is to be a magnet for the enemy's missiles.
They are all positioned in deserted areas. Whoever intends to perform a
decapitation strike will need to take all of them down. As explained in the
article, one would need to spend about 1000 nukes for that. 1000 nukes that
don't go towards dense urban areas. Compare this with the SLBMs: if you can
synchronize a torpedo attack against all of them, you only need to sink at
most 14 subs, and you don't even need nukes for that.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Based_Strategic_Deterre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Based_Strategic_Deterrent)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Based_Strategic_Deterre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Based_Strategic_Deterrent)

[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_\(missile\))

[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-
class_submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia-class_submarine)

------
opwieurposiu
Can the USA even build a new ICBM without using made-in-china electronics? And
then there is not just the missile itself, but all the ground support
equipment.

~~~
credit_guy
Most likely yes. The US military is well aware of its supply chain, and
realizes that in times of war you don't want to have part of it in enemy's
hands.

Here's a visualization of F35's supply chain [1]. You can only NATO and other
close allies like Israel, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

[1] [https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-
us/products/f-35/f-35-glob...](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-
us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership.html)

------
llamaz
It seems to me that the United States is more likely to be the aggressor given
its record of interventionism, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
Russians and the Chinese are far more peaceful - they do not position military
bases aggressively around the world, do not fund proxy armies, and do not fund
countries like Saudi Arabia that are responsible for the ongoing Yemeni famine
(I've refrained from touching the more contentious topics in US foreign
policy). The idea that the United States is under threat, rather than the
threat, is laughable.

If any country is well positioned to de-escalate a nuclear arms race, it is
the United States, and this is the action that it should take.

~~~
readarticle
China spent half a billion on a military base in Djibouti at the mouth of the
Red Sea less than three years ago.

Russia funds separatist anti government groups in Donbas and annexed Crimea,
while maintaining military bases across Eurasia specifically near their former
subjects.

Russia funds Iran, responsible for the ongoing Yemeni famine, and as a cherry
on top, Iran funds various groups across the middle east through Russian
instruments.

(This is all ignoring the idea that they’ve refrained from projecting power
more often at a global scale due to being peaceful, as opposed to lacking the
capability entirely due to being relatively poor and weak.)

~~~
Synaesthesia
> Russia funds Iran, responsible for the ongoing Yemeni famine

Iran is responsible for the Yemeni famine? Now I’ve heard it all.

