Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday November 16 2014, @05:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the great-big-sticks dept.

The Pentagon will invest billions of dollars into improving, managing, and reforming its nuclear forces as part of an effort to improve the management and security of the United States' troubled nuclear force, even as experts are sceptical that money could solve problems resulting from questions about the mission itself.

"We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era, so our most talented young men and women see the nuclear pathway as promising in value," said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel at a Pentagon news conference.

To do this, the Pentagon is going to put higher-ranked officers in a number of key jobs. For example, the Air Force's Global Strike Command will now be led by a four-star general and Air Staff's head of strategic deterrence and nuclear integration will switch from a two-star job to a three-star billet.

At the same time, maintaining this leg of the nuclear triad faces sustained criticism, especially in today's budget environment. Critics say there is no plausible scenario under which these weapons would be fired, so why keep them around? "The problem is there is no mission; more money can't invent one," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @05:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @05:23PM (#116451)

    Deterrence against the Russians, N. Koreans, and perhaps the Chinese. At the risk of bringing this thread into Godwin's Law territory, Putin looks like wants to re-assemble the old Soviet empire, using whatever bullying tactics it takes to get there.

    Yeah, it's as exciting as managing an insurance policy because that's what it is.

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday November 16 2014, @07:40PM

      by looorg (578) on Sunday November 16 2014, @07:40PM (#116470)

      That is what I didn't get about the quote from Lewis, what does he mean when he says there is no mission (and money can't invent one). The Mission is NUCLEAR deterrence. At least I always thought that was the mission, or in the event of deterrence failing then we'll be at DEFCON2 quickly followed by DEFCON1 and the mission then is a first or second nuclear attack strike and then we'll be in world war 3; and/or whatever post-apocalyptic nightmare that follows. It's not a fun mission but there is definitely a mission. The problem is I guess it's just not a very glamorous one even by military standards. You sit on a silo in Kansas or Utah or aboard an atomic sub at the bottom of the sea, guarding against and enemy or an event that is hopefully never going to come. It's just the boring backbone of the whole god damn thing.

      I guess if the terrorist (or the evil empire rises again) get hold of one it might be one. Which I guess is where the money will solve or create the problem comes in. You can always create a problem by spending money on it, you just might not ever be able to solve it by spending money it.

      • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:00PM

        by melikamp (1886) on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:00PM (#116494) Journal

        The Mission is NUCLEAR deterrence.

        Such a mission was never considered by any of the major nuclear states. If it was, there would be a real negotiation about disarmament, which is the only real way to deter other countries from bombing us. We know that everything else is empty talk if Henry Kissinger himself, a warmonger extraordinaire, approved this message. As long as there are people sitting in bunkers with their fingers on the button, we are all in very grave danger of the very thing they are supposedly "deterring". For one, what is deterring the US army from bombing the US? If this scenario seems far-fetched to you, the reader, go check out a history book.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday November 17 2014, @07:27AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 17 2014, @07:27AM (#116623) Journal

          Such a mission was never considered by any of the major nuclear states. If it was, there would be a real negotiation about disarmament, which is the only real way to deter other countries from bombing us.

          That's not true. The problem here is that just because someone has disarmed, doesn't mean that they stayed disarmed. Let's look at the textbook example of this, the German strategy leading up to the beginning of the Second World War. In 1933, just prior to Hitler's rise to power, the German military had 100k people (with 15k in the navy), there were six navy ships over 10,000 tons displacement (and 24 ships in total), and no air force or armored vehicles whatsoever. By 1945 (according to Wikipedia), Nazi Germany had built almost 120k planes and had 3.4 million people serve over the years in its air force. Similarly, the German army of the day had around 18 million members serve by 1945 and built well over 25k tanks. The Germany navy however lagged substantially in comparison to the other two branches with a huge submarine fleet and relatively modest surface fleet.

          I didn't mention this to Godwin this thread, but to point out this beautiful example of how the dominant military force in Europe in 1939 was built from near nothing in six years, completely catching the rest of Europe unprepared.

          Imagine, if your argument had been used back then and everyone had completely disarmed because it was "the only real way to deter other countries from bombing us". Then there would only be a German empire in Europe now.

          This is why a complete nuclear disarmament is both ill-advised and more dangerous than the current balance of power situation. For example, if my country can build 1000 nuclear weapons with global delivery systems while everyone else grabs ass about economic sanctions and stays disarmed, then I win the world. I can't magically occupy the whole world at once, but I can control my enemies (and in particular, keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons or employing various anti-nuke strategies) while I absorb territory. For example, I could demand that everyone ship me their nuclear fuel, new and used, no exceptions (the consequences of failing to fully agree to any terms I make, would be the loss of your three largest cities with a repeat of the demand afterward). And maintain global inspection teams backed by nuclear weapons. If my inspection team is obstructed in any way from inspecting a location, then I'll nuke the location.

          And at some point, I'll build enough nuclear weapons to wipe out any competing civilizations that I don't fully control. The resulting nuclear winter becomes another tool of killing off the people I don't like enough. External foes doing well and living large is the number one threat to totalitarian governments everywhere. Eliminate that and you've increased the life span of your own empire.

          The psychopaths don't go away. Complete disarmament opens up a huge opportunity for someone to grab for all the marbles. Instead, creating a sensible buffer of standing nuclear weapons split up between several powers creates a situation where both the nuclear buildup has to be far more extensive in order to create an overwhelming advantage of nuclear force. And frankly, today's atmosphere of distrust and fear is healthier than complacency, assuming everyone will play nice till the end of time.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday November 16 2014, @06:03PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 16 2014, @06:03PM (#116455)

    They aren't talking about STEM here...

    We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era

    Sounds like typical STEM propaganda

    our most talented young men and women see the nuclear pathway as promising in value

    Told ya so

    To do this, the Pentagon is going to put higher-ranked officers in a number of key jobs.

    Oh thats what they meant by brightest minds of the cold war era (getting a bit old now...). I thought they meant young STEM people. Guess they mean something else.

    There is an effectiveness problem with motivating young people, by giving their bosses bosses bosses great grandboss a promotion...

    As a side issue its stuff like that that eventually ruins all propaganda campaigns. They wanna give some dude a pay raise, so we'll "STEM it all up" to sneak out a tasty press release. Blah.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday November 16 2014, @06:34PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Sunday November 16 2014, @06:34PM (#116458) Journal

      "The problem is there is no mission; more money can't invent one,"

      No, money can't invent one... but if you hi-jack an airplane or 4 or 5 you CAN invent one...

      ...just sayin'.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 1) by jmorris on Sunday November 16 2014, @07:18PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday November 16 2014, @07:18PM (#116463)

    Of course you don't ever want to use a nuke. But the only thing worse than having nukes you don't ever plan to use is not having any nukes and really, really needing one.

    MAD worked in the Cold War. We never fired one in anger and neither did the Soviets but only a total idiot would dispute that they were central actors in the drama by their simple existance. They are still just as effective against Putin, China and other semi-rational actors, even the totally evil ones. They are of course less effective against upcoming threats like Iran since they do not care as much for the iron logic of MAD.

    None of that is important to the bigger reason the civilized world needs to retain a deterrent. Imagine what happens if we unilaterally disarm. Our conventional military is currently woefully inadaquate to act as a deterrent for either Putin's Russia or Red China. If we eliminate our nukes and Russia doesn't they won't even need to worry about the force levels. Nuke vs non-nuke is instant submission by the non-nuke equiped actor. In other words, hand over all of the old Soviet Empire without a shot and pray he stops there.

    On the positive side we should always listen to the voices calling for us to disarm. We should make careful note of them and then NEVER LISTEN TO ANOTHER WORD THEY SAY. It matters not whether they are simply fools, useful idiots or active enemies, don't feed the trolls trying to argue out which reason to discard their future utterances for you already know enough to judge.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @03:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @03:14AM (#116573)

      I don't think there are any reasonable people that actually think disarmament is actually an option.

      That said, we have more nukes than we need to create an effective deterrent. Think of it like this:

      Movie action hero bursts into a room and three guys have machine guns trained on him in the open, vs movie action hero bursts into a room and 3,000 guys have machine guns trained on him.

      In either scenario, the obvious option is to put down your gun, cause if you attack you are dead. The extra 2,997 guys mostly are just there to make it more likely that the guy gets shot even if he acts exactly as he should.

      I'm not saying that we need to get down to only 3 nukes, but perhaps we could make do with only enough to destroy the world once over.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:05PM (#116496)

    Sitting in the Kremlin dreaming of the Breznev/Andropov era, he sees a NATO that does not have one single solitary fully-manned armored brigade on alert footing, sees American tac air assets spread all over the mideast and south asia, and now he gets telegraphed that the old SAC is in disarray...

    Heaven help us. With a mind like Comrade Putin's, he's got to be thinking about a first strike option.

    Hell, they're running Bear flights running close enough and often enough to pop the preliminary EMP pulses with what, 15 seconds warning while a Kh-55 climbs to optimum EMP altitude?

    Maybe the preppers aren't so paranoid after all.

    • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday November 17 2014, @10:41AM

      by Geezer (511) on Monday November 17 2014, @10:41AM (#116643)

      The land-based ICBM component of the American strategic deterrent may be a dilapidated mess, but we can take solace in knowing that the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are in even worse shape, and their submarine force isn't any better. Neither side is in any position to initiate a successful counter-force first strike.

      Time, neglect, and economics seem to do more to reduce the chances of a nuclear war than treaties or diplomacy.

      That is not to say that a Putin or some such megalomaniac wouldn't be tempted to try a tactical demonstration if provoked. However, the US and NATO are highly unlikely to go all doomsday if, say, the Ukrainian Army suddenly went ka-poof.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:48PM (#116506)

    I think America should outsource design of its nuclear warheads. Make the warhead heavy and reliable. Spend the extra money on a big booster rocket, something the commercial sector can do.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16 2014, @09:58PM (#116510)

    "We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era"

    Ah, yes, the 'good old days.'

    • (Score: 1) by anubi on Monday November 17 2014, @02:27AM

      by anubi (2828) on Monday November 17 2014, @02:27AM (#116554) Journal

      Trouble I see is all political. They now have all these highly paid and highly placed people in management positions. They might feel their career would be in jeopardy if someone came in that was more scientifically motivated, rather than politically motivated, and could actually build something.

      I do not think we have our ducks in order to tolerate productivity in the workplace yet.

      We can still print money to pay for whatever we want... other countries are not as fortunate and have to actually build stuff to send here.

      We are so used to solving our problems with the pen, rather than the tool. Those who use the tool are now in other countries, where those who use the pen are here.

      If shit hits the fan, we will wag our pens at them.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
  • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday November 16 2014, @11:22PM

    by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Sunday November 16 2014, @11:22PM (#116531)

    The new wars are economic, not territorial. Russia lost the cold war due to the arms race consuming its economy. But they were smart to bow out of a bad fight early.
    The current rates of military/security spending in the US are totally unsustainable. There are some filter down benefits but the vast military spending does a bad job of improving the lot of the average American.
    Nuclear weapons are held without exception by the most powerful nations on earth (yes Saudi Arabia has them too via its proxy agreement with Pakistan). So it would be naive to argue that the US should completely disarm. However, anything more than 100 strategic nukes is pure fetishism and will lead to losing the economic war by the sheer price of maintenance.

  • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 17 2014, @01:04AM

    by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 17 2014, @01:04AM (#116542)

    There's a quick reference there to the "Nuclear Triad", which some people might not be familiar with.

    The original triad was theater-level ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. This was so each of the three American military branches were involved - the Army had their missiles, the Navy had their subs, and the Air Force had bombers. This slowly morphed into bombers, submarines and ICBMs (now controlled by the Air Force, the Army no longer has nuclear weapons AFAIK). The USSR had a similar setup, although ICBMs are under a new branch of the military instead of the Army or Air Force.

    Submarines, while expensive, make sense for a MAD world. It assures that destruction is mutual by making sure you can't easily wipe out my arsenal with a first strike.

    ICBMs make less sense. While they could be hardened against near-hits in the past, modern missiles are more than accurate enough for a direct hit. You really can't defend against that, so they've lost their second-strike capability. They're also way too expensive to contemplate using against weaker nations (even nuclear ones like Pakistan). So it's purely a first-strike weapon against Russia or China.

    Bombers make the least sense of all. They're much easier to shoot down than a missile. You don't get a guaranteed first strike, let alone second strike. Russia has managed to mitigate it by using bomber-launched cruise missiles. While cheaper to operate than ICBMs or SLBMs, they just don't seem at all effective, at least in dedicated roles. Having nuclear options for tactical bombing makes some sense (as a low-cost option against weak nuclear states, or for close air support in a WW3 scenario). Having a fleet of B-52s and B-2s to carry nuclear bombs does not (and using them for other tasks is overkill - any target important enough to carpet-bomb with conventional explosives is important enough for at least a tactical nuke on an F-16, if not an ICBM). Really, they only make sense in massive scale - when you can fly enough bombers toward them to overwhelm defenses. We don't have that many left, which means it's just a suicide mission.

    There is some value in having redundant options, which may justify keeping some (but not all) ICBM silos, enough to be a credible threat. But the bombers are just a waste, and they have been for some time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @03:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @03:25AM (#116576)

      A stealth bomber from a NATO base in Germany will still be able to hit Moscow faster than an ICBM launched from the continental United States, and has about as much chance of getting shot down by Russian air defences as an ICBM might, if the stealth technology does live up to its promises as it seems it does. But agreed, there are either too many of them or not enough, depending on which point of view you take.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 17 2014, @07:46AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 17 2014, @07:46AM (#116629) Journal

      ICBMs make less sense. While they could be hardened against near-hits in the past, modern missiles are more than accurate enough for a direct hit. You really can't defend against that, so they've lost their second-strike capability.

      That's not the point. The point is that a foe has to nuke a bunch of scrubs in Montana in order to defeat that second-strike capability. Those nukes aren't available to attack more valuable real estate like cities. And which silos have the nukes again? I bet the US easily can fake the radiation signature of a real nuclear weapon. Meaning you either have some MAD-breaking intel, a vast number of nukes, or just hope you guessed the right silos.

      Having a fleet of B-52s and B-2s to carry nuclear bombs does not (and using them for other tasks is overkill - any target important enough to carpet-bomb with conventional explosives is important enough for at least a tactical nuke on an F-16, if not an ICBM).

      The B-52s turned out to be quite nice for hitting fixed, diffuse targets in cases where you have complete air superiority, which has happened in almost every US war after the Korean War. And the US hasn't used a tactical nuke in anger ever. Conventional firepower may have less bang, but it doesn't come with a slippery slope either.

      While there's been a lot of talk about breaking the stealth of the B-2, it hasn't happened yet. That still gives the B-2 a limited role in penetrating air defenses and blowing things up with conventional firepower.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @10:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @10:30AM (#116641)

        the US hasn't used a tactical nuke in anger ever.

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki might feel different about this.

        • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday November 17 2014, @02:04PM

          by gman003 (4155) on Monday November 17 2014, @02:04PM (#116719)

          That was strategic bombing, not tactical. Tactical bombing is when you bomb an army. Strategic bombing is when you bomb a city.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @05:04PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @05:04PM (#116815)

            That used to be called a war crime.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 17 2014, @02:33PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 17 2014, @02:33PM (#116728) Journal
          They weren't tactical nukes at the time and not just because they weren't used in that sense. First, the delivery system would be inappropriate to tactical use. If you want to use it on an enemy position, you have to hope the bomber doesn't get lost and the bomb doesn't drift your way after deployment (they dropped them on parachutes). If the position is hardened enough, then the system won't deliver the nuke accurately enough. You might have to drop several such bombs. They're also very bulky and massive. You couldn't fire these from artillery or deliver via a fighter plane. Finally, these bombs had a lot of bang for a tactical nuke. A smaller bang (in the few kiloton range) works better because you can use it closer to your own troops.