The Nuclear Triad
 

Unlike Health Care, When It Comes To Nukes, Cost Is No Object

The lead story in Saturday's Washington Post, about the nuclear weapons decisions facing President Obama, runs longer than 1,300 words, but five a reader won't find are "cost," "dollars," "money," "debt," or "deficit." A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues.

That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." Occasionally, it's noted that the trillion dollars is spread over ten years.

One particular decision that Obama faces is whether to continue what's known as the "triad" - three independent ways the United States developed to annihilate the Soviet Union. Warheads can be delivered with bombers, from submarines or with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The military developed ICBMs in the '50s and '60s, recognizing that bombers would soon be obsolete and too easy to defend against. But the bomber squadrons have their own internal and industry defenders and have never been phased out. Each leg of the triad costs tens of billions of dollars per year to maintain. I know conservatives are generally very pro military funding (as am I) however don't you think there is a limit at which point it becomes redundant? What are your thoughts on eliminating one of the triad in an effort to save cost and bring down the deficit? If you had to choose one, which one?

You can destroy the USSR 1000 times over with nukes from subs, bombers or cruise missiles. I would probably argue that bombers are the most obsolete of these methods and the savings would be substantial.

the triad is important because it forces those less well equipped or resourceful to spread their forces and resources, removing one leg of the triad or tripod of force would allow those less equipped etc. to gut their own responses to such and concentrate on the other 2, there by deriving an advantage.

Interesting argument. I can understand the logic behind it but I'm curious if there is any data to support it. I just don't see a nuke attack being delivered by bombers but countries would still need to have air defences in the event of non nuclear aerial attack wouldn't they?

Rank Country Spending ($ b.)

1 US 607.0
2 China 84.9
3 France 65.7
4 UK 65.3
5 Russia 58.6
6 Germany 46.8
7 Japan 46.3
8 Italy 40.6
9 Saudis 38.2
10 India 30.0
11 S. Korea 24.2
12 Brazil 23.3
13 Canada 19.3
14 Spain 19.2
15 Australia 18.4

Cmon...you can't get by with say, $400B?

yes but you need to ask Gorbachev, right after he heard that knock on his door and the news that a german civilian cessna aircraft had just flown through the heart of the PVO ( Russian air defense system) on the most direct route to land in Red Square. And then pondering Reagans go ahead with stealth technology which he knew to be real and workable......

I'd love to see that come down, but, geo-politics being what we made it and is, well....

Bombers are essential because they can also drop convention ordinance. ICBMs are the public, visible deterrence, but are stationary and are at least partially vulnerable to EMP. SLBMs and submarine launched cruise missiles are the real cream of the deterrence, because only a handful of nations have chance of finding them, and its even slim for them.

If it were up to me I would replace all strategic weapons and ICBMs with silo based solid rockets capable of putting payloads into interplanetary space for planetary defense purposes. Single tactical weapons would be launched by IRBMs, either trailer, sub, or ship based, or via cruise missile.

All that money goes to Defense contractors who have the most beautiful hookers (or handsome if you go that way), the best coke, the sweetest "investment" deals, bags of cash if need it, and can bundle a couple of million in campaign donations at the drop of a hat. The "Triad" is just a way to channel money to defense contractors.
For all the money we spend on our military, when push comes to shove they are pathetically average, if that.

I once made a thread questioning if money can ever really be wasted. The hookers get their money and go buy stuff at the store, the drug dealers buy nice cars with big wheels, the execs buy private jets and yatchs etc. It all fuels the economy.

That being said, if the money was managed properly, a few less drug dealers might have nice cars, a few less execs might have big mansions and the whole country might have a shot at basic health care.

oh for god sakes goober.

For all the money we spend on our military, when push comes to shove they are pathetically average, if that. humm, okay, can you provide some examples or justification for that statement?

Imperator, Commodore:

I admire your fortitude in this... but in the end, all you are doing is trying to teach pigs to sing...

Spoken like someone who's never been brave enough to wear a uniform that didn't include a merit badge sash...

This is obscene. 607 BILLION???

ANNUALLY, more than SIX TIMES the closest competitor???

And the goddam asshole Republicans are saying that 100 billion annually for healthcare will bankrupt us????

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/cursing.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/cursing.gifhttp://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/cursing.gif

Given even the MIRV technology of decades ago we needed ONE nuclear equipped sub to wipe out the ENTIRE LIVING WORLD

I challenge ANY conservative here, give me ONE plausible scenario in which we would EVER actually NEED that kind of firepower

Just being objective, but I see you brought your pom-poms so lead the cheers for the big pep rally.
But a really good military that was worth that kind of money, would have finished up in Afghanistan about 6 years ago.

Deflecting comets and asteroids on a collision course with Earth.

Other than that I don't want to use them. Given the choice, I'd sooner chase the Soviets all the way to the Urals from both ends than let MAD get going.

But that ship has sailed.

No objectivity at all, just dripping venom for the people and institutions that do the dirty work so that you can live your pampered little liberal life.

The U.S. military could have turned Afghanistan into rubble if they were so allowed, but whining liberals like yourself always bitch about the collateral damage. So we put our men in more danger to fight carefully so that we minimize collateral damage, and then you whining liberals bitch that we're not winning the war fast enough. I think the common denominator is that regardless of what, or how well, the military does, whining liberals bitch about it.

The funny thing is, you guys all think the 600 or 700 billion dollars the US spends as part of the defense budget includes maintenance of the nukes. Nuke maintenance is actually part of the non-defense budget, its part of the budget of the Department of Energy.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our country spends closer to 1 Trillion annually on military expenses, not including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are extra on top of THAT.

After all, if our military expenses are 1/4th of the budget, shouldn't 1/4th of our interest payments on the debt ALSO be included as "military expenses"? Thats how a private business would have to expense interest payments for its operations. Shouldn't nuke maintenance be part of our defense budget? .... but its not. Shouldn't VA and veteran's benefits be considered part of the defense budget? ... but they're not. What about homeland security? .... its not.

1 trillion dollars is a much closer figure for what we spend annually on defense. Roughly 5-6 times our closest rival.

Goober, its not the soldiers that didn't complete the mission in A-Stan, it was the Bush administration. With numbers in the 30,000s for the first seven years, the soldiers they did as good of a job as they possibly could. Now with real leadership and commitment you are starting to see real results.

smurf what kind of crack are you smoking? The neocon Bush administration people decided A-Stan was not a priority and sent 130,000 troops to Iraq instead. That you try to blame liberals for something the Bush admin is 100% responsible for is retarded. Just about everyone supported the invasion of A-Stan anyways so I don't even know how you infer that "liberals" would have been against turning it into rubble or whatever you mean. How does it make you feel that a Democratic administration is actually going to see it though properly?

Democrats: strong on deficit reduction and strong on national security. That's their record. They just need to sell it.

Don't be fooled - Goober says every single member of our armed forces, past or present, is a "pampered loser". He only pretends to be interested in their welfare when it is politically expedient.

Of the four systems, bombers have some advantages:

1. They can be recalled.
2. They have a wide range of yield options.
3. They can deliver conventional munitions to strategic targets.

Matt