Read on Twitter
OSD policy has published a new, more expansive fact sheet making the case for the triad. Knowing how long it takes to clear these things, it was likely in the works for a while. But releasing it in November after the election was probably not a coincidence. A few thoughts. https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/1331643821302579200
First time seeing this chart showing the average age of U.S. warheads. Why didn't this make it into the Nuclear Posture Review? Would be useful to know the median and mode. Also would be useful to know the average pit age.
I’m a broken record on this, but the claim GBSD would be less expensive than extending Minuteman III assumes the need to deploy 400 ICBMs into the 2070s. The MMIII can't be extended to 2075. Note though DoD doesn't say extending MMIII is impossible (which is what the NPR said).
The claim that ICBMs are more responsive than SLBMs is…debatable.
The deterrence benefits cited from having 400 ICBMs could also be had with…fewer ICBMs.
The deterrence benefits cited from having 400 ICBMs could also be had with…fewer ICBMs.
Ok. But if, as is commonly assumed, most U.S. ICBMs are targeted against Russian nuclear forces, those Russian forces would be launched on confirmation of the U.S. retaliatory attack — if they had not already been launched as part of an initial attack. No?
Except the Pentagon still hasn’t decided how many bombers it plans to purchase. And why would at least some bombers have to go on day-to-day alert in the absence of ICBMs? Possibly go on alert earlier in a conflict or crisis? Ok. But why day-to-day alert?
The CBO has projected that eliminating ICBMs would save $149 billion (in FY 2017 dollars) from FY 2017-2046 and canceling GBSD would save $30.4 billion (in TY dollars) from FY 2019-2028. This is real money, especially in the event of flat or reduced defense budgets.
Even if ditching ICBMs prompted added investments in other parts of the triad (a few more SSBNs or a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile), these additions would still be cheaper than retaining ICBMs, especially over the next 10-15 years when savings are needed most.
To be continued...
