• US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert
    63 replies, posted
[url]http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/10/exclusive-us-preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/[/url] [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/preparing-put-nuclear-bombers-24-11391767[/url] [IMG]http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11368902.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/President-Trump-Meets-With-Members-Of-The-Senate-Finance-Committee.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The US Air Force is preparing to put nuclear bombers back on 24-hour ready alert for the first time since the Cold War. B-52 planes loaded with nuclear weapons would be positioned to take off at any moment, with crews on standby at a base in Louisiana. The move comes amid rising tensions between the US and North Korea, with President Donald Trump saying that Washington is "prepared for anything" when it comes to Kim Jong-un's regime. There are fears that a new war could break out as the hermit state tries to develop a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the US mainland. Gen David Goldfein, the US Air Force chief of staff, told Defense One that his branch was preparing to put the B-52 bombers back on 24-hour ready alert for the first time since the Cold War ended in 1991. He downplayed any suggestion that it was due to any particular conflict, such as tensions with North Korea. The general said: "This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared. "I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward." Gen Goldfein, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which advises Trump, added that the alert order had not been given, but that the US Air Force was preparing for it. Efforts are already under way to prepare Barksdale Air Force Base, outside Shreveport, Louisiana, for the new status, Defense One editor Marcus Weisgerber reported after touring the site. They include a refurbished building to house more than 100 crew members. Introduced in 1955, the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was built to carry nuclear weapons and serve as a deterrent during the Cold War.[/QUOTE] So how long till the US starts losing nukes again due to accidents, which for some reason tended to happen a lot during the cold war, when planes were involved. :v: Like this wonderful case here. [url]http://historycollection.co/1961-two-nuclear-bombs-250-times-power-hiroshima-nuclear-bomb-dropped-north-carolina/2/[/url] [QUOTE]In 2013, after the information had been released Lt. Jack ReVelle, the bomb disposal expert who was responsible for disarming the bombs spoke about the discovery of the second bomb. When the second bomb’s switch was found ReVelle recalled “until my death I will never forget hearing my sergeant say, “Lieutenant, we found the arm/safe switch, ‘And I said, Great.’ He said, ‘Not great. It’s on arm.” The report in 2013 also revealed just how close the first bomb had been to detonation. It had gone through the entire arming process and only one un-flipped switch (out of 4) prevented the bomb from detonation.[/QUOTE]
Not sure why we need bombers when we have nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs..? Both of those options are harder to counter than planes flying in your airspace
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52809979]Not sure why we need bombers when we have nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs..? Both of those options are harder to counter than planes flying in your airspace[/QUOTE] It's probably just a show of force to North Korea.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52809979]Not sure why we need bombers when we have nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs..? Both of those options are harder to counter than planes flying in your airspace[/QUOTE] Because this is about Donald flexing the muscles of the Commander in Chief more than it is stepping up to a legitimate tactical threat. If North Korea, Iran, or Russia were becoming an impending threat, subs hanging out in the Pacific and Atlantic, with a few in the Arctic for good measure, would be more effective than bombers, but the point of subs is that they're supposed to be hidden until they need to surface and launch the end of the world. Aircraft are public statements.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52810002]Because this is about Donald flexing the muscles of the Commander in Chief more than it is stepping up to a legitimate tactical threat. If North Korea, Iran, or Russia were becoming an impending threat, subs hanging out in the Pacific and Atlantic, with a few in the Arctic for good measure, would be more effective than bombers, but the point of subs is that they're supposed to be hidden until they need to surface and launch the end of the world. Aircraft are public statements.[/QUOTE] only other question to be asked then is, does Trump know this?
Oh boy I hope someone accidentally drops a live nuke on North Carolina again, I habe the upmost faith in Rick Perry to handle these world-ending devices
What a waste of time and money. As others have pointed out, missiles - both ICBMs and SLBMs - are far better delivery platforms.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52809979]Not sure why we need bombers when we have nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs..? Both of those options are harder to counter than planes flying in your airspace[/QUOTE] Bomber are more flexible than ICBMs or SLBMs. They can carry bith higher yield and lower yield weapons than ICBMs and SLBMs. Their use is less scary than ICBMs which would need to fly over Russia if used against NK and their use is less scary than SLBMs which during their boost phase against NK would fly towards China or Russia. Probably most crucially is that it's possible to return a bomber after a launch order. In the event of very high tensions the US can put its bomber in the air and send them towards their targets. This would send a very clear signal to an enemy that they're on the brink of nuclear war and need to rethink their actions while giving them many hours to think it through. ICBMs and SLBMs can't be stopped after launch except through malfunction or an ABM. Nor would their short flight time allow the enemy to think. [editline]23rd October 2017[/editline] Also if people actually read the article they would know "ready alert" means armed and fuelled aircraft ready to takeoff, not airborne alert.
Things feel more like cold war 2 electric boogaloo by the passing month.
[QUOTE=Judas;52810024]Oh boy I hope someone accidentally drops a live nuke on North Carolina again, I habe the upmost faith in Rick Perry to handle these world-ending devices[/QUOTE] Again?
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;52810175]Things feel more like cold war 2 electric boogaloo by the passing month.[/QUOTE] The Cold War never ended, it took a lunch break from 1991-1999
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52810242]Again?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash[/url] Scary ass shit
[QUOTE=download;52810114] [B]Probably most crucially is that it's possible to return a bomber after a launch order. In the event of very high tensions the US can put its bomber in the air and send them towards their targets.[/B] This would send a very clear signal to an enemy that they're on the brink of nuclear war and need to rethink their actions while giving them many hours to think it through. ICBMs and SLBMs can't be stopped after launch except through malfunction or an ABM. Nor would their short flight time allow the enemy to think. [/QUOTE] That's so batshit crazy I actually believe its a legitimate tactic. Its a very political message to send the slowest possible nuclear strike both as an insult/last chance, but such a move would bring the world closer to nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even so, just enabling the option is gonna cost several billion a year just to upkeep the B-52s, so this might be a move to incentivize building newer, modern bombers. Trump has complained a lot about our nuclear capabilities and how outdated everything is so this wouldn't surprise me.
So this is just a show of power or is Donald Trump fucking suicidal?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52810294]That's so batshit crazy I actually believe its a legitimate tactic. Its a very political message to send the slowest possible nuclear strike both as an insult/last chance, but such a move would bring the world closer to nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even so, just enabling the option is gonna cost several billion a year just to upkeep the B-52s, so this might be a move to incentivize building newer, modern bombers. Trump has complained a lot about our nuclear capabilities and how outdated everything is so this wouldn't surprise me.[/QUOTE] When you consider that this would be the final step before an all-out nuclear war it's not that crazy. The assumption is that the enemy is [I]not[/I] suicidal and thus they may not be aware their actions have pushed the US (or Russia if the roles are reversed) to the brink of war. This shouldn't increase B52 upkeep by very much because the aircraft are on the ground. All it will mean is more armed guard on duty to secure the weapons an they may aim for a higher aircraft readiness rate.
[QUOTE=download;52810114] [B]Probably most crucially is that it's possible to return a bomber after a launch order. In the event of very high tensions the US can put its bomber in the air and send them towards their targets.[/B] This would send a very clear signal to an enemy that they're on the brink of nuclear war and need to rethink their actions while giving them many hours to think it through. ICBMs and SLBMs can't be stopped after launch except through malfunction or an ABM. Nor would their short flight time allow the enemy to think. [editline]23rd October 2017[/editline] Also if people actually read the article they would know "ready alert" means armed and fuelled aircraft ready to takeoff, not airborne alert.[/QUOTE] Um no.. FYI bombers would be launching tomahawk or other nuclear armed cruise missiles and that has been the strategy for the latter half of the cold war as well. Once a bomber reaches standoff range and fires, you can't recall them, the missiles are already on their way. Most bombers would be circling near or around their standoff range, so any launch orders could be carried out almost instantly. The threat of the bombers is that you can stick a dozen nuclear missiles on them and keep them off the ground during a first strike scenario. The only bombers that would be dropping actual nuclear bombs would be fighter/bomber using tactical weapons and potentially stealth bombers like the b-2 which might still be considered good enough to penetrate sophisticated anti-air defense systems
[QUOTE=VGDCMario;52810356]So this is just a show of power or is Donald Trump fucking suicidal?[/QUOTE] it's the dick and the balls laid out on the table for kimmy to see
[QUOTE=Sableye;52810416]Um no.. FYI bombers would be launching tomahawk or other nuclear armed cruise missiles and that has been the strategy for the latter half of the cold war as well. Once a bomber reaches standoff range and fires, you can't recall them, the missiles are already on their way. Most bombers would be circling near or around their standoff range, so any launch orders could be carried out almost instantly. The threat of the bombers is that you can stick a dozen nuclear missiles on them and keep them off the ground during a first strike scenario. The only bombers that would be dropping actual nuclear bombs would be fighter/bomber using tactical weapons and potentially stealth bombers like the b-2 which might still be considered good enough to penetrate sophisticated anti-air defense systems[/QUOTE] Are you aware cruise missiles only have a range of about 2,000km? And that targets in Russia are a good 10,000km away? That's 8,000km of flying the enemy has to reconsider their actions. Bomber circling at standoff range is after you've pointed your bombers at the enemy and sent them on their way.
[QUOTE=download;52810454]Are you aware cruise missiles only have a range of about 2,000km? And that targets in Russia are a good 10,000km away? That's 8,000km of flying the enemy has to reconsider their actions. Bomber circling at standoff range is after you've pointed your bombers at the enemy and sent them on their way.[/QUOTE] Nobody has a good idea of what exactly our bombers were pointed at in the later part of the cold war, but there's certainly targets 1500 miles inland or less from the edge of soviet airspace, such as their airbases along their east coast. Yes some bombers were expected to penetrate soviet airspace, but once you fire a single nuclear missile you've committed to a strike and there were targets along the coast that would get hit. Bombers aren't safer because you can call them back, the whole point of nuclear deterrent is that once you step over the line there's no going back.
The last thing in the world we need is to be [I]escalating[/I] nuclear tensions.
I'm beginning to think donald trump isn't the peacemaker he said he was.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52810532]I'm beginning to think donald trump isn't the peacemaker he said he was.[/QUOTE] Nonsense. Do as the Romans did: make a desert and call it "peace".
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52810532]I'm beginning to think donald trump isn't the peacemaker he said he was.[/QUOTE] yeah, but remember, Hillary would've caused World War III!
[QUOTE=Sableye;52810493]Nobody has a good idea of what exactly our bombers were pointed at in the later part of the cold war, but there's certainly targets 1500 miles inland or less from the edge of soviet airspace, such as their airbases along their east coast. Yes some bombers were expected to penetrate soviet airspace, but once you fire a single nuclear missile you've committed to a strike and there were targets along the coast that would get hit. Bombers aren't safer because you can call them back, the whole point of nuclear deterrent is that once you step over the line there's no going back.[/QUOTE] You continue to not understand that there's a still a long way to go from scrambling every bomber and weapons release. Deterrence is a continuum; there are action taken such as putting every serviceable ballistic missile sub to sea and scrambling aircraft that are supposed to tell the enemy they're making a wrong move and are pushing a nation to the brink. There is even deterrence during a nuclear war designed to stop or make an enemy hesitate to move up the deterrence ladder (interwar deterrence being the name). I also never used the word safer.
[QUOTE=download;52810606]You continue to not understand that there's a still a long way to go from scrambling every bomber and weapons release. Deterrence is a continuum; there are action taken such as putting every serviceable ballistic missile sub to sea and scrambling aircraft that are supposed to tell the enemy they're making a wrong move and are pushing a nation to the brink. There is even deterrence during a nuclear war designed to stop or make an enemy hesitate to move up the deterrence ladder (interwar deterrence being the name). I also never used the word safer.[/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what your intent was then because you either send your bombers to where they launch or you don't. While its true we send bombers occasionally to glance soviet, now russian, airspace, there's a big difference between sending one bomber or two, and the entire strike force of bombers. You either commit or you don't, there's no send everybody in what looks to be a nuclear strike and don't actually strike option, the enemy will respond as if it were a strike because there's just not enough time to react.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52810639]I'm not even sure what your intent was then because you either send your bombers to where they launch or you don't. While its true we send bombers occasionally to glance soviet, now russian, airspace, there's a big difference between sending one bomber or two, and the entire strike force of bombers. You either commit or you don't, there's no send everybody in what looks to be a nuclear strike and don't actually strike option, the enemy will respond as if it were a strike because there's just not enough time to react.[/QUOTE] Except there is. There is thousands of kilometres between takeoff and the weapons release point. It takes hours to get to there. If you put every bomber you've got into the air all of your HUMINT assets are going to go nuts saying something is up (and there is no hiding the take-off of so many aircraft and their support assets like tankers). Shortly afterwards they'll pick up the bomber fleets on radar. They then have several hours to talk and figure out what to do before the US commits. [editline]23rd October 2017[/editline] Dude, you really need to do some research. Your ignorance on the topic is showing. [url]https://www.thecipherbrief.com/new-u-s-bomber-missile-boost-deterrence-options-nuclear-triad[/url]
[QUOTE=download;52810653]Except there is. There is thousands of kilometres between takeoff and the weapons release point. It takes hours to get to there. If you put every bomber you've got into the air all of your HUMINT assets are going to go nuts saying something is up (and there is no hiding the take-off of so many aircraft and their support assets like tankers). Shortly afterwards they'll pick up the bomber fleets on radar. They then have several hours to talk and figure out what to do before the US commits. [editline]23rd October 2017[/editline] Dude, you really need to do some research. Your ignorance on the topic is showing. [url]https://www.thecipherbrief.com/new-u-s-bomber-missile-boost-deterrence-options-nuclear-triad[/url][/QUOTE] ya because untested, undeveloped, nuclear weapon systems that haven't even been built are current or past policy. The b-2 was supposed to return to the days when we could penetrate soviet airspace and deploy anything we wanted, we only built 21 of them, I doubt they're gonna build more than a few dozen b-21's when it comes down to it unless they intend to finally seriously phase out the b-52, b-1b and b-2's at the same time, which they won't. Also I'm already assuming in a scenario where we're ordering our bombers to fly at a hypathetical enemy airspace, en mass, they're already in the air. Yes we have done what you're proposing before, with Operation Giant Lance, take a bunch of bombers, tankers, and nuclear weapons and deliberately fly around the edge of the soviet union, and it wasn't a good idea, nor was Nixon's madman theory of policy in general. Your original post said bombers are better because you have time between a mass of nuclear armed bombers taking off and when they reach their targets or range to fire missiles, allowing people to negotiate. Its insane, and pretty unworkable because they'll just launch interceptors, of which it seems both the chinese and russians have spent considerable sums to develop. Bombers as a nuclear deterant only work because they can rush and launch first. If we did what you said in your post by launching what by all outward appearances looks like a deliberate attack, only to bring our adversaries to the table, they'll just as easily overreact because you're putting a gun to their heads. But then your other point is that its a show of force in times of a potential nuclear crisis. Well, there's a better tactic, its to conduct a large nuclear detonation or ICBM tests, or even just wargames, all of which are very obvious, somewhat stupid but have less of a chance to start something than say giving the direct appearance of actually attacking someone. Both the soviet union and the US conducted several nuclear detonations during the cuban missile crisis to show our resolve
I didn't say bombers were better, I said they provided flexibility. You can't keep aircraft airborne indefinitely. With round the clock flights you'd be lucky to sustain 25% airborne at any one time for a few weeks, which is why most aircraft are kept at ready alert and not airborne alert; it's too brutal on crews and airframes. Airborne alerts ended in 1969 with the conclusion of Iron Dome. This is also the very last thing you do before a nuclear war. Nuclear tests and ICBM test are small fry compared to this. Yes, it is putting a gun to their heads, and will force them to stop and try to figure out why you're reacting like that. launching a nuclear war is a very serious matter and there can be no mistake you intend to follow through with it if they don't stop what they're doing. I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with you. The use of bombers to enhance flexibility in the nuclear triad is well established. I provided a source on the matter and there are many more that will discuss the topic if you bothered to spend five minute researching it instead of talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52809979]Not sure why we need bombers when we have nuclear armed submarines and ICBMs..? Both of those options are harder to counter than planes flying in your airspace[/QUOTE] It's a survivability option. No matter what you destroy on the ground, no matter how many subs you sink, one member of the nuclear triad can and will strike you. This is some pretty serious shit to be going back to.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52810577]yeah, but remember, Hillary would've caused World War III![/QUOTE] can we all collectively agree this "but hillary!!" joke wore out any charm it may have had several months ago
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.