Does MAD still apply?

[PCShogun]

Originally Posted by ltdanjuly10

Back to the original question Is MAD (Counter-Value) Still viable. Yes It is, even one nuclear warhead striking a major city would collapse even a robust economy, demoralize the population and reduce an enemies war fighting capability.

Probably the best answer I have seen so far. It does, however, fail to answer the critical point of MAD. Which is: Is mutual destruction ASSURED?

[ltdanjuly10]

Considering that nobody has made a warshot over the north pole where magnetics would potentially screw with the guidance, even the CEP of a reentry vehicle is not a sure thing.

The first generation of polaris SLBMs had dud warheads, by the time the boomer crowd found out about this a significant portion of the US deterrent force had been sailing around with them. ICBMs are very complex, every so often they will fire a test missile but this should not be taken as an accurate indication of the reliability of the force. Test missiles are repaired, visually inspected and checked multipul times before launch, active missiles while periodically receiving maintenance must make a launch with only an electronic test, with no opportunity to make repairs if a fault is detected.

Bombers may not get through, warheads that have only been test on computer simulators may fail, the people making the decision to retaliate may hesitate until to late. Maybe a first strike will have taken out the decision makers or the comms, or the means to retaliate. Nothing is certain in war, nuclear war is far less certain (since nobody's seen fit to throw one). A large part of why deterrence works is that nothing is certain. So no mutual destruction is not assurred (outside of a doomsday device) but neither is a first strike

[SABRE]

Originally Posted by PCShogun

Probably the best answer I have seen so far. It does, however, fail to answer the critical point of MAD. Which is: Is mutual destruction ASSURED?

That is a good question and the answer lies at the core of MAD theory, that is to have an ASSURED 2ND STRIKE CAPABILITY. Since nuclear submarines are immune to land attacks and first strikes and their movements are unpredictable they are the best tool to assure a 2nd strike (response) and hence assure mutual destruction.

[PCShogun]

Originally Posted by SABRE

That is a good question and the answer lies at the core of MAD theory, that is to have an ASSURED 2ND STRIKE CAPABILITY. Since nuclear submarines are immune to land attacks and first strikes and their movements are unpredictable they are the best tool to assure a 2nd strike (response) and hence assure mutual destruction.

In a Dec. 15, 2009 letter to President Barack Obama, a group of Republican Senators stated that “we don’t believe further nuclear arsenal reductions can be in the national security interest of the U.S. in the absence of a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent. While plans to build new D5 missiles at a rate of 5 per year, were later announced, the new arms reduction treaty has reduced the number of missiles allowed to 280, from 685. Meaning our current fleet of SSBN's will have 4 empty launch tubes, per sub, going forward.

Also, the Ohio class replacement program, SSBN-X, slated to get in gear in 2012, has already been earmarked as a potential casualty of the upcoming budget wars, and so the current SSBN fleet will need to be modernized to extend its service life past 2025, into an environment where Russia and China are building new SSBN's using the latest of their technologies.

Some talk is going on about creating a variant of the planned Virginia class to extends the hull and mount launch tubes in it, instead of using a separate and dedicated class of boomers. Since part of the SSBN's stealth is based on the sheer size of the vessel, I'm not sure how retrofitting a fast attack does the same job in making it harder to detect. I'll let you bubble heads answer that question though.

At least the old W87 warheads are getting a computer upgrade.

It is also interesting that the FY 2011 budget request and five-year defense plan included funding for a new generation long-range bomber, to be developed by 2018. I have not seen any information on whether this new bomber would be nuclear capable or not though.

Source:
IHSJanes Defense and Security Analysis.
Letter to President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, 2009
Global Security Newswire
Summary of the DoD Fiscal 2011 Budget Proposal
Arms Control Association

[SABRE]

Originally Posted by PCShogun

In a Dec. 15, 2009 letter to President Barack Obama, a group of Republican Senators stated that “we don’t believe further nuclear arsenal reductions can be in the national security interest of the U.S. in the absence of a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent. While plans to build new D5 missiles at a rate of 5 per year, were later announced, the new arms reduction treaty has reduced the number of missiles allowed to 280, from 685. Meaning our current fleet of SSBN's will have 4 empty launch tubes, per sub, going forward.

Republicans are just politicizing the issue, but that's what their job is. The fact is that U.S has made modernization efforts then disarmament in the nuclear weapons department. U.S nuclear strategy is no longer focusing on MAD as it appears (there is no USSR) but focusing more on precision and counter force. Given the current/prevailing situation for empty launch tubes hardly matter.

Also, the Ohio class replacement program, SSBN-X, slated to get in gear in 2012, has already been earmarked as a potential casualty of the upcoming budget wars, and so the current SSBN fleet will need to be modernized to extend its service life past 2025, into an environment where Russia and China are building new SSBN's using the latest of their technologies.

China and Russia are having their own problems with their nuclear submarines and submarine launched ballistic missiles. Based on open sources analysis they are still far from coming up with a submarine fleet which would drastically shift the balance in their favor or challenge U.S. in the international waters.

Some talk is going on about creating a variant of the planned Virginia class to extends the hull and mount launch tubes in it, instead of using a separate and dedicated class of boomers. Since part of the SSBN's stealth is based on the sheer size of the vessel, I'm not sure how retrofitting a fast attack does the same job in making it harder to detect. I'll let you bubble heads answer that question though.

My personal opinion is Virginia class with nuclear tipped cruise missile along with life extended Ohio class are enough to fill the gap for SSBN-X till 2025. Unless, China and Russia are able to come up with more advance subs. Right now I doubt they could even come close to making anything like Virginia.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by SABRE

That is a good question and the answer lies at the core of MAD theory, that is to have an ASSURED 2ND STRIKE CAPABILITY. Since nuclear submarines are immune to land attacks and first strikes and their movements are unpredictable they are the best tool to assure a 2nd strike (response) and hence assure mutual destruction.

Or a good early warning capability that allows a response to a nuclear attack, before one's own assets have been struck.

[SABRE]

Originally Posted by Feanor

Or a good early warning capability that allows a response to a nuclear attack, before one's own assets have been struck.

That would depend on the availability of reaction time. The geographical distance between USA and Russia/China is far enough to make early warning viable for quick response. But the scenario between Pakistan-India or China-India is very different since they have contiguous borders. Reaction time is very short. Assured 2nd strike will have to depend on nuke subs.