User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:29:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We bomb the crap out of Kwajalein Island. Why don't we launch stuff off the island instead? It has nice beaches. Not sure about a golf course but that can't be that hard to build. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Location location location. The problem is where the silos are. They just need to be relocated to sunny places with fabulous weather and umbrella drinks. Who in their right mind signs on to mole duty in Fucknut, North Dakota? 
yeah ft greely. the ICBM crews have it 10Xs better then the greely guys. We bomb the crap out of Kwajalein Island. Why don't we launch stuff off the island instead? It has nice beaches. Not sure about a golf course but that can't be that hard to build. I have been to kwaj. Nice place to visit. plus there is that whole geography/throwweight/physics/geopolitical thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:35:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. I used to think the ICBM force was an anachronism. I no longer feel that way for the reasons you articulated. the manned bomber fleet is a complete waste for the nuclear deterrence mission, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:38:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Location location location. The problem is where the silos are. They just need to be relocated to sunny places with fabulous weather and umbrella drinks. Who in their right mind signs on to mole duty in Fucknut, North Dakota?
You have my frozen condolences. Too bad we didn't have the mobile launching system the crazy Soviet bastards used (?) to have. We could drive you guys down to Tucson, AZ for the winter and you could spend the summers up in the Grand Tetons in Wyoming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:39:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:40:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The number is an easily argued point. But that isn't the issue here. Do we really need 1 crew for 10 missiles. If we are really going to believe this effects based bullshit, should it be number of warheads or number of missiles that are counted. Why is it a peacekeeper crew had 10 missiles with 10 warheads for 100 warhead responsibility while a MM3 has 10 missiles with 1 warhead. Could one crew handle all 150 missiles at the same time? If not, why not? how many warheads in an Ohio class? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. The number is an easily argued point. But that isn't the issue here. Do we really need 1 crew for 10 missiles. If we are really going to believe this effects based bullshit, should it be number of warheads or number of missiles that are counted. Why is it a peacekeeper crew had 10 missiles with 10 warheads for 100 warhead responsibility while a MM3 has 10 missiles with 1 warhead. Could one crew handle all 150 missiles at the same time? If not, why not? how many warheads in an Ohio class? No, one crew could monitor 50. System design. WSSR problems, and would only be done in a wartime situation. Also, monitoring each LF is the easy part. The dificult part is processing maintenance crews and SF onto each site and maintaining status for each site. It would be almost imposible to keep up with the daily activity of Mnx and SF at 50 sites with only two crew members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:42:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, one crew could monitor 50. System design. WSSR problems, and would only be done in a wartime situation. Also, monitoring each LF is the easy part. The dificult part is processing maintenance crews and SF onto each site and maintaining status for each site. It would be almost imposible to keep up with the daily activity of Mnx and SF at 50 sites with only two crew members. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. The number is an easily argued point. But that isn't the issue here. Do we really need 1 crew for 10 missiles. If we are really going to believe this effects based bullshit, should it be number of warheads or number of missiles that are counted. Why is it a peacekeeper crew had 10 missiles with 10 warheads for 100 warhead responsibility while a MM3 has 10 missiles with 1 warhead. Could one crew handle all 150 missiles at the same time? If not, why not? how many warheads in an Ohio class? No, one crew could monitor 50. System design. WSSR problems, and would only be done in a wartime situation. Also, monitoring each LF is the easy part. The dificult part is processing maintenance crews and SF onto each site and maintaining status for each site. It would be almost imposible to keep up with the daily activity of Mnx and SF at 50 sites with only two crew members. answers that question
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:42:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Eventually the nuclear arsenals of nations will be limited to enough missiles to make missile defense an actual defense and when we reach that point we'll at long last have the conditions for a good old fashion massive conventional war once again. Yup, the liberals are going to make the deaths of tens of thousands on the battlefield once again a reality. Go liberals!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:44:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:45:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eventually the nuclear arsenals of nations will be limited to enough missiles to make missile defense an actual defense and when we reach that point we'll at long last have the conditions for a good old fashion massive conventional war once again. Yup, the liberals are going to make the deaths of tens of thousands on the battlefield once again a reality. Go liberals! No one is going to give up a 2nd strike capability who can afford to do so. right now missile defense is much more expensive than offensive capabilities. China getting an SLBM and a MIRV capability reflects that reality. missile defense won't do anything to big boy nuclear deterrence. what it will do is neuter the Irans and NK's of the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:45:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:48:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why? Its not like they matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. You should be an AF General Officer. You missed your calling
ETA. my bad, I forgot you aren't a pilot. ETA. I hate this damn iPad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:50:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should be an AF General Officer. You kissed your calling
ETA. my bad, I forgot you aren't a pilot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. You should be an AF General Officer. You kissed your calling
ETA. my bad, I forgot you aren't a pilot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:52:40 PM EDT
[#14]
I wonder how many men it takes to keep the Russian road-mobile ICBMs operational?
I bet the manning requirements are huge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:54:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. You should be an AF General Officer. You kissed your calling
ETA. my bad, I forgot you aren't a pilot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:56:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I went through Navy flight school and everyone I saw that attrited either had other priorities in life (i.e. driving to Tuscaloosa or P'Cola every weekend was more I important than studying and being competent) or was just a straight up brick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could start by stop manning the program with those who fail out of flight school and guarding them by those who you insist are not smart enough to do anything else. Anyone who fails flight school should be separated but allowed to join for a different job. If you don't care enough to try twice, you don't want it. If you fail flight school then it's because either you didn't give a shit or you have a two digit IQ. Neither should be allowed to do anything in the military. You've obviously never been in the military....... I went through Navy flight school and everyone I saw that attrited either had other priorities in life (i.e. driving to Tuscaloosa or P'Cola every weekend was more I important than studying and being competent) or was just a straight up brick. I know a pilot who attrited because he could not do night carrier landings, did his obligated time as a maintenance officer and now flys for American. 2 DASCTeer I know were in similar a boat one they discovered she had a type of night blindness and the other just did not have the depth perception to do carrier traps |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:57:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why? Its not like they matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not like the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:00:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:01:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. Maybe if I golfed, I would understand. Alas, I do not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:07:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:09:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? You didn't start off with an argument, you made a wild speculation based on numbers you pulled out of thin air. Others in this thread are talking about specifics, based on knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:12:15 PM EDT
[#22]
I mean - WTF is with this story? They had limited number of tool kits and were Fedexing them from silo to silo. They had one particular wrench for 450 missiles. Jesus. My grandpas was a machinist for the Nay and later DoD contractors. He could have made them all the wrenches they wanted with out a CNC just basic lathe and mill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2834315/Hagel-Top-bottom-changes-needed-nuke-force.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:15:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You didn't start off with an argument, you made a wild speculation based on numbers you pulled out of thin air. Others in this thread are talking about specifics, based on knowledge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? You didn't start off with an argument, you made a wild speculation based on numbers you pulled out of thin air. Others in this thread are talking about specifics, based on knowledge. Right - it was an off shoot from the original topic which was related. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:18:30 PM EDT
[#24]
I think of our/most nation's nuclear arsenals as more of a shield rather than an offensive weapon. Yes, many recent (almost all) conflicts have been a low or unstructured group of like minded people who either try to gain control or buck the current regime, but as stated before...that limits the use of nukes.
Even two nuclear equipped nations will be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons, but that is based on the fact that they will use theirs back against you. It keeps everything in check. This, of course, is thrown out the window with aggressive countries like North Korea, which is why it is important to control nuclear wastes and production. I still think a biological weapon is the next threat, and that will have a much higher mortality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:20:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean - WTF is with this story? They had limited number of tool kits and were Fedexing them from silo to silo. They had one particular wrench for 450 missiles. Jesus. My grandpas was a machinist for the Nay and later DoD contractors. He could have made them all the wrenches they wanted with out a CNC just basic lathe and mill. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2834315/Hagel-Top-bottom-changes-needed-nuke-force.html Aha, but it wouldn't have been a NUCLEAR CERTIFIED wrench. If someone had used your Grandpa's wrench on a warhead, we would have to brief a two star (at least) and pull the warhead and missile out of the field to base for full maintenance checks and recertification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:20:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right - it was an off shoot from the original topic which was related. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? You didn't start off with an argument, you made a wild speculation based on numbers you pulled out of thin air. Others in this thread are talking about specifics, based on knowledge. Right - it was an off shoot from the original topic which was related. Hitler felt the same way. It worked out well for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:23:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. I'd rather you just stayed out of this thread, instead of talking out of your ass. Mmhmm - want to counter with an argument of your own or just name call like a 2nd grader? Are you hung over this morning? Your reading skills are lacking. What name did I call you? Drink water and take an aspirin. Regardless, the U.S. has a few more than "450 nukes" of various types (B61s, B83s, MIRVs, etc.). Or did you mean MMIII ICBMs? Or are you even aware of the difference? I don't think you are. You should read up a little on the topic. If you did, you wouldn't post uninformed comments or questions like you did so casually. Yes, I'm being abrasive, but you have to expect that when you sound like one of the leftard nuclear-freeze peaceniks from the '80s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:38:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. This doesn't fit your rhetoric, but some of the better and more unique training I've had occurred at or transiting to airshows. TDY expenses for the airshows I've been on are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of gas I've dumped due to inept leadership. To me, the value in training, morale, and giving back to the public make up for the expense. When 1000+ American citizens tour your jet, veterans talking about their past experiences, and kids sitting in the pilot seat grinning from ear to ear, a few hundred $ in per diem is nothing on a weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:02:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. I have a question, IIRC we abandoned our policy of "launch on warning" with PDD-60 and will now retaliate once we have conformed detonations. How does that impact our 2nd and 3rd strike capability? I was under the impression that the idea during the Cold War was to get our nukes in the air as quickly as possible, causing the Soviets to expend a lot of theirs digging out empty silos. That's kind of a scary thought for people like myself that are ignorant on the issue. We keep some of our boomers moored, air bases can't really be hidden, and I'd assume a peer nation would know where our MM3 silos are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:07:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This doesn't fit your rhetoric, but some of the better and more unique training I've had occurred at or transiting to airshows. TDY expenses for the airshows I've been on are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of gas I've dumped due to inept leadership. To me, the value in training, morale, and giving back to the public make up for the expense. When 1000+ American citizens tour your jet, veterans talking about their past experiences, and kids sitting in the pilot seat grinning from ear to ear, a few hundred $ in per diem is nothing on a weekend. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do missile crews earn incentive pay? If not, they should. why? Its not like they matter. I know your being facetious with your reply, but I'd like to apply the libertarian solution to the problem: Free markets. Offer competitive pay, commensurate to the importance of the mission. Give missile officers and crews incentive to volunteer for that career field. Offer fast-track promotions to those that qualify. Make the nuke field hard as hell to get into, and then pay accordingly. So what if launch officers are 23 year old 0-4s? Or, God forbid, offer WO commissions to those coming in from the enlisted side but possess the necessary qualities to succeed in the job. CWOs could go from CW2 to captain or major in four years pending completion of a four year degree. It's not the USAF hasn't commissioned Army CWs when they needed V22 pilots recently. I got a better idea. Fail at the nuclear mission and save money for pilot pay. zero sum game. for every dollar squandered on the nuclear mission, that is one less dollar available for air shows and flight crew TDY. your priorities suck. This doesn't fit your rhetoric, but some of the better and more unique training I've had occurred at or transiting to airshows. TDY expenses for the airshows I've been on are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of gas I've dumped due to inept leadership. To me, the value in training, morale, and giving back to the public make up for the expense. When 1000+ American citizens tour your jet, veterans talking about their past experiences, and kids sitting in the pilot seat grinning from ear to ear, a few hundred $ in per diem is nothing on a weekend. Hey, read my post. I said his priorities were screwed up. I said airshows were the priority for national security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:08:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a question, IIRC we abandoned our policy of "launch on warning" with PDD-60 and will now retaliate once we have conformed detonations. How does that impact our 2nd and 3rd strike capability? I was under the impression that the idea during the Cold War was to get our nukes in the air as quickly as possible, causing the Soviets to expend a lot of theirs digging out empty silos. That's kind of a scary thought for people like myself that are ignorant on the issue. We keep some of our boomers moored, air bases can't really be hidden, and I'd assume a peer nation would know where our MM3 silos are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do we need 450 nukes at this point? Don't get me wrong. I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. But do we need 450? I'd rather have 100-200 that are top of the line and at 100% working order than 450 that we can't afford to maintain. Despite all the complaints, the missiles we have are still reliable and very well maintained. You can't fully understand the culture here until you've seen the extreme measures that are taken over even the most arcane oversights imaginable. Also, the 450 number is a buffer. There's always silos, missiles and warheads in maintenance. The exact number each wing is required to maintain for War Orders is classified, and we play a constant shell game on which silos actually have warheads in them. Finally, the reason we have land-based ICBMs is because it's still not easy to guarantee you can not only hit, but destroy 450 hardened point targets, even today. Even a small nuclear power could hit our 2 boomer bases and dozen or so aircraft bases with nukes and take out a large percentage of our strike-back capability. The silos make counter-force an extremely expensive and risky strategy and ensure we can do a second strike. I have a question, IIRC we abandoned our policy of "launch on warning" with PDD-60 and will now retaliate once we have conformed detonations. How does that impact our 2nd and 3rd strike capability? I was under the impression that the idea during the Cold War was to get our nukes in the air as quickly as possible, causing the Soviets to expend a lot of theirs digging out empty silos. That's kind of a scary thought for people like myself that are ignorant on the issue. We keep some of our boomers moored, air bases can't really be hidden, and I'd assume a peer nation would know where our MM3 silos are. there is no 3rd strike in nuclear deterrence theory. submarines are our retaliatory capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:16:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Hey, read my post. I said his priorities were screwed up. I said airshows were the priority for national security. Different pots of money. Different shades of green.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:17:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Different pots of money. Different shades of green. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey, read my post. I said his priorities were screwed up. I said airshows were the priority for national security. Different pots of money. Different shades of green. zero sum game. you can swap that around at the highest levels. ultimately the services ask for x in y accounts. AF is asking for money for air shows. check out the nuke facilities and what kind of shape they are in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:18:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I'm being abrasive, but you have to expect that when you sound like one of the leftard nuclear-freeze peaceniks from the '80s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love our nukes. MAD kept us out of countless conventional wars, and no "real" nation with an army like Russia or China will ever directly oppose us. Yes, I'm being abrasive, but you have to expect that when you sound like one of the leftard nuclear-freeze peaceniks from the '80s. I totally sound like a peacenik. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:23:27 PM EDT
[#35]
there is no 3rd strike in nuclear deterrence theory. submarines are our retaliatory capability. Well there should be. We need top men working on it right now. Top..men! What good is it to survive the Russkie's nuke tossing contest if the Chicoms start landing in Long Beach! We owe it to the American people and our Allies abroad to maintain our capability to project a nuclear response in case of foreign aggression in the aftermath of the 1st and 2nd strikes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:24:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well there should be. We need top men working on it right now. Top..men! What good is it to survive the Russkie's nuke tossing contest if the Chicoms start landing in Long Beach! We owe it to the American people and our Allies abroad to maintain our capability to project a nuclear response in case of foreign aggression in the aftermath of the 1st and 2nd strikes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no 3rd strike in nuclear deterrence theory. submarines are our retaliatory capability. Well there should be. We need top men working on it right now. Top..men! What good is it to survive the Russkie's nuke tossing contest if the Chicoms start landing in Long Beach! We owe it to the American people and our Allies abroad to maintain our capability to project a nuclear response in case of foreign aggression in the aftermath of the 1st and 2nd strikes. would we get our hair mussed? multi-polar nuclear deterrence is a mind bending game theory problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:30:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
zero sum game. you can swap that around at the highest levels. ultimately the services ask for x in y accounts. AF is asking for money for air shows. check out the nuke facilities and what kind of shape they are in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey, read my post. I said his priorities were screwed up. I said airshows were the priority for national security. Different pots of money. Different shades of green. zero sum game. you can swap that around at the highest levels. ultimately the services ask for x in y accounts. AF is asking for money for air shows. check out the nuke facilities and what kind of shape they are in. well aware of the shape of nuke facilities. again, it shows where the AFs priorities are...or aren't. You know this as well as I. Getting rid of airshows completely will not fix the culture problem the AF has of not giving a rats ass about the mission. Grounding the B-1s for a week in Afghanistan could probably fix all of the facilities problems in ICMBs. But again, different pots of money. airshow flight hours come out of the same pot of money are regular flying training. Jets are going to get flown no matter what. Air show per diem is less than one go-arounds worth of fuel. I have some hilarious stories of last years no airshow/no one is combat ready crisis. Smoke and mirrors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:32:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well aware of the shape of nuke facilities. again, it shows where the AFs priorities are...or aren't. You know this as well as I. Getting rid of airshows completely will not fix the culture problem the AF has of not giving a rats ass about the mission. Grounding the B-1s for a week in Afghanistan could probably fix all of the facilities problems in ICMBs. But again, different pots of money. airshow flight hours come out of the same pot of money are regular flying training. Jets are going to get flown no matter what. Air show per diem is less than one go-arounds worth of fuel. I have some hilarious stories of last years no airshow/no one is combat ready crisis. Smoke and mirrors. Oh, I know. B1s over priced for the effects they bring? the hell you say! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:36:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I know. B1s over priced for the effects they bring? the hell you say! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
well aware of the shape of nuke facilities. again, it shows where the AFs priorities are...or aren't. You know this as well as I. Getting rid of airshows completely will not fix the culture problem the AF has of not giving a rats ass about the mission. Grounding the B-1s for a week in Afghanistan could probably fix all of the facilities problems in ICMBs. But again, different pots of money. airshow flight hours come out of the same pot of money are regular flying training. Jets are going to get flown no matter what. Air show per diem is less than one go-arounds worth of fuel. I have some hilarious stories of last years no airshow/no one is combat ready crisis. Smoke and mirrors. Oh, I know. B1s over priced for the effects they bring? the hell you say! We agree! Stop the presses!!! Loved it when the B-1 guys told me they haven't dropped a bomb in months. Only did show of force fly bys. Great use of resources AF. I am convinced that the only reason they are flying in that theater is to justify their existence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:37:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder how many men it takes to keep the Russian road-mobile ICBMs operational? I bet the manning requirements are huge. Manning? Don't be sexist! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:38:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We agree! Stop the presses!!! Loved it when the B-1 guys told me they haven't dropped a bomb in months. Only did show of force fly bys. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
well aware of the shape of nuke facilities. again, it shows where the AFs priorities are...or aren't. You know this as well as I. Getting rid of airshows completely will not fix the culture problem the AF has of not giving a rats ass about the mission. Grounding the B-1s for a week in Afghanistan could probably fix all of the facilities problems in ICMBs. But again, different pots of money. airshow flight hours come out of the same pot of money are regular flying training. Jets are going to get flown no matter what. Air show per diem is less than one go-arounds worth of fuel. I have some hilarious stories of last years no airshow/no one is combat ready crisis. Smoke and mirrors. Oh, I know. B1s over priced for the effects they bring? the hell you say! We agree! Stop the presses!!! Loved it when the B-1 guys told me they haven't dropped a bomb in months. Only did show of force fly bys. One time a B1 did a flyby because they couldn't PID shit. we all ceased fire, ad hoc airshow goes by. Taliban stands up and starts cheering on the ridge, we went back to fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:40:27 PM EDT
[#42]
I laugh because at the absurdity of the truth. Just like the time my jet, a UAV flow from Nevada, and a AC-130 gunship chased down a guy on a donkey. Billion dollars worth of stuff for a $3 man and a $20 donkey.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:42:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I laugh because at the absurdity of the truth. Just like the time my jet, a UAV flow from Nevada, and a AC-130 gunship chased down a guy on a donkey. Billion dollars worth of stuff for a $3 man and a $20 donkey. $23 says it was the wrong guy anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:43:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could start by stop manning the program with those who fail out of flight school and guarding them by those who you insist are not smart enough to do anything else. This, When I was SAC, you might have hated the constrictions and discipline, but when you went back out into the regular Air Force, others recognized you in appearance, demeanor, and work ethic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:45:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did we have these issues in the ICBM force under SAC? Perhaps someone can expound on this, but in my experience, as a "SAC trained killer" in the 80s into the early 90s, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:50:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it may be the way to go, but you would have to modify drilling requirements and limits to met the mission. I don't know how many IDT (Marine term for drills) a NG member gets but on the ground side we only allocate 48 drills (24 days) and an AT a year. You would have to make it closer to the air side of the house where the recognize you cannot maintain currency on those limits. Additionally unlike the ground side where you only get 10 percent active support you will have to bump that up, maybe not the 40 percent the air wing gets but much higher than the 10 percent we get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was always interesting to sit in the Nuc Surety meeting at the Pentagon because the DoN and USN reps would always end up yelling at the DAF and USAF reps along the line "Why do we keep listening to you guys when you are the ones creating the problems" In a meeting to staff a USAF proposal to allow a non-military security force (still PRP); the whole of the DoN reps walked out of the meeting. you don't understand airpower. YOu think the guard manning model will gain traction? I think it may be the way to go, but you would have to modify drilling requirements and limits to met the mission. I don't know how many IDT (Marine term for drills) a NG member gets but on the ground side we only allocate 48 drills (24 days) and an AT a year. You would have to make it closer to the air side of the house where the recognize you cannot maintain currency on those limits. Additionally unlike the ground side where you only get 10 percent active support you will have to bump that up, maybe not the 40 percent the air wing gets but much higher than the 10 percent we get. I'm way out of the loop now, but after active duty, I went Air Guard in the mid 90s. They were bandying this idea around back then. I believe their are some active associate units doing nuke security with Guard troops, but I may be mistaken. What about an AGR mission, but would that be prohibitively expensive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:51:51 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I laugh because at the absurdity of the truth. Just like the time my jet, a UAV flow from Nevada, and a AC-130 gunship chased down a guy on a donkey. Billion dollars worth of stuff for a $3 man and a $20 donkey. On? Or "in"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:52:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps someone can expound on this, but in my experience, as a "SAC trained killer" in the 80s into the early 90s, no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did we have these issues in the ICBM force under SAC? Perhaps someone can expound on this, but in my experience, as a "SAC trained killer" in the 80s into the early 90s, no. My faculty advisor at war college wore the title of, "SAC trained killer" with a justified pride. He was in his 70s. SAC's downfall started after vietnam when the non-strategic air force got all the glory. Then you had the fantasy of the conventional war in Europe continuing to down grade the strategic mission with the oxymoronic "tactical nuclear weapons" idea. McPeak finished it off, obviously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:52:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a former Missile Alert Facility Manager, this is basically what saw over five years in the Missile Fields. Our Special Duty assignment career field was all voluteer, every single one of the Facilty Managers at Minot, Malstrum, FE Warren, and Vandenburg voluteered to be there for at least a four year controlled tour. We would spend about 180 days a year in the middle of nowhere at a MAF surrounded by chain link fence. Sure our job was an easy one, just got boring at times...you had to find things to do to keep you occupied for your 4-5 day alert. For the most part I liked my time in the Missile Fields. The majority of the MCC, Chefs, and Security Forces personnel are very young brand new troops and may not have liked being forced into their positions. I came from a part of the Airforce where the officers were mostly Field Grade, and the enlisted were NCOs, so it was a culture shock to work day in and day out with so many young troops. I'm not going to say these folks were too stupid to do anything else though. It's just not a glamorous job to perform when you're young and brand new to the Air force. ETA: forgot to include the most important folks in the Missile Field...the Missile Chefs 
Folks would starve if it wasn't for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could start by stop manning the program with those who fail out of flight school and guarding them by those who you insist are not smart enough to do anything else. Most of the fighter jock wash outs were terrible crew members. Their dream was to be a fly boy, and now they're forced underground into one of the least wanted jobs in the AF. You can only imagine how bad they are for the morale of the unit. Their idea of service was what they wanted, not what the AF told them to do. There needs to be an incentive to want to be a crew member. Send the wash outs to services or out the door. As a former Missile Alert Facility Manager, this is basically what saw over five years in the Missile Fields. Our Special Duty assignment career field was all voluteer, every single one of the Facilty Managers at Minot, Malstrum, FE Warren, and Vandenburg voluteered to be there for at least a four year controlled tour. We would spend about 180 days a year in the middle of nowhere at a MAF surrounded by chain link fence. Sure our job was an easy one, just got boring at times...you had to find things to do to keep you occupied for your 4-5 day alert. For the most part I liked my time in the Missile Fields. The majority of the MCC, Chefs, and Security Forces personnel are very young brand new troops and may not have liked being forced into their positions. I came from a part of the Airforce where the officers were mostly Field Grade, and the enlisted were NCOs, so it was a culture shock to work day in and day out with so many young troops. I'm not going to say these folks were too stupid to do anything else though. It's just not a glamorous job to perform when you're young and brand new to the Air force. ETA: forgot to include the most important folks in the Missile Field...the Missile Chefs
Folks would starve if it wasn't for them. Nooooot completely true. There's a reason we carried extra ammo and the OZs were devoid of rabbits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:54:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On? Or "in"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I laugh because at the absurdity of the truth. Just like the time my jet, a UAV flow from Nevada, and a AC-130 gunship chased down a guy on a donkey. Billion dollars worth of stuff for a $3 man and a $20 donkey. On? Or "in"? Both. It was Thursday too so he had that going for him. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
