(Click on Image to Enlarge)
Popular Mechanics: All the Nuclear Missile Submarines in the World in One Chart
Only seven countries in the entire world deploy nuclear weapons at sea, an exclusive and deadly club.
The ballistic missile submarine is the most reliable means of nuclear deterrence. These vessels would survive a first strike and retaliate, which is meant to prevent an enemy from ever using its weapons. These fearful underwater giants stay hidden in the oceans avoiding detection at all costs and are always ready for the moment they might be needed.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: There are 45 nuclear missile submarines in the world, and the destructive power in just one of these subs is truly frightful.
8 comments:
Israel?????
The idea is definitely for these submarines to survive a first strike and to retaliate. That's the plan at least. For the United states at least, hopefully this would work if these ever were needed.
From something I saw awhile back, the Russians are working on ways to detect these submarines in the oceans essentially making the oceans transparent and making these submarines easily detectable. While we cannot "know" for certain, the article suggested they were close to achieving this. Given the US tendency to both overestimate our abilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries, it seems highly likely that our government is not only not working on a way to detect enemy nuclear subs nor are they working on a way to make ours undetectable blithely assuming they will automatically "survive a first strike."
If someone were to initiate a first strike against someone who had nuclear submarines, it would seem part of the first strike would be to eliminate these submarines as part of the attack. We should be working on ways to ensure our nuclear submarines both work to launch weapons if needed and to ensure they are not detectable by an enemy.
Given our situation, I am skeptical as to the notion that we have conventional power equal to our adversaries or that we will in mid to long term. We have major infrastructure needs we need to address, an aging population that will need medical care, and a worn out military with veterans who will need the proper care and support. As such, lacking the conventional abilities of adversaries and potential adversaries we are going to need to rely much more heavily on a nuclear deterrent. Obviously having nuclear submarines will be crucial and ensuring they cannot be detected as well as trying to find ways to detect those of adversaries and potential adversaries is going to be mission critical.
Fusion the US might well have conventional capabilities equal to it's adversaries. We cannot "know" this without an actual fight. Very respectfully what you are giving me is an article of faith that doesn't have definitive evidence to support it.
"I don't understand..." Very respectfully you may not be paying attention. For example, during the Russian-Georgian War, Col Ralph Peters admitted the Russian military demonstrated capabilities that the American military lacked. Additionally during the Syrian War there were reports of Russia demonstrating cruise missile technology that "only the US was supposed to have." The media/leadership response was initial shock and once recovered from this shrug it off as a one-off fluke. I can cite other examples that I believe raise serious doubts as to the assertion you state.
"Sure your military is worn out..." perhaps not being an American you aren't aware of the gravity of the problem. Unfortunately a number Americans aren't either. We're to busy just trying to survive and the military is not large enough to carry out the missions that are expected of it nor is the capability there to expand it financial or otherwise. Not bring an American you may not have the ability to find out such things.
"It's firepower is unrivaled..." this certainly could be correct but again we'd need a war with a "peer" such as Russia, China, or another major power to "know." To me the available evidence does not warrant such a not such a Blyth assumption.
Perhaps not being an American it doesn't concern you. After the heads of you and your loved ones aren't on the chopping block. The heads of my family and loved ones are!! As such, it's vitally important that we get this right!! Thank you for the reply.
@B.Poster Russia invading Georgia is like the US invading Tennessee if it were not a state. I'm not sure what capabilities Col is talking about. The USA succesfully invaded and occupied entire countries across many continents multiple times since 1900.
The cruise missile strike is certainly an improvement for Russia, but we already know they are improving. The US could do this and more 30+ years ago.
If you need a war with a peer to find out if the US has enough firepower, isn't that also true for Russia and China? Russia hasn't fought a major war since taking Berlin in 1945. China briefly fought the marines in Korea, and while they did push them back due to sheer numbers and overextension by MacArthur, they took absurd casualties in the process.
The US invading Tenesse?!!? Georgia was a de facto NATO ally possessing some of the most sophisticated weapons for the time. TN has nothing like that. Not sure why you singled out TN. The US has no intention of invading itself.
Interestingly you have to go back to 1900. Very respectfully I've seen this strategy used I've seen this strategy used when one can't win the current debate, bring up the past!!
Today the US military wouldn't be able to successgullt occupy a mid level country like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or pick your country. Having realized this we conceded defeat in Iraq on the nation building, will have to do so in Afghanistan, and appear to be in the process of negotiating with Russia for a face saving exit from Syria.
The specific capabilities Col Peters was referring to was the ability to move men and equipment and having the men and the equipment ready for combat on a short notice. He admitted it exceeded ours at the time. Of course once he admitted this he then constructed a new narrative to allow him to cling to his ideology!! I find humans often do this when the facts either disprove or call into question a sacred ideology. Furthermore while we've been further running our military into the ground I think it a reasonable inference that Russia has improved their capabilities from the time of the Georgia war.
As for the cruise missile attack, the source implied it matched America's capabilities in this regard or strongly appeared to. To paraphrase, "only America was supposed to have this ability."
"If you need a war with a peer..." this would be true. I've been very capable to point out the only way to "know" Is an actual conflict. Absent this we can make inferences based upon observation and available evidence. Based upon this America is no "superpower " While America could prevail in a war against China or Russia, there is substantial evidence to question such an assertion. In fact, there is substantial evidence to suggest America would fare very badly against such a "peer "
Of course my analysis could be completely off. As I said the only way to "know" is actual conflict. Those who aren't Americans don't need to worry about it.
@B.Poster Georgia is a tiny country of less than 4 million which borders Russia. That's why I had to use TN as an example, just pretend it was an independent country with a tiny military.
Most Georgian forces (only 37 000 personnel) were equipped with old Soviet weapons and vehicles. In fact they were hard to distinguish from the invaders.
It was their special forces that were NATO/US trained and equipped in US fashion.
"Today the US military wouldn't be able to successgullt occupy a mid level country like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or pick your country"
Let's not confuse military occupation and nation-building. The US successfully invaded and occupied two of those countries already. The political decisions to try nation-building were incredibly stupid and failed miserably, but that's a separate issue. Militarily those operations were great successes.
And the US does have ability even now to occupy Syria. It wouldn't even be a big deal. Neither the SAA or the Russians have anything near what they would need to stop the US forces which would be coming at them from several fronts at the same time, with total air and naval superiority. Not to mention the fact that the US would have many allies on it's side.
"I think it a reasonable inference that Russia has improved their capabilities from the time of the Georgia war."
Sure, but invading a minuscule border country is not exactly operation barbarossa.
"As for the cruise missile attack, the source implied it matched America's capabilities in this regard or strongly appeared to. To paraphrase, "only America was supposed to have this ability.""
Again, Russia is getting better, and US media or local politicians tend to underestimate them, but launching cruise missiles successfully from a ship is not exactly ground-breaking.
Fusion,
Thanks for the replies. Constructive dialogue is always appreciated. "The Russians were sloppy in the Georgian war." I do recall some critiques to this effect, however, it seemed mostly but picking at the time. When someone's ideology is threatened they often must find some way to cling to it. Suffice it to say mistakes are going to be made in any war by all sides.
I may have overestimated Georgian military power. It does underscore the utter stupidity of the Georgian leadership that would undertake policies that would or could be deemed provocative by Russia. Much was written about the utter incompetence of their leaders during the time period.
"If America is not a superpower B.Poster who is?" At present, there appear to be a "big three" of Russia, China, and the United States. These three are very evenly matched conventionally or would seem to be although I would be somewhat hesitant to suggest America is on the same level conventionally as either Russia or China but we could 've. At best, it is far from certain.
In terms of nuclear capability, Russia and America are at the top IF our arsenal actually works. Candidate Trump was right to question this. I recall him saying the first thing he did upon taking office was to upgrade our nuclear arsenal. I'm assuming he did.
In terms is strategic nuclear weapons based upon numbers the powers seem to close to equal. In terms of tactical nukes, the reports I'm familiar with indicate Russia holds the edge there.
As to who is a "superpower," there may not be one decisive superpower but it's definitely not America. Thankfully to the best of my knowledge POTUS has refrained from saying such nonsense. Frankly for Americans who can barely dream of the lifestyles Canadians take for granted such a term is actually insulting.
Caucus,
Thank you for the reply. Constructive dialogue is always appreciated.
As I explain in my reply to Fusion, I may have overestimated Georgian capabilities. It does illustrate the stupidity of the Georgian government in undertaking policies that Russia might see as provocative.
Your last seven paragraphs contain much conjecture and opinion. While you could be correct, I do not have the confidence in this you do. If neither you nor your loved ones are Americans, it doesn't matter. The heads of your loved ones aren't on the chopping block.
As to air and sea superiority, this is far from certain. Russian sub capabilities make sea dominance problematic. Also, in air to air conflicts over Syria some reports indicate
that the Russian airforce did quite well and had these bern actual dogfight we'd have taken huge losses in terms of men and equipment.
As for our "allies," there are very few if them I trust. Most of them are manipulative users and abusers. Unfortunately the ideological nature of our foreign policy makes us easy to msnipulate. If you think they are going to either be inclined or capable of helping us to game on Russia, very respectfully probably a BIG MISTAKE and I'd say not worth the risk to American lives.
I'm glad we can agree on the stupidity of nation building. Americans have been needlessly sacrificed in this and American interests have been undermined.
While I agree the military operations were generally successful, the costs were enormous and we are still bearing them all for little to know strategic benefits. The term "pyrric victory" comes to mind. Should we have any more of them we will be in even more trouble.
Post a Comment