UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

request' (see link)...

America's nuclear deterrent remains strong...in spite of Baron's uninformed "Anti-Lib" protestations.


Link: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/biden-administration-kills-trump-era-nuclear-cruise-missile-program/

Fact Check 2: Baron has no idea what he is talking about.

from the board from which Putin now makes his calculations. It was initially our technology thatObama cancelled, Trump restarted because Russia & China had developed ,and Biden killed again. You pretend that because it wasn’t developed yet, it wasn’t a loss to cancel its development. Technically, there was no change in deterrent because we never kept pace, thanks to Biden. Very slippery, Chris.

It should concern everyone that such a thing should remain stagnant through this long of a timeframe when the enemies have quickly developed the capability that we now lack.

Of course, the guy saying that I don’t know what I’m talking about has pushed the very policies that have pushed us very close to the brink of nuclear war. I would also point to track record, but I don’t want to be mean.

Of course, you have NOTHING to counter the facts and points brought out in the article from a real expert in the area either. It was written last Spring, and she has been on the money.

Presumably SLBMs from Ohio-Class submarines (SSBNs) are what you are referring to by "sea-launched nuclear deterrent." There is no change in either from Trump to Biden.

We are in fact building a whole new class of "boomer," the Columbia class, but the first one won't be out at sea until the 2030s. Approval and construction long predated Trump.

Neither our numbers of sea-based weapons nor doctrine changed at in any meaningful ways since the big cuts initiated by HW Bush.

Ms Geller in it asserts among other things:
"The danger is that while Russia possesses thousands of these tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. has only about 100 of them stationed in Europe. The disparity is even more acute in the Indo-Pacific, where China deploys hundreds of nuclear-capable missiles that can strike U.S. bases and
allies in the region, and the United States deploys zero.
Moscow and Beijing may easily interpret this gap in tactical nuclear weapons to suggest the U.S. lacks a credible nuclear deterrent at the lower levels of the escalation ladder.
The sea-launched cruise missile was proposed to address this growing gap. The missile is designed to be carried by attack submarines that could be deployed directly to European or Indo-Pacific waters.
Because it could be deployed close to conflict, rather than on strategic ballistic missile submarines that remain far out at sea, this missile would help remove any Russian or Chinese misperception that the U.S. would not be able to retaliate in kind against a limited nuclear strike.
Forgoing this capability would deprive the U.S. of a critical deterrent to the type of nuclear attack that we are currently worried about in Europe. As Putin threatens Europe and NATO with nuclear weapons, Biden’s decision to axe the program sends a dangerous signal that Putin’s threats are
working, and that the United States is being deterred.
This move also telegraphs weakness to our allies, who rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their security. Canceling the development of a gap-filling weapon that would be deployed to help protect them may now cause them to question U.S. assurances.
It has been no secret that Biden desires to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. Eliminating this nuclear capability signals his commitment to that goal. But this decision completely ignores the reality of the nuclear threats we are facing today. When it comes to national security,
political promises cannot take priority. In fact, given Russia’s nuclear threats, not to mention China’s massive nuclear expansion, the Administration should be asking what more we need to add to our nuclear arsenal, not what can be cut."

This is quite a different claim than you are making. Further, the evidence and Putin's behavior would suggest her assessment was dead on.

Author Geller's General Bio:
Patty-Jane Geller is a senior policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense.
Before joining Heritage in 2020, Patty-Jane worked at the Senate Armed Services Committee as a Staff Assistant for the Strategic Forces and Cybersecurity Subcommittees, where she worked to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Prior to working at SASC, she worked in the Office of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21).
Geller is also member of the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments 2019 Congressional Defense Seminar and currently a member of the 2020-21 Marshall Fellows Program at the Heritage Foundation.
She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government and a minor degree in physics at Georgetown University, and received a Master of Arts degree in Military Operational Art and Science from the Air Command and Staff College.
Patty-Jane was born and raised in Harrison, New York, and currently lives in Washington, D.C.

…which has existed for decades (and is pointless), and (2) we need a sea-launched cruise missile (of which we have thousands) that is also nuclear-capable (which we have zero, since it’s pointless).

No nuclear SLCM would have affected Putin one bit.

It’s an absurd suggestion. Beyond absurd.

of strike that Putin is now threatening in the Ukraine. He obviously plans rigged elections, and then can use that as cover for using a limited nuclear strike for anyone counter-attacking in those regions rather than losing the war there. If the US has subs nearby that can send in a similar limited response strike (minimal warning time as well), there is an option that helps avoid the ICBM's which when launched would risk WWIII as Russia weighs it's options while they are in flight. Putin KNOWS that the US won't send in ICBM's over this, he doesn't know the same about a lesser quick strike with an equal weapon to that which he used.

I agree that this is not something I would ever want used, but Putin has to be held in check with power and thret. I do agree that with Biden, the whole thing is likely pointless because Putin already knows that he won't do anything. But with a strong future president, it would hold his hand.

This is not stupid. it is a view held by many, and you know it. A spectrum of varying degeees of nuclear response for a spectrum of threats.