Nuclear Options

Thoughts on deterrence.

I have previously detailed my disgust with America’s pathetic and degenerating nuclear deterrent – outdated weapon systems from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, decreasing warhead/bomb yields to pitiful “popgun” levels, and retards who think we should respond to Chinese and Russian advancements by limiting ourselves to only two legs of the nuclear triad, dispensing with land-based ICBMs (as if submarines are completely invulnerable, will remain as “safe” as they are now indefinitely, and as if opponents wouldn’t concentrate all their efforts to eliminating the remaining two legs if we foolishly dispensed with the third – the third being, not coincidently, the most accurate and powerful, and of course retained by the Chinese and Russians).

What do I propose instead? Obviously, we must maintain the entire triad. We must be upgrading and developing new systems.  We need to reverse the decreasing yield paradigm and have at least some subset of warheads/bombs that combine higher yields with modern high accuracy, to destroy hardened targets and/or large areas.  

The GBSD should be developed, although I am disappointed that it seems to be just a souped-up Minuteman (1960s technology upgraded with 21st century components) rather than a completely new system. We need to develop hypersonic missile capability – that is imperative for the 21st century.  The submarine missile force and the manned bomber should be upgraded with new systems.

We should also revive the Midgetman (small mobile ICBM) and/or the Skybolt (air-launched ballistic missile) programs, but as new weapon systems designed around 21st century capabilities.  We should also develop weapons akin to Russia’s nuclear Poseidon torpedo and especially their Skyfall nuclear powered cruise missile.  Thus, we should revive, as a potential “Doomsday Weapon,” the “Pluto” SLAM missile, as a new weapon with 21st century capabilities.

Imagine a fleet of nuclear powered Pluto missiles, with hypersonic attack capability, carrying a bomb bay load of high-yield, “dirty” thermonuclear bombs, perhaps cobalt-salted (“cobalt bombs”). One can envision such missiles streaking over enemy territory – China for example (HBDers weep) – trailing deadly radioactive exhaust from their nuclear ramjet (or scramjet) engines, tossing out multi-megaton cobalt bombs on one target after another, to at last each missile ends its run by crashing, forming a deadly hyper-radioactive heap of debris (perhaps accompanied by a contact-burst of one last nuclear device saved for this purpose, to maximize destruction and the local spread of radioactive debris from the missile's reactor). The thought of HBD’s beloved Chinatrices being subjected to such a bombardment leaves one with a warm and fuzzy feeling indeed!  

Of course, this is, as stated, a “Doomsday” weapon to be used only in the event of a “nothing-to-lose” catastrophe, as the radioactive fallout from such a barrage would of course affect nations worldwide to a lesser extent.

And, for godssakes, for some esprit de corps, can we actually give impressive and/or interestingly descriptive names to these systems?  What the hell is "Ground Based Strategic Deterrent?"  We used to name missiles Atlas, Thor, Titan, and Minuteman, and now everything is bland and corporate.