Avatar feed
Responses: 4
CW5 Jack Cardwell
2
2
0
Thanks for the post.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1
1
0
The missiles themselves are less important than the ability to launch them from a survivable platform. Put 20 of these on an Ohio or Columbia class submarine and you have a strike capability that all the gee-whiz hypersonic weapons in the world won't be able to find and kill - thus dissuading an enemy from shooting first.
Deterrence is the point, is it not?
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG Diane R.
SSG Diane R.
5 y
Sounds impressive, but not really. As one arms control treaty after another falls, the would be become a far more dangerous and impoverished place.
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
5 y
SSG Diane R. Remember what START did. It basically reduced the warhead count to 5k apiece. That is more than adequate to lay waste to the world many times over.
So if America builds up to 6k, does that really do any more damage? Making the rubble smaller and bounce again. The real issue is new weapons not subject to the treaty, and countries like China, India, and DPRK that didn't sign it.
Missiles in silos still exist, but haven't been critical first strike systems for decades. That role is passed to mobile systems like wheeled launchers, stand off cruise missiles and submarine launched systems.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Lawrence Cable
1
1
0
Since we officially pulled out of the treaty back in August, didn't hat put Putin and Xi on notice?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close