35
Minuteman III Missiles Are Too Old to Upgrade Anymore, STRATCOM Chief Says
(www.military.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)
US News
2043 readers
49 users here now
News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Russia and the US both still have the START treaty
However, Russia stepped back due to the whole Ukraine thing.
And yes the Russian Federation inherited the aged (even at the time) missiles which were equivalent to the US' Minuteman III and others which have been decommissioned. Peacekeeper, Atlas, etc.
To be the most fully fair to the US, the Peacekeeper missiles were decommissioned and their former locations were (most of them) fully destroyed as to never be useable again.
Not that it matters much, but the US stepped down the Minuteman III to only carry one nuclear warhead (possible of 3 max). The Peacekeeper missiles could carry 10 warheads.
The reduction to one warhead and subsequent decommissioning of the Peacekeepers was due to US/USSR cooperation.
We did it before. We can do it again. There's absolutely never been and never will be a reason for a country to have so many nukes.
It wasn't so much because of Ukraine, but US failing to honor its end of the deal. I think nuke reduction absolutely needs to happen, but it seems like we're now moving in the opposite direction.
the actions of the US make it crystal clear that only with nukes can a country retain its sovereignty. so we're doing nuclear proliferation at the moment.
Basically this. One of the only recourses they will have left to try to maintain power is a "we will end the world of you don't let us do what we want" button.
"you have to let us end the world... or do you want the CHINESE to end the world?"
And yet they DID make that many. I'm not saying they should have, or that they shouldn't reduce those numbers now. A question was asked as to why do it. I gave a potential reason. The US is psychotic and genocidal.... and I'm sure making nukes is a profitable endeavor for many private contractors on some level.
It's insanely profitable to Boeing mostly, yes.
They held (still hold) most of the contracts for the operating silos to this day. All the equipment had to be designed to withstand a first strike nuclear attack from the USSR. Not necessarily like a direct attack, but a nearby attack on its equivalent sites. 15 missile alert facilities per base. 10 missiles per alert facility. Three bases. Total 450 operational ICBMs under the ground with predetermined coordinates meant to strike at the most valuable military targets of the USSR, China, etc. (used to be more but Peacekeepers and others were dismantled).
Boeing designed a ton of proprietary equipment for these sites. Since it has to be hardened to EMP, radiation, heat, vibration, etc. it's over-engineered (and probably done well since it was the 1960/70s before full enshittification struck). Proprietary equipment, most of it classified for national security reasons, has to be within very strict guidelines, etc. Boeing basically holds a pistol to the Air Force's head with this shit. They can demand anything they want. Which is, of course, the entire point to a lot of this stuff. Enrich private corporations.
Those reductions don't matter and were meaningless gestures on a strategic level. Nuclear sub-boats carry MIRVs with over a dozen independent warheads each and as the US always was most likely to be the one doing a first strike, a missile boat they could park off an enemy coast with only 5-10 minute's warning was always going to be a preferable choice for committing such a crime and thus preferable as something to keep and invest in. Land-based missile sites are too easily discovered and monitored as well as static targets for the enemy compared to nuclear subs and air-based attacks with bombers.
Best of all bombers (once in the air) and missile subs are immune to being overrun with anti-nuclear-war liberals trying to stop the destruction of the world once it's apparently imminent which was a fear as well as communist revolutionaries should the revolution ever hit US shores, any cut off or exiled US government would still in theory wield roving bands of death hidden beneath the waves located around the world in its oceans capable of destroying rebellious US cities or any other country and effectively bringing about the end which I'm sure was attractive as an idea as well at the height of the cold war.