US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert

[Winston]

EXCLUSIVE: US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert
OCTOBER 22, 2017

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/...ut-nuclear-bombers-back-24-hour-alert/141957/

Excerpt:

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. — The U.S. Air Force is preparing to put nuclear-armed bombers back on 24-hour ready alert, a status not seen since the Cold War ended in 1991.

That means the long-dormant concrete pads at the ends of this base’s 11,000-foot runway — dubbed the “Christmas tree” for their angular markings — could once again find several B-52s parked on them, laden with nuclear weapons and set to take off at a moment’s notice.

“This is yet one more step in ensuring that we’re prepared,” Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview during his six-day tour of Barksdale and other U.S. Air Force bases that support the nuclear mission. “I look at it more as not planning for any specific event, but more for the reality of the global situation we find ourselves in and how we ensure we’re prepared going forward.”

Goldfein and other senior defense officials stressed that the alert order had not been given, but that preparations were under way in anticipation that it might come. That decision would be made by Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or Gen. Lori Robinson, the head of U.S. Northern Command. STRATCOM is in charge of the military’s nuclear forces and NORTHCOM is in charge of defending North America.

Anyway, here's a US Office of Technology Assessment of the likely results of multiple US/Soviet nuclear war scenarios during Cold War v1.0:

https://ota.fas.org/reports/7906.pdf

 

[Steven]

I wonder what the 'Russian Office of Technology Assessment' scenarios are.

 

[Winston]

I wonder what the 'Russian Office of Technology Assessment' scenarios are.

They probably steal our assessments.

 

[Bat-mite]

Good time for those with carpentry skills to start a business crafting bomb shelters. The rest of us can invest!

I, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, am pretty much dead if drug supply lines are cut off. So I'll just go down with the ship.

 

[Steven]

They probably steal our assessments.

Could easily be the other way around too.

 

[Winston]

Could easily be the other way around too.

Not if history is any guide.

 

[Winston]

Good time for those with carpentry skills to start a business crafting bomb shelters. The rest of us can invest!

I, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, am pretty much dead if drug supply lines are cut off. So I'll just go down with the ship.

In any major conflict, I think "duck and cover" won't do it for most people, healthy or not.

 

[Steven]

Not if history is any guide.

Don't kid yourself. The US will like any government resort to any form of subterfuge to obtain superior status. Not exactly Boy Scouts.

 

[Winston]

Don't kid yourself. The US will like any government resort to any form of subterfuge to obtain superior status. Not exactly Boy Scouts.

Personally, I wouldn't trust Russian data which would probably be even more politically influenced than US data. During Cold War v1.0, both sides presented the other side as 10 feet tall to their politicians. Makes for larger budgets and, besides, it's probably best to be conservative and use worst case estimates of an adversary's capabilities.

 

[Steven]

I don't trust either and yes, then military spending soars through the roof with such overly graphic 10 ft. tall monsters being portrayed. I've seen this scenario before.

 

[Steven]

I'll give you an example in which what the US stated and what actually transpired were two different things. The Iraq war cost over 100,000 Iraqi civilians lives on an annual basis in spite of the fact the US was using 'pin point accurate' weapons. Somethings wrong.

 

[ColumbiaNX01]

GOOD!

 

[Winston]

GOOD!

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to have a "triad" with one leg not ready to go at all times although SLBMs can make the allowable reaction time rather small. I suspect nuclear armed ALCMs will be loaded since I doubt the the B-52 can penetrate much of anything these days which brings up the question, why aren't they using B-1s instead (B-2s are probably reserved for stealth conventional-weapons missions)? We have 62 B-1s in the active force (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/) while there are 58 B-52s active (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress/):

Rockwell B-1 Lancer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

However, what the general said may just be a long-term and not near future plan as this new, stealth cruise missile isn't operational yet:

America Is Building a New, Stealthy Nuclear Cruise Missile

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...7925/america-stealthy-nuclear-cruise-missile/

 

[ksaves2]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to have a "triad" with one leg not ready to go. I suspect nuclear armed ALCMs will be loaded since I doubt the the B-52 can penetrate much of anything these days which brings up the question, why aren't they using B-1s instead (B-2s are probably too reserved for with stealth conventional weapons missions)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

You'll just have to wait and see what gets parked on the "Christmas Tree". Kurt

 

[Winston]

You'll just have to wait and see what gets parked on the "Christmas Tree". Kurt

I'm sure it'll be ALCMs even if they use the B-1s instead of B-52s, but I just wonder why they apparently aren't going to use the B-1. I've seen a chart of bombing missions in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq and the B-1 didn't seem to be used nearly as much as the B-52s, probably because the adversaries didn't merit the use of B-1s, but if the they're not being used in the WOT, I don't get why they aren't used as the third leg of the nuclear triad instead of the B-52s. Perhaps the more operationally used B-52s have had their EW ECM/ECCM systems updated more than the B-1s?

 

[Peartree]

I'll give you an example in which what the US stated and what actually transpired were two different things. The Iraq war cost over 100,000 Iraqi civilians lives on an annual basis in spite of the fact the US was using 'pin point accurate' weapons. Somethings wrong.

Be very careful whose numbers you choose to believe and be aware of how they are derived and reported. I've seen several vidios in which someone was accused of "killing civilians" but which, under scrutiny, the "dead" in the video can often be seen breathing or moving around. Remember that biased reporting, from either side, should be suspect. Who developed and promoted that casualty figure? And does it distinguish between civilians killed by US military action and civilians killed by insurgents? Does it also account for insurgents, in violation of the Geneva Convention, of housing troops, and establishing bases in hospitals and schools? It's one thing to say how many people were killed, but an entirely different thing to be certain of who killed them.

 

[Steven]

Be very careful whose numbers you choose to believe and be aware of how they are derived and reported. I've seen several vidios in which someone was accused of "killing civilians" but which, under scrutiny, the "dead" in the video can often be seen breathing or moving around. Remember that biased reporting, from either side, should be suspect. Who developed and promoted that casualty figure? And does it distinguish between civilians killed by US military action and civilians killed by insurgents? Does it also account for insurgents, in violation of the Geneva Convention, of housing troops, and establishing bases in hospitals and schools? It's one thing to say how many people were killed, but an entirely different thing to be certain of who killed them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War All you need to know. The figure I gave is conservative by comparison.

 

[Zeus-cat]

I'm sure it'll be ALCMs even if they use the B-1s instead of B-52s, but I just wonder why they apparently aren't going to use the B-1. I've seen a chart of bombing missions in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq and the B-1 didn't seem to be used nearly as much as the B-52s, probably because the adversaries didn't merit the use of B-1s, but if the they're not being used in the WOT, I don't get why they aren't used as the third leg of the nuclear triad instead of the B-52s. Perhaps the more operationally used B-52s have had their EW ECM/ECCM systems updated more than the B-1s?

When I was in graduate school many moons ago my professor had me do some wok on a USAF reliability database. At the time the B-1 was simply not as reliable as the B-52. Of course, that was so long ago the situation has certainly changed. Another thing is that the B-52 carries a lot of missiles on external hardpoints which the B-1 may not have.

 

[Steven]

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ This source puts the claim between 179,000 and 201,000. Again, I used a very conservative figure and all with the US' implementation of 'pin point accurate' weaponry.

 

[rharshberger]

When I was in graduate school many moons ago my professor had me do some wok on a USAF reliability database. At the time the B-1 was simply not as reliable as the B-52. Of course, that was so long ago the situation has certainly changed. Another thing is that the B-52 carries a lot of missiles on external hardpoints which the B-1 may not have.

The B-52 may also have better range and loiter times unrefuelled. B52s are slower but have nearly double the combat radius, and they have nearly the same internal bomb load capacity ( 70 vs 75k lbs). We also probably have more B52s than B1s.

 

[rharshberger]

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ This source puts the claim between 179,000 and 201,000. Again, I used a very conservative figure and all with the US' implementation of 'pin point accurate' weaponry.

War should be ugly, "clean" wars have no incentive for humanity to take a break from killing each other. The world used to get a break between major conflicts but all we see now is continous long running wars. Go back to doing things the old way, flatten the bastards and wipe out their forces, maybe then they will think twice before starting/picking a fight.

 

[Peartree]

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ This source puts the claim between 179,000 and 201,000. Again, I used a very conservative figure and all with the US' implementation of 'pin point accurate' weaponry.

Right. But all of your data specifies only the number of the dead. It does not specify which were civilian vs. combatants, nor does it specify which were killed by Americans vs. various Iraqi and Iranian factions who were fighting a civil war and launching terrorist strikes in the midst of a larger combat arena.

A little background:

Mexican revolution - 125,000 civilian deaths and 125,000 combatant deaths (1:1)
WW1 - 8.6 million military dead and 6 million civilians (1.4:1)
WW2 - 70 million killed in six years (total) - civilians represented approximately 60% to 67% of this figure (2:1)
Korean War - 793,000 total deaths - civilian deaths 67% (2:1)
Vietnam War - 3.1 million dead, 2 million civilians, 1.1 million combatants (2:1) though the ratio in Cambodia and Laos was much lower at 1.3:1
Chechnya 1 - 4,000 separatist fighters and 40,000 civilians (10:1)
Chechnya 2 - 3,000 fighters and 13,000 civilians (4.3:1)
NATO in Yugoslavia - 6,000 dead (estimates vary from 1:10 to 10:1, but is likely about 4:1)
Afghanistan - 66,000 combatants, 26,000 civilians (0.4:1)
Iraq War - Conservative estimate - 28,736 combatants,13,807 civilians (1:2), Other estimates - 39,900 combatants, 134,100 civilians (3.4:1)

Full article here: Civilian casualty ratio

While higher than that in wars that featured large armies which faced one another in open country, it is not surprisingly high for wars fought in largely urban environments. Particularly so in which military action occurred in the middle of an open civil war involving significant terrorism from multiple factions. Even so, compared the openly racist attacks of the Russian military against the Chechyns, it seems reasonable. Clearly if you *want* to kill civilians, the numbers would be much, much higher.

While tragic, even by more liberal casualty estimates, there's no reason to look for any kind of conspiracy here.

 

[Steven]

Right. But all of your data specifies only the number of the dead. It does not specify which were civilian vs. combatants, nor does it specify which were killed by Americans vs. various Iraqi and Iranian factions who were fighting a civil war and launching terrorist strikes in the midst of a larger combat arena.

A little background:

Mexican revolution - 125,000 civilian deaths and 125,000 combatant deaths (1:1)
WW1 - 8.6 million military dead and 6 million civilians (1.4:1)
WW2 - 70 million killed in six years (total) - civilians represented approximately 60% to 67% of this figure (2:1)
Korean War - 793,000 total deaths - civilian deaths 67% (2:1)
Vietnam War - 3.1 million dead, 2 million civilians, 1.1 million combatants (2:1) though the ratio in Cambodia and Laos was much lower at 1.3:1
Chechnya 1 - 4,000 separatist fighters and 40,000 civilians (10:1)
Chechnya 2 - 3,000 fighters and 13,000 civilians (4.3:1)
NATO in Yugoslavia - 6,000 dead (estimates vary from 1:10 to 10:1, but is likely about 4:1)
Afghanistan - 66,000 combatants, 26,000 civilians (0.4:1)
Iraq War - Conservative estimate - 28,736 combatants,13,807 civilians (1:2), Other estimates - 39,900 combatants, 134,100 civilians (3.4:1)

Full article here: Civilian casualty ratio

While higher than that in wars that featured large armies which faced one another in open country, it is not surprisingly high for wars fought in largely urban environments. Particularly so in which military action occurred in the middle of an open civil war involving significant terrorism from multiple factions. Even so, compared the openly racist attacks of the Russian military against the Chechyns, it seems reasonable. Clearly if you *want* to kill civilians, the numbers would be much, much higher.

While tragic, even by more liberal casualty estimates, there's no reason to look for any kind of conspiracy here.

It also states: "However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%." You subtract the number of combatants of 39,900 from civilian 174,000 and you still get 134,000 civilians killed. Still making my figure a conservative one.

 

[Peartree]

It also states: "However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%." You subtract the number of combatants of 39,900 from civilian 174,000 and you still get 134,000 civilians killed. Still making my figure a conservative one.

I noted those exact figures. I'm not questioning your figures.

I stand by my statement. The number of civilian deaths, conservative or not, are not unusual in any way compared to other similar conflicts.

To the OP: My apologies for taking this long trip off topic.

 

[Steven]

And I stand on my original statement being accurate on the conservative side at 100,000 civilians. Clearly the sources are higher.

 

[cerving]

The Taliban and ISIS imbed themselves within the civilian population because they know that Americans are the only ones on Earth that care if civilians get killed while pursuing their military target. If the Russians were going after these guys, they'd just carpet bomb a big enough area to ensure the kill. It may be true that 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraqi war, but how many civilians do you think would have been killed it if wasn't us going after them? Don't blame the US... we tried to minimize the civilian casualties. Blame Saddam.

 

[Steven]

The Taliban and ISIS imbed themselves within the civilian population because they know that Americans are the only ones on Earth that care if civilians get killed while pursuing their military target. If the Russians were going after these guys, they'd just carpet bomb a big enough area to ensure the kill. It may be true that 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraqi war, but how many civilians do you think would have been killed it if wasn't us going after them? Don't blame the US... we tried to minimize the civilian casualties. Blame Saddam.

Saddam was already killing 100,000 a year. You think the US really helped out here? No.

 

[Andy Greene]

Saddam was already killing 100,000 a year. You think the US really helped out here? No.

Its an HOA thing - tanks / no tanks

 

[Steven]

Its an HOA thing

I'm ready.

 

[fyrwrxz]

As a kid, I was on bases in Europe where the air time (in minutes) from Russia was posted in all the front closets (closest to the front door) with air raid signal types listed. Yes, we had the 'duck and cover' futile practices in school. I have been out to dinner with the folks when a 'practice' air raids went off and grown men were throwing drinks on the ground and leaping over decorative railings to get to the crew trucks stationed outside the Officer's Club. You never knew if it was real or not. This was a part of life and you just accepted you may never see your Father again. He racked up 20,000 flight hours (do the math!) circling the pole waiting for "go codes" to penetrate Russian airspace. I lived in a stone croft in Scotland with two mountain ranges between us and Holy Loch (Naval base with nuke-equipped subs) with no running water outside the quaint little town of Grantown-On-Spey. I have lived at literally the end of runways that had interceptors manned and loaded, sitting and ready. Now I live in San Diego-one of several prime targets.
I am saddened we have not gotten beyond this madness and still the sabre-rattling and political manoeuverings continue. I've gotten jaded over the years and now am just fatalistic. I hope cooler heads prevail and the diplomats can ratchet things down a few notches. Nuclear winter is NOT the answer to global warming. >rant off<