Wednesday, March 25, 2009

A Prediction in Perspective

The prediction had been:

July 04, 2005 - [H]ere is the prediction based upon current ability and future need to use: STSLN (small tactical submarine launched nukes) from America's Arsenal of Democracy.

For that, Vigilis received an immediate dose of technically accurate and mildly abrasive criticism.

On 27 September 1991, President Bush announced initiatives affecting the entire US nuclear weapons arsenal. The United States removed all tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, from its surface ships and attack submarines. The nuclear equiped UGM-109A TLAM-N Tomahawk was withdrawn from service in 1992, though conventional versions remain operational.
Our prediction stood.

Now, we know our former Cold War adversary still gets the advantages of small, tactical nukes.

The International Herald Tribune writes that Russia in 2006 signaled it no longer intended to abide by the 1991 decision when then-Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Russian submarines were carrying tactical nuclear weapons on patrol. ...

With advances in the range and sophistication of tactical nuclear arms, Russian military leaders say low-yield nuclear warheads attached to cruise missiles fired from attack submarines make more sense than loading powerful bombs onto bigger strategic submarines, United Press International (UPI) reported with reference to RIA-Novosti.

A suitcase-sized (approximately 1 KT) nuke would be very deniable as well as destabilizing. M.E. is opposed to unilateral disarmament of the West. If our SOF found a terror cell with a suitcase nuke, appropriate hygiene might include making them an example of ineptitude with a symmetrical strike from a (Russian or US) sub.


Submarines are always silent and strange.



At 15 April, 2009 17:01, Blogger Chap said...

Interesting, but I don't think it's inconsistent with our earlier discussion. The difference is that we are not them. The Rooskies liked first strike when we didn't; lately, they have bet on using nukes to replace the tactical hole in conventional capability.

And more importantly, the use of a nuke, no matter the tactical effect, will have a strategic effect. The measure some people used to use when discussing US use of nukes was "is this worth having our government collapse?"

Farther than that, I'm constrained in my discussion...


Post a Comment

<< Home