Anthropoid wrote:
Are ICBMs and air-launched nukes even necessary these days? SLBMs are pretty much enough as a deterrent aren't they?
I know there is that whole "triad" model from the 1970s, but my recollection of the total SLBM counts for U.S. are that they are substantial, and probably sufficient to act as a deterrent. Better than either air or land based from the standpoint that they cannot be preemptively interdicted, and are quite likely to be viable targets in any followup interdiction too. Any airbase that can run nuclear capable aircraft or non-mobile ICBM silos are likely to be the first on any nuclear aggressor's list, whether that be first strike or retaliatory. SLBMs are much harder for them to even know about fully much less target.
I think cutting two legs out of the nuclear triad could be dangerous.
Imagine if the Chinese could figure out a way to neutralize those submarines?
And "neutralizing" them doesn't have to mean sinking them.
Suppose the Chinese could figure out a way to jam communications between the nuclear launch HQ (wherever that might be) and the (boomer) submarines.
The US leadership could be unable to get the launch order to the US nuclear subs.
Having a triad (multiple sources from which to launch a nuclear strike) reduces the possibility of such a jamming occurrence.
And regarding an interdiction of air or land based ballistic missiles, remember that a launch by someone against those sites does not result in an instantaneous impact on them. A launch would still involve a certain amount of time (10 minutes, 20 minutes) from the time the missiles in China (or Russia) are launched to the time that they would reach their destination. That still gives leadership sufficient time to order a counter strike.
(Also, I presume that the communication method used to notify US boomer subs would NOT be the same as for notifying ground based missiles or air launched missiles. Those could/would (at least for ground based missiles) involve some sort of landline communications.)