Slashdot Mirror


US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers On 24-Hour Alert (defenseone.com)

DefenseOne reports on new preparations at Barksdale Air Force Base: 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... Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief of staff, 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...

Already, various improvements have been made to prepare Barksdale -- home to the 2d Bomb Wing and Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees the service's nuclear forces -- to return B-52s to an alert posture. Near the alert pads, an old concrete building -- where B-52 crews during the Cold War would sleep, ready to run to their aircraft and take off at a moment's notice -- is being renovated. Inside, beds are being installed for more than 100 crew members, more than enough room for the crews that would man bombers positioned on the nine alert pads outside... Large paintings of the patches for each squadron at Barksdale adorn the walls of a large stairway. One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words "Peace The Old Fashioned Way," written underneath.

General Goldfein, the Air Force's top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat... 'It's no longer a bipolar world where it's just us and the Soviet Union. We've got other players out there who have nuclear capability. It's never been more important to make sure that we get this mission right.'"

39 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Strange days indeed.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I've got no idea whether this site is a reliable source for such information, it does seem like a step backward.

    Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country. They were always sold to the American public as a temporary weapons system due to the Soviet, then Chinese, threat. Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating.

    Even North Korea must know that internally.

    But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.

    Of course I'll take a lot of heat for taking this position. But after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.

    Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill. No pun intended.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea.

      Unless you also have a valuable resource, such as oil, then being in possession of a nuclear weapon dramatically decreasses the possibility of a direct invasion by a foreign army. Saddam sure coulda used one to the Yankees at bay.

    2. Re:Strange days indeed.... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Even North Korea must know that internally.

      You have a dumb-ass histrionic narcissistic "supreme leader" vs a impulsive narcissistic moron world leader.

      North Korea is dumb enough to nuke the USA.
      The USA is dumb enough to wipe North Korea off the face of the earth.

      You do the math. Stupid people do stupid things.

      Intelligent people will occasionally act stupid.
      Stupid people act stupid all the time.

      There is no hope for these two.
      --
      Judaism is the source of Christian indulgences: Murdering an innocent animals for heaven insurance.

    3. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, a single nuclear weapon removes the need for tens of thousands of soldiers to risk their lives. It is also drastically more cost effective. It's also the only way to reduce the loss of lives in cases like Seoul where people will have to endure "only" several hours of artillery strikes rather than weeks.

      Ah, so you actually think a single weapon will be used? Anyhow let us back off from that idea for a sec, so as we can get your atomic lust some info.

      Pyongyang is 118 miles from Seoul. Kaesong is around 30 miles to the center of Seoul. So lets say that the assholes start shelling from near Kaesong. So we decide to nuke Kaesong. A 1 megaton will suffice. Whether an air or ground burst is to be determined, and terrain is a factor as well

      Seoul isn't going to like that very much, because they gonna get irradiated. China will get some of that radioactive goodness as well, especially if we decide to take out the North Korean Capital as well. China is about 100 miles away. Japan getting dusted will depend on how the upper atmosphere winds are blowing.

      As likely as not, NC will set up multiple shelling locations, and while the radiation effects will eventually kill those further away after a short time, they can continue to shell SC before they croak. So some nucs will be needed there as well to stop that shit. And of course, they have their missiles in the first place, so more nucs for them. Also a problem for China. Probably for Japan as well. So yeah, if Trump gets his wish of wiping NC off the map, it will be multiple weapons, and a lot of people killed in both North and South Korea by our weaponry, we will spread the radiation into other nations, who also have nuclear weaponry. They probably won't like this at all.

      By golly, since this has now become a critical international act of war incident wht with making a mess out of the place, and contaminating other countries, one might not be too surprised if old Alex in Russia decided to help the rest of the world by sending a few gifts our way. And us them. And it wouldn't be too surprising if the rest of the world supported them.

      All manner of scenarios are being gamed out right now, and your simple happy one nuc scenario, then happiness all around afterwards is almost certainly not one of them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason Saddam got invaded, (at least the excuse) was because he was acting like he was going to get nukes, which is the same reason N. Korea is getting special attention now. N. Korea (that insane boy leader there) is being a special dumbass about it. Without nukes they have Seoul as hostage to their gazillion conventional guns and have China as a protector. Knocking them off wasn't worth it for either the US or S. Korea, an annoyance which can be safely ignored. With nukes they become dangerous enough for both countries to calculate if it is worth it to try a first strike and get those nukes on the ground, and China may just figure it isn't worth protecting a nutcase who will get them involved in nuclear fallout themselves. The leaders of N. Korea had a pretty good three generation run without nukes. Sooner or later, this nuke thing doesn't end well for them. It may not end well for a bunch of other people but it makes N. Korea a goner.

    5. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But imho nukes are a war crime.

      Most of the world will concur with you. The history of nucs and their testing brought some interesting things to light. First, it eally sucks to be in the vicinity where one goes off. The things are completely indiscriminate. Thy make one hella mess. And with few exceptions the shakers and movers in the Military loathe them. There really isn't a good way to use them, the exception being the EMP pulsing, but even then, there is the travelling radioactivity. But the concept of quickly killing millions, mostly civilians, and leaving many of them terribly injured, is going to get the country first using nucs instant pariahhood.

      And despite the murderous wet dreams of some folks, the US has been waging war for 16 years now, and that uses up a lot of money. I severely dougt we could stand against the combined forces of the rest of the world. That might be blunt,

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Strange days indeed.... by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      North Korea doesn't get nukes to attack the US and wait to be attacked back.

      North Korea get nukes so that if USA attack North Korea they can attack back.

      The idea isn't at all to launch a nuclear attack, the idea is to avoid being attacked in the first place.

    7. Re: Strange days indeed.... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the US got rid of nukes

      China would attack Taiwan, and maybe Japan too. There'd be a regional war as all the other Asian powers divided into pro China and anti China groups.

      Russia would invade all of Ukraine, and threaten one of the Baltic States. They'd be opposed by the UK, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. France and Germany may intervene on the NATO side or might decide to sit it out.

      Iran and Saudi Arabia would escalate their proxy war into actual open war.

      It's worth pointing out that Japan, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are all able to build nukes relatively quickly if they are forced to. The reason they haven't done so is because the US has done a deal with them - so long as they don't claim to be a nuclear power they're under the US's nuclear umbrella. Of course if you're China then it is in your interests to strike before Japan or Taiwan have built a survivable second strike force which is non trivial - you need a SLBMs to guarantee that a first strike won't wipe out all your warheads. Submarines take time to build.

      Iran would become an open nuclear power. So would Israel. Israel might decide to strike Iran before Iran had a viable second strike force. Or Saudi Arabia might.

      I.e. US hegemony has frozen in a lot of conflicts that would otherwise have escalated. In particular a lot of US allies have not developed nuclear weapons in return for guarantees from the US that it would retaliate against a nuclear attack on them. If that guarantee goes away they would probably build their own nukes but they'd be vulnerable to a nuclear armed opponent striking before they'd built a survivable deterrent force.

      One of the things that make dealing with Iran hard is these sorts of calculations. From a US point of view Iran having a small number of ICBMs isn't fatal - the US could probably shoot them down and in any case deterrence applies. What makes it hard is that US allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia may regard Iranian nukes as being something they cannot tolerate and threaten to leave the current arrangement they have with the US where they do not openly wield nukes in return for US protection.

      It's the same in a way for North Korea. Japan has not openly nuclearised in return for security guarantees from the US. They may well regard a nuclear NK as being intolerable. On the other hand China may regard a nuclear Japan as intolerable.

      The US's hegemony allows it to interpose itself in between the two sides of all these conflicts and that is beneficial. If it pulls back, I think you'd see one of them explode.

      Russia and China have both made clear statements that they are wannabe expansionist powers. Right now the US keeps them in check. If it didn't it's hard to see who else would. On the other hand expansionism is something which always leads to war in the long run because expansionist powers keep grabbing more and more until they inadvertently make the case that appeasement has failed and that war is inevitable. .

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Strange days indeed.... by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do you think that?

      Do you recall Bush's Axis of Evil speech after 9/11, which for some reason mentioned Iran, Iraq and North Korea? The administration proceeded to invade Iraq, and tried to gin up an invasion of Iran. There were leaks suggesting they'd have liked to invade North Korea, too.

      Would that be stupid? Yes. Would it be murderous? Yes. Would it turn the world against us? Yes. But all of that was true about Iraq and Iran to a lesser extent.

    9. Re: Strange days indeed.... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately our insane boy leader of the US doesn’t know how to deescalate these problems. They are both trolling each other until one side hits first. Neither will be the adult and back down. Our only saving grace is that both sides are big cowards and want to have the other guy strike first.

      Neither leader cares about the loss of life, nor the effect these weapons will have on the world. They just want everyone to like them, and are hopping they get attacked first so they look like the poor victim.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re: Strange days indeed.... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. Leaving aside the loaded question of the role of oil in US Middle East policy, security is why Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, back in the day. Iran is bordered by Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other, both countries which the US toppled regimes by overwhelming force in a matter of weeks. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than either of those countries, but there's no question that radical elements in US politics were greatly emboldened by how easy it was to eliminate a hostile regime in those places, just as radical elements in the Iranian regime might think taking a nuclear pot-shot at Israel isn't such a bad idea. Every functioning political system has its lunatic fringe.

      Now Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing for us; it's a bad thing for the region; but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an entirely bad thing for Iran. Like most complicated questions it has two sides. People don't like questions to be complicated, so they don't like the idea that Iran might have rational reasons to want a nuclear weapons (as well as rational reasons to avoid having one).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re: Strange days indeed.... by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That isn't accurate at all. Under Clinton NK threatens to nuke us and we say "settle down. we'll give you some stuff if you calm down." NK continues nuclear research. Then under Bush Jr they do the same thing, we respond in the same way and they inch a bit further into being a real threat to us and the region. Obama, same.

      What is the solution to NK? How do we de-escalate? We've spent decades playing softball with them and allowing their continued research into nuclear armament.. at what point to we stop appeasing them and start dealing with them directly? When they can actually nuke California? The whole point of this isn't to nuke NK. It is to make China realize that we will strike NK if necessary and to finally take responsibility for this crazy nation on their border.

  2. Sending A Clear Message by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would send a clear, unambiguous to each and every nation that would do America harm:

    "We have no idea what we're doing, but we're gonna look real tough doing it."

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Sending A Clear Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would send a clear, unambiguous to each and every nation that would do America harm:

      "We have no idea what we're doing, but we're gonna look real tough doing it."

      Not that Trump is the ideal leader, but if you have a country threatening to nuke you all the time, what is a leader to do? Ignore it? Pretending they don't exist for decades is a large part of what got us to this point.

    2. Re:Sending A Clear Message by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody pretended they didn't exist. What got us to this point is that we stopped talking to them out of anger, when we had a deal in place to prevent plutonium production.

      They were secretly trying to enrich Uranium, and the Bush admin stopped talking to them, essentially walking away from the Plutonium deal. NK went back to the Plutonium and had a bomb in short order.

      Diplomacy run by idiots.

  3. Bombers? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm curious the strategic use of bombers on 24 hour standby, when there are enough ICBMs, including those in nuclear subs which are likely really, really close to North Korea already, to totally decimate that country. North Korea could be a smoldering ruin before the bombers would even leave US airspace (even if they were on standby). So I wonder if the bombers would simply be more "obvious" to Kim Jong or what?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Bombers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just a return to the posture of old, with the "unstoppable" nuclear triad. In short a pissing contest.

      The problem as I see it: No one else is playing, so why?

    2. Re:Bombers? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once launched, aircraft can be recalled.

    3. Re:Bombers? by msauve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because, deterrent. It's not using them, it's making the other side think you will. Our guy is crazier than your guy, and all that.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re: Bombers? by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The posturing is for domestic consumption as much as any foreign audience.

  4. Rational days indeed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MAD only works against a RATIONAL enemy. Guess how many leaders aren't rational.

    1. Re:Rational days indeed.... by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      who nuke first don't survive long enough to send a second nuke

      You have no data to base that assertion on.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re: Rational days indeed.... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The U.S. no longer leads the world in diplomacy, nor climate change, nor nuclear non-proliferation."

      None of those things are things we really have to lead the world in though. The only things we really need to lead in are things that actually make us more powerful and our military and economic power still ensures we are very diplomatic even if we are complete assholes. But it is certainly true that while other nations may not have a choice but to deal with us, avoiding dealing with us where they can get away with it will certainly erode our position over time.

      Given that for the most part the choices remain The US, Russia, and China though, the US is still the least distasteful of the bunch.

    3. Re: Rational days indeed.... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's already the case. The US is already the schoolyard bully of international politics.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Why bother doing this? by jonwil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Given how easy it is for the US to launch enough missiles (both land based and submarine launched) to turn North Korea into a smoking hole in the ground, why would they need nuclear-armed bombers that take far longer to get to the target?

  6. NO NUKES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    how about spending that money to GET RID OF THEM!

  7. If you didn't vote for Hilary Clinton... by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... this is your fault. Fuck you.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:If you didn't vote for Hilary Clinton... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you voted for Hilary Clinton instead of a sane candidate who would have unquestionably defeated Trump, this is your fault. Fuck you.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  8. WHAT. THE. FUCK. by vinn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we all just take a minute to sit back and remind ourselves this is not normal. Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, this is just one more bizarre thing that seems to be bending to the will of a crackpot president. I hope if he decides to use nukes that Tillerson and Mattis are in the room to beat the living shit out of him before anyone hears the order.

    --
    ----- obSig
  9. Re:What threat? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The crazy guy in NK isn't crazy enough to be suicidal.

    That's not who most of us are worried about.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. You can't mod down a nuclear holocaust... by denzacar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But you might end up wishing you could've...
    Anyway, as I was saying before I was so rudely modded down for stating the truth...

    Bipolar? Oh no...

    He's a narcissist sociopath with senile dementia.

    But at least there's all that winning going around.
    In the words of Darth Vader: Yippee!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:You can't mod down a nuclear holocaust... by Powercntrl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyway, as I was saying before I was so rudely modded down for stating the truth...

      I'm thoroughly convinced the whole "snowflake" thing is just projection. If you keep your easily butthurt supporters worried about things like football players kneeling and keeping Christ in the winter solstice festival, maybe they won't notice how much you suck at being president.

      MAGA: Make Armageddon Great Again

      If Trump does get us into a nuclear war by the holiday season, at least Weird Al already made the perfect soundtrack.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  11. You know when you have a small penis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are better ways to compensate.

    Like you know, getting pissed on by drunken Russian Hookers.

  12. Pointless saber rattling by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.

    Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.

  13. Re: What threat? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The crazy guy in NK is also somewhat of a figurehead. There are always tons of older generals standing around him in the official photos. He only has the power his military grants him. It's an actual whole country with people in it, and not democratic, but there is a political party running things, not a kingdom.

    There are English language North Korean books, from the DPRK point of view, that you can buy right in the Kindle eBook store. It is obviously totally the biased 'official' propaganda, but it's important for people to realize the NK leadership are not Marvel Comics villians. There is an 'official' Kim Jong Il (the previous leader and current leader's father) biography published by the Foreign Language Publishing House, and since they are, (uh..) kinda a non-profit, it's very inexpensive. Checking stuff out and not treating our enemies like comic book villians is the way to resolve things.

  14. Re:No,no,no,no,no! by tinkerton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Go read about the man. He and Trump would have been on the same wavelength.

    I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
    The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible.
    But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all.
    In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason.
    Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.

  15. Re:As a foreign audience I feel talked to... by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately this is what the US folks want. What they forgot is that because they elect the president, they're responsible for a huge nuclear arsenal. It's a very large minority that is batshit crazy.

  16. Re:US uranium by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?

    Of course not. I much prefer just to take the word of random ACs on Slashdot who don't cite a single source.

  17. Re:You are aware that ... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what do I know. I only have a dad who worked as an reporter and operative in this clusterfuck for 4 decades now. I’ve only been threatened to be killed by terrorist groups twice. One of those being backed by my own western government.

    Well, you clearly know more than the average American. As you know, Americans have foreign policy presented to them as a Western, in which the good guys in white hats (The USA) deal with the bad guys in black hats (America's enemy du jour). It's a neat, simple morality play that Americans love to see played out again and again. Connections are never made between the various actors motivations, actions and reactions. Everything seems to happen in a vacuum. So Americans think they are watching an old western, when really they're watching the Godfather.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)