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.'"

Comments

Strange days indeed....

[beheaderaswp]

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.

Re: Strange days indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Re:Strange days indeed....

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re: Strange days indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Strange days indeed....

[Hal_Porter]

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. .

Sending A Clear Message

[American AC in Paris]

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."

Bombers?

[Dan East]

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?

Re: What threat?

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

Re:No,no,no,no,no!

[tinkerton]

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'.