> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority.
Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.
It's already underway, and already ballooning in cost. It started under Obama. $1.5 Trillion as a minimum[0].
Sentinel ICBMs, B-21 bombers, and Columbia Class SSBNs.
"The Air Force told Congress January 18 that the newly estimated cost of each LGM-35A Sentinel has jumped from $118 million in 2020 to $162 million today. That’s a 37% spike."
... The service’s original 2016 estimate for the program was $62.3 billion. Then it ballooned to $95.3 billion. The latest projection suggests its new cost could be nearly $132 billion."[1]
I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.
It's interesting because when it comes to submarines and related nuclear deterrence the US are at least a head in front compared to the Russians (and obviously much more advanced compared to the Chinese), unlike the other two forms of deterrence (land-based and aerial).
The Russians themselves are aware of that gap and have started to try and close it, they've just launched two new nuclear submarines recently [1] and others are on their way.
This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.
The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?
This is sabre-rattling belligerence, plain and simple. There is no threat from Russia or China that can't be countered with a functioning diplomatic and ambassador corps ..
Alas, America doesn't have one of those any more - so it has to rattle sabres to get its way, instead.
The cost of half a submarine such as this would go a long way to restoring peace in the world, were it spent on diplomacy and good will instead of jobs programs for domestic war profiteers...
Such a fallacy. The Ukrainians don't have a functioning diplomatic or ambassador corps, either.
Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag, Ukrainians aren't American citizens whose taxes get wasted on these ridiculous submarines, and the Ukrainian people don't pay for the US' military junta's favorite toys of the month. It buys the old ones for its war.
If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy. That'll be as true of any war in Taiwan as it is in Ukraine.
> Much as Americans might fantasize about adding it as another star to their flag
Bothsidism is a strong in this one. Why am I not surprised it comes from an Austrian?
> If America drops a bomb, it is only because it failed at diplomacy.
First, diplomacy must be backed by strength, leverage, without it there's nothing to negotiate, because the other side can simply take what it wants. As such, sabre rattling is part of diplomacy. Nuclear deterrence is part of diplomacy.
Second, diplomacy may fail. Western diplomacy failed in 1938 and 1939, and there was war. Sometimes such failures happen and you need to be prepared for that. Layered defense.
I'm quite curious what would be your diplomatic solution to the Taiwan problem, hopefully it would respect the wishes of the Taiwanese residents.
These articles come up every so often and they're always a little strange as a former submariner.
Firstly, they're always aboard US boomers, which are immensely spacious by submarine standards (lol'd at "The ship seemed cramped, with narrow passageways."). You can walk two-abreast in some US boomer passageways, a completely unheard of feat on any other class of sub. They also have relatively relaxed, predictable schedules, with deployments rarely lasting more than 3 months. It's easy to say you've got good food when you're not rationing beans because the 4 month deployment became a 5 1/2 month deployment.
Secondly, one of the core social divides in the US submarine force is between members of the engineering department ("nukes", also A-gangers, though they exist in a sort of limbo) and everyone else on the boat ("coners"). These pieces only ever interview and report on coners (not in small part due to the intense security concerns surrounding nuclear propulsion technology). The lives of the submariners on either side of the watertight door are different in many significant respects, there's no nuke in the fleet that appreciates being represented in the public eye by sonar techs and torpedomen, but nukes only get talked about when they're killing themselves [1].
This is the nature of the secrecy surrounding US subs of course, and I'm not complaining, but it's weird. These articles show the best possible life aboard a US submarine, likely the best possible life aboard any submarine. It's the US Navy putting its best foot forward for the benefit of reporters. Note they talk about the integration of US boomers, but don't mention that US fast attacks remain male-only with no plans to change in the near future. It is, without attaching any sentiment to the word positive or negative, propaganda.
There's a very old post which was on USENET and then on Reddit, which was a wry look at life on a sub, and an even funnier post of how to re-create the experience at home. Mostly it consisted of getting your SO to lock you in a cupboard under the stairs, run a vacuum cleaner outside the cupboard 24/7 and periodically throw a bucket of shit over you, while you were wrapped in a black plastic bag (CBW)
Modern subs, especially the missile ones, are way more comfortable than subs back the day. What I was told by someone who served on German navy subs in the 2000s so is, that the depiction of sub life shown in the movie "Das Boot" (I recommend the 7 (?) hour long mini series) is actually not too far of the mark. Better sanitation, but other than that, it is pretty much the same experience. They did have great food so!
Life on submarines differs substantially between nations and types. Nuclear boats are pretty large, operate in the ocean, and spend their deployment below the surface. In contrast, non-nuclear boats (diesel-electric, hydrogen fuel cells) are primarily small, tend to operate in littoral zones, and may spend time on the surface regularly.
In any case, WW2 submarines were torpedo boats only diving when necessary. The battery capacity of a German Type VII or an American Balao class was measured in hours, not days. Before snorkels reached operational status, boats had to completely surface for recharging; that is not the case anymore.
I think life on a Type VII was much nastier than on a modern Type 214. The engine was extremely loud, exhaust fumes were regularly in the air, and it was cold and incredibly cramped. Living conditions are much better on modern subs, even if space is still at a premium, especially on smaller boats.
What surely remains is the sense of camaraderie because of a shared fate; each sailor's life depends on the boat functioning as a unit. In that sense, nothing has changed.
The one detail that comes up from people who’ve been on board but isn’t covered in the media is the smell. I’ve been told it’s like a locker room that hasn’t been aired for years.
Interesting that in times of major geo-political worldwide distress the US "glamour" media is quite quick to turn back to being propaganda vehicles, reminds me of how Life magazine was used back in the '40s and '50s.
We could debate endlessly about why you are seeing this article right now amongst a huge recruitment crisis in the US military, but instead, why don't you check out the best submarine song ever made, a glorious piece of Boomer Yacht Rock by Al Steward. [0]
The last crew member of a submarine, possibly gone insane, hiding out from the world above:
Now there's nobody from the crew left
Five hundred years supply of food just for me
> According to nuclear safety expert Bruce G. Blair, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes for the Minuteman ICBM force would not be available, so it decided to set the codes to 00000000 in all missile launch control centers. Blair said the missile launch checklists included an item confirming this combination until 1977.[7] A 2014 article in Foreign Policy said that the US Air Force told the United States House Committee on Armed Services that "A code consisting of eight zeroes has never been used to enable a MM ICBM, as claimed by Dr. Bruce Blair."[8] The Air Force's statement (that 00000000 was never used to enable an ICBM, i.e. the weapons were not actually launched) does not contradict Blair's statement (that 00000000 was the code for doing so).
It is probably a miracle, that no nukes were used by accidents or random madmen yet. But those sort of incidents really don't make me feel save, by all that destruction potential guarded by 00000000. I don't really trust, that today it somehow became really save. Even if they changed it, it probably is still attached in a pinup note next to it.
There were a lot of near nuclear incidents. The madmen part reminded me Nixon, and this article, about an ICBM crew member doing training in the '70s:
"Maj. Hering decided to ask his question anyway, regardless of consequences: How could he know that an order to launch his missiles was “lawful”? That it came from a sane president, one who wasn’t “imbalance[d]” or “berserk,” as Maj. Hering’s lawyer eventually, colorfully put it?
Hering needed a lawyer because as soon as he asked the question he was yanked out of missile training class, and after two years of appeals, eventually had to leave the Air Force, trade in a launch key for the ignition keys to an 18-wheeler.
"We’d been told that the number of civilians who had been given this level of access (carrying cameras, no less) was roughly the same as that who have walked on the moon."
Dang, they're still having retention problems in the sub force?
Also Boomer life is like the Waldorf Astoria in comparison to a fast attack's Motel 6.
Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.