Minuteman III Missiles Are Too Old to Upgrade Anymore

submitted by jet199 from military.com

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Bull

Shit

Lies

with enough money, we could do anything we like. He's trying to get a new missile program, is all this is. I can see that even with a paywall blocking almost all the article!

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Did the missiles ever actually exist? They seem to have no proof of them ever being built. Kind of like the moon landing footage going missing. So, essentially rockets just sat on launch pads for 50 years, without maintenance, and just now need to be addressed?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Trying to make people look crazy by association, with you agreeing but also being off the deep-end?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh? You think that makes me look crazy? Well then, you're going to love my latest post!

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good read.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I saw a video on YouTube about its successor (the LGM-35 Sentinel), which seemed to suggest the US forgot how to build ICBMs and which implied the Russian ones were more advanced, which would be retarded, if true. They even said that the plans to build the Minuteman III had been lost. If that is true, they should execute everyone involved for gross negligence and treason.

When I hear such things, I am like "Can these people do nothing right?". Now, it might of course be, that I have fallen prey to Russian propaganda, but it sounded fairly credible.

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I'm not sure there's anything here that the Pentagon hasn't already addressed. Perhaps this was news to the journalist. As I look at STRATCOM and the missile upgrades I see several expensive investments:

STRATCOM's new command center was built in 2018 and is now in phase 2 of additional construction. So that's up to date.

The existing Minuteman III missiles have been further improved over the decades in service, with more than $7 billion spent in the 2010s to upgrade the 450 missiles..

So those are relatively up to date, and one of them tested in 2022. This is not mentioned in the article.

Indeed:

In 2010, the ICBM Coalition, legislators from states that house nuclear missiles, told President Obama they would not support ratification of the New START treaty with Russia unless Obama agreed to revamp the US nuclear triad: nuclear weapons that could be launched from land, sea, and air. In a written statement, President Obama agreed to "modernize or replace" all three legs of the triad.

And:

The LGM-35 Sentinel, also known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), is a future American land-based intercontinental ballistic missile system (ICBM) currently in the early stages of development. It is slated to replace Minuteman III missiles, currently stationed in North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Nebraska from 2029 through 2075. In 2020 the Department of the Air Force awarded defense contractor Northrop Grumman a $13.3 billion sole-source contract for development of the LGM-35 after Boeing withdrew its proposal. Northrop Grumman's subcontractors on the LGM-35 include Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Bechtel, Honeywell, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Parsons, Textron, and others.

So the nuclear triad is hunky-dory, I would think.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So the nuclear triad is hunky-dory, I would think.

Not sure whether I should read this as sarcasm, but I don't think it is hunky-dory right now. If the US operational arsenal can destroy every country in the world two times over, then I would find it a credible threat. Right now, Russia could just launch their nukes and relocate with their army in Europe.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's partial sarcasm. The US has 450 functional nuclear ICBMs that could wipe out numerous cities, and they plan to make more. So not to worry about the current, recently updated ICBMs. There will be more.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Perhaps I missed MAD class, but shouldn't any MAD strategy destroy every other country in the world, including that of your allies? It seems like the US only has missiles pointed at Russia and China, which is strategically stupid.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Missile direction coordinates can be adjusted to any target within range. I don't know about a MAD strategy. Typical military response is to target incoming missiles with various strategies, and if necessary to retaliate with one or more of several options.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Many missiles don't even have the range to destroy every target in the world, although with nuclear subs they could reach every location in the world in a few days (probably sooner, but speeds are classified).

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The XB-70 Valkyrie can get a nuclear payload anywhere in the world at 70k feet at mach 3.

RIP emperor penguins.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That thing is not operational.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I posted the wrong one, in haste. The latest nuclear bomber is the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider

But you hopefully get the point that this is the long range (more than 3500 miles) nuclear option.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

shouldn't any MAD strategy destroy every other country in the world, including that of your allies?

"If you threaten us, we'll kill our friends!"

That's a good way to not have any friends left. Unless you're Israel.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In international politics friends don't exist in extreme scenarios like ultimate survival. What makes you think they do?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In international politics friends don't exist in extreme scenarios like ultimate survival.

MAD has existed for something like seventy years now. Are you saying that none of the USA, USSR, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea have had even a single friend (or ally if you prefer) during the entire seven decades of MAD?

You need to think this through a little more carefully. India and Pakistan have sufficient nuclear weapons to guarantee MAD between the two of them. Suppose Pakistan threatens India. Why would India respond by launching their nuclear weapons at Burma, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, the closest US naval fleet etc? How is that supposed to deter Pakistan? It just leaves fewer missiles to fire at Pakistan, increasing Pakistan's odds of surviving the counter-attack. And increasing the odds that China and the US will in turn attack India.

Same applies to the USA. Why would the US waste their nuclear arsenal firing missiles at Mexico and Canada if they are threatened by Russia? What possible benefit would they gain?

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

MAD has existed for something like seventy years now. Are you saying that none of the USA, USSR, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea have had even a single friend (or ally if you prefer) during the entire seven decades of MAD?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Why would the US waste their nuclear arsenal firing missiles at Mexico and Canada if they are threatened by Russia? What possible benefit would they gain?

In principle any country could just spread a large part of their population across the globe and arm them in secret. Then, when the bombs start flying they could just wait until the US has used up all their nukes and attack the country that hasn't been nuked yet. Presumably, there would be some technology to clean up the damage of the major nuclear exchange and presto: you have the Russians still happily living in for example Australia and everyone in the US is dead (because Russia has more nukes). If you take a genetic approach to people, then the Russian genes would survive and over time dominate the planet. It's a long play for world domination, but certainly possible. A true MAD strategy should therefor not just kill some people, but everyone with a genetic relationship to your enemy including those in your own borders.

During the Cold War globalization wasn't really a thing. Now, you would have more Russians in Thailand than Thai (probably a slight exaggeration). What is considered MAD should be updated, but I guess everyone is an idiot on this planet.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume there will always be a shortage of nukes, which is exactly why I am saying you would need an overkill amount of them deployed, not just on some shelf. I think Russia could in theory surprise the US with a secret nuclear shield of their own as well. Either Putin is just bluffing or he has something the US doesn't know that they have.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In principle any country could just spread a large part of their population across the globe and arm them in secret. Then, when the bombs start flying they could just wait until the US has used up all their nukes and attack the country that hasn't been nuked yet.

You surely aren't serious. Are you getting your understanding of MAD and international politics from Dr Evil?

Presumably, there would be some technology to clean up the damage of the major nuclear exchange

Yeah, a quick spray of "Free & Clear", wipe down with a rag, and Bob's yer auntie 🙄

the Russian genes would survive and over time dominate the planet.

https://files.catbox.moe/riux8b.gif

you would have more Russians in Thailand than Thai (probably a slight exaggeration).

Ya think???