3 Comments
User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

The bit about standing up the ASD(ND-CBD) position with only 45 days to comply is wild timing. Withholding operational funds from USD Policy and USD A&S seems harsh but that's congressional oversight for you. I worked on a few defense acquisition projects and the whole setup of having acquisition officials drive policy direction always felt backwards to me, like mixing responsibilities that shouldn'tt overlap. The part about ensuring 400 operational ICBMs with 150 launch facilities shows how strategic basing really drives modernzation decisions more than pure capability needs.

depletedUranium's avatar

It seems like 400 ICBMs is a bit much. The triad is a good idea, but could we make do with 200 to 300?

And yes, a nuclear SLCM is moronic given that the conventional US Navy is stretched so thin.

Al Mauroni's avatar

It’s a political question. The US could still have a credible deterrent with fewer ICBMs but there are two issues. First there is the desire to balance against Russia‘s total number of operational ICBMs. Second is Congressional districts where ICBM bases are. They won’t support shutting down any one of the three ICBM bases if the number goes down.