The effort to prevent nuclear war is a world wide effort even though only a few countries are actively participating in that effort. On the side of democracies only the UK and the US are actively involved. The remainder of the world’s democracies would rather sit back until nuclear bombs start falling on them before they become involved. Not many countries have achieved the wealth that taxpayers can give them to afford the weapons the United States has and are willing to put on the line to protect themselves and the rest of the world from nuclear war. Only folks with the mentality of a true scientist would pose such questions as the ratio of weapons between the US and the UK as it makes no difference whatsoever in the final analysis. These are the same type individuals that predicted man’s days were numbered because gunpowder was invented, or the cannon was invented, or when the machinegun had been invented. Gloom and doom is your philosophy and regardless of the benefit of the nuclear deterrence that has existed for the last 50 years there is still the same response from most scientists. What you folks never seem to understand is that if we, the United States of America, do away with all our nuclear weapons the evil nations of this world will still have such weapons. The United States has never made war on a just nation, and it is my opinion that they never will. But we have prevented other nations from waging war against just nations by our power and our willingness to display that power. We are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in waging war, and that use of weapons was to prevent many hundreds of thousands of deaths, whether you folks believe that or not. The United States authorities were aware of the destruction that they determined had to be used to end WWII and that force was not used frivolously, but with great concern for the enemy. World opinion these days is against the United States for the use of such weapons and unfortunately a lot of the opposition to the strategy that the United States follows is from countries that the United States prevented from being destroyed by the war. And even though the war in Europe was not ended by nuclear weapons the Axis was probably aware we had nuclear weapons and would use those weapons, as we had shown no mercy on Germany with such things as conflagration bombing and total devastation of many of their cities.

Come the last 50 years and we have enforced the peace,concerning the use of nuclear weapons, of the world in general through the program you folks refer to as MAD, and we still continue the same basic program but it probably goes by another name these days. A rose is a rose as we all understand. It is still right and just in this world, where countries are developing nuclear weapons, but deny that fact, and they still say such things as they would wipe another country off the map, and they do this with impunity because much of what they do is tolerated by folks, like you people, that want discussion and reason by those that have only hate toward certain other nations. You and the likes of your kind think that we can stick flowers in the gun barrels that are pointed at the rest of the world to prevent them using those weapons, and that appears to be your entire solution to the problem.

You more or less asked for my credentials, as to how it may apply to FBM Submarines, MAD, and nuclear deterrence and I will tell you this. My ship USS Turner (DDR 834) witnessed and maintained security for the first Polaris missile launch from an FBM Submarine ( USS George Washington (SSBN 598)) on July 20, 1960 and I was brought into the program in 1963 where I taught the heart of the Polaris Missile System, the Digital Geoballistic Computer (DGBC) to Submarine Missile Fire Control personnel for the next 4 years. I was then stationed on a Submarine Tender (USS Hunley (AS 31) ) that serviced FBM Submarines for the next year or so. I was then transferred to the USS Observation Island (EAG 154) to install the EX 88 Missile Fire Control System for the Poseidon Missile and to launch the first seagoing Poseidon Missile from that ship. I was the senior Missile Fire Control Technician during those installation and testing procedures and received a Navy Achievement Medal for my contribution to that very successful effort. After another 3 years of training Submarine Weapons System personnel on operations and maintenance of the Mk 88 FCS onboard the FBM Submarines I was transferred to the USS Tecumseh (SSBN 628) as the senior Missile Fire Control Technician aboard her and I was intimately involved in operations and targeting of the Poseidon Missiles onboard that Submarine. I made 7 patrols on the Tecumseh in the seas that would keep us in range of our targets for the 2 month or so period of our alert status. During that 7 patrol period we were unable to achieve our full mission objective for a period of about 2 hours as we were evading a Soviet Submarine for that period of time.

Reply: Thanks for the additional information. I’m not questioning your service but asking how we can determine to what extent the boomers made the difference. I’m not saying they didn’t but that it is important to understand the contribution of the mission, which is hard with so little data and so much secrecy. Your assertion that I may have divulged more information than John Walker is plain wrong. And the important difference is that he had access to classified information which he handed over to another government, whereas what I describe is information declassified under the Freedom of Information Act. The law serves the important function of helping to ensure that the public can check and debate the operations of the government with due respect for information that cannot be disclosed. That debate is a core feature of our democracy, something the boomers are ultimately intended to protect. HK

The author of this post evidently does not understand the nuclear armament problem. ICBMs can be determined by any number of methods and even hardened targets are vulnerable. Bombers are an easy target by other aircraft or SAM missiles. The FBM Submarine has been for the last 50 years, and still remains the most viable option for nuclear deterrence. I made 7 patrols on an FBM Submarine during the cold war, how many have you made? Navyman628

Reply: None. In fact, they won’t even let foreigners visit the subs. But I doubt sailing on a patrol or two would make any real difference because I still wouldn’t have access to the information that is needed to answer how much much of what kind is enough to ensure deterrence in the decades ahead. What did you do on the subs? Were you part of the target planning staff? Did you assess the lessons learned about how the subs did or did not contribute to preventing crises escalation? Like you, I bet most ICBM launch control officers or B-2 pilots would defend the virtues of their leg in the Triad, and the Pentagon always reminds us how each leg has unique characteristics that make them indispensable. The I-can-hide-and-you-can’t-find-me argument is not enough to assess the role and impact of nuclear weapons in the Triad. Other factors are costs, how the platform affects military relations with other nuclear weapon states, arms control and verification, and nonproliferation efforts. HK

Are you really arguing that the operational tempo should be reduced? Does it make sense to have submarines rusting at the pier instead of being on patrol? This is what happens when you take that approach: http://community.livejournal.com/ru_submarine/17486.html

What the US Navy has done makes perfect sense – reduce the total platforms to the level considered appropriate and then keep them operating at sea.

It seems to me you are trying to argue that we should reduce our total patrols even more than the current 1962 level, while hiding it behind the misleading banner of “Cold War Tempo.” While a case could be made for reducing the total number of patrols, it would make far more sense to decommission or sell the platform, (and keep the remaining platforms operating vigorously) rather than reduce the operational tempo.