myron myron wrote:
No country in the world has nuclear first strike capability against the United States. The American TRIAD system has made sure of that for decades. The TRIAD consists of three nuclear prongs, by land, sea and air: (1) ICBMs in hardened underground missile silos throughout the United States and ICBMs in constant motion by train and truck throughout the United States; (2) ICBMs in nuclear-powered submarines deployed throughout the world, and, (3) ICBMs on long-range strategic bombers in the air 24/7/365 (though this prong has been curtailed from time to time when unnecessary). There is no way any country can destroy the United States with a nuclear first strike and eliminate all three prongs of the TRIAD before being destroyed itself. This concept, called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), is what effectively deterred a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The main reason the Soviet Union disintegrated without a single shot being fired was Ronald Reagan's decision to fund every weapons system on the drawing boards at the time he became President and, most importantly, to fund research and development for an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense. If and when the United States developed an effective ABM system, the Americans would have clear first strike capability against the Soviet Union and MAD would no longer apply. The Soviets couldn't keep up with the Americans economically and their inefficient economic system started tearing apart at the seams and rotting from a weak foundation, which caused the Soviet political system to implode and the Soviet Union to disintegrate.
Even now, with the Soviet Union a memory, it is questionable that the United States has nuclear first strike capability against Russia. There is no doubt, however, that neither Russia nor China nor any other country has nuclear first strike capability against the United States.
In terms of conventional military power, Russia may have a quantitative advantage over America in certain weapons systems and China unquestionably has a quantitative advantage in manpower. But America's huge quantitative and qualitative advantage in key weapons systems and sufficient manpower to operate these advanced systems totally nullify China's quantitative advantage in manpower and Russia's quantitative advantage in certain weapons systems.
America is by far the most powerful nation in the history of the world primarily owing to 10 American nuclear-powered Supercarrier Battle Groups deployed throughout the world at all times. Each supercarrier is like a floating air base carrying 85 planes. No other country has even a single nuclear-powered supercarrier or plans to build one. But for American Supercarrier Battle Groups on constant patrol in the . Ocean, China would have invaded and annexed Taiwan long ago. That China does not dare attack Taiwan is proof positive that China recognizes America's military superiority.
Perhaps you should remember the following also:
The UK has the ability to launch nuclear weapons, and not just on mainland Britain.
The UK (since the end of the Cold War) retains at least 2 nuclear submarines (with ICBM's) at sea at all times.
Our Carriers carry nuclear weapons that can be deployed from aircraft, one of our carriers is at sea at all times.
(The reason we do not have more "defence" is because at present it is not needed, the Cold War is over etc)
Until just recently, we scaled back our airborne defence (i.e. planes in the sky at all times with nuclear weapons). Since Russia started flying bombers in our zones a few months back we have restarted doing so. At least 6 aircraft are in the air with nuclear weapons.
Now, I expect the criticisms will be these:
- We don't have many nuclear weapons:
Well, we have 230, with a futher 200 on order! (From a British company myron!) Further, that number of nukes could destroy any nation.
- We don't have much nuclear force deployed at any one time:
True, but 32 (16 per submarine) are kept on submarine "watch", at least a few on the aircraft carriers, and 2 per aircraft in the sky. Whichever way you look at it - that is a serious force.
However, if it was ever needed, we could have 20 submarines, all our carriers and most of our long range aircraft carrying them.
