“The Russian military has issued 30 explicit threats to the US to use nuclear weapons against the US.” Peter Huessy, Geostrategic Analysis president & Strategic Deterrence Studies, Mitchell Institute:

Oct 04, 2018, 03:13 AM

Photo:

Map of Japan by Keampfer.jpg

More details

Map of Japan by Keampfer

View author information

Public Domain

File:Map of Japan by Keampfer.jpg

Uploaded: 12 May 2006

http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact

http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules

Twitter: @BatchelorShow

“The Russian military has issued 30 explicit threats to the US to use nuclear weapons against the US.” Peter Huessy, Geostrategic Analysis president & Strategic Deterrence Studies, Mitchell Institute:

Peter Huessy (@hobeyoco), president of Geostrategic Analysis and director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute, explains the new Global Zero report from Princeton (https: www.globalzero.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/anpr-180915-1736-1.pdf). Global Zero is devoted to de-nuking the entire world by 2040. Unilaterally reducing the US arsenal. Russia explicitly threatens to use nukes against the US. Instead of 509 targets, we’d have five.

Reasonable to think there may be a total of about a thousand reasonable targets: banking, communications. A Minuteman base can put three missiles per month per wing (three wings). Unilateral surrender. With a keystroke I can turn a missile back on. “Everyone sincerely vows” (from the 107-page book). New subs have 15 missiles, each with 8 warheads. US would have 250 survivable warheads at sea, and naught else. Global Zero dealing with Russia: no plan at all.

.. .. ..

Peter Huessey: Bruce Blair calls for a nuclear deterrent force of just 5 submarines (not 12), zero land-based missiles (vs 450), and bombers only in reserve, not on alert, and without cruise missiles. The total warheads at sea at any one time would depend upon the tempo of operations, but historically we have assumed that one-third of the total force is on patrol. The warheads at sea then would be 250-360 depending upon whether 2 or 3 subs would be at sea, but a number of very serious issues come to the fore. Two to 3 subs cannot cover the targets that 7 subs can now cover; the warheads per missile would max out at 8 per missile, making the missile range less and target coverage less. More bad news is that there is to be no surge capacity or ability to increase our deployed warheads if the Russians break out of the new START treaty or China engages in a major modernization effort. Blair’s ideas are a hugely high-risk proposal, based on faulty logic, erroneous assumptions and a highly uninformed view of US deterrent requirements. Other than that, the idea makes sense!