This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
By Norman Polmar, Author, The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet
Getting Rid of the Nukes
The President’s announcement of the massive, unilateral nuclear weapons and readiness reductions was hailed by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who said that the President’s initiative “is, in my opinion, the biggest single change in the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons since they were first integrated into our ‘Orces. . .
All nuclear weapons except for submarine-launched ballistic missiles will be taken out of U.S. Navy warships and removed from land-based naval air squadrons. Both this action and the sim- dar large-scale cutback of Army and Air Force tactical and strategic nuclear weapons were announced in a dramatic television speech by President George Fush on 27 September 1991. Further, the President proposed the elimination of ad multiple warheads on land-based missiles by both the United States and the Soviet Union.
The U.S. action followed a month after oe abortive Soviet right-wing, political mditary coup. The victory of democratic i'rces in the Soviet Union has, said tieney, permitted a “sweeping package” ? ouclear arms reductions by the United mates.
According to the Department of De- onse, the U.S. Navy currently has some , tactical nuclear weapons at sea— si]°Ut ^ Tomahawk land-attack mis- 1 es (TLAMs) in cruisers, destroyers, ‘‘ml attack submarines, and some 400 l ^ and B61 strike bombs and depth mbs in aircraft carriers. These weapons ^ 11 be removed from ships—the older w°mbs will be dismantled, the other ^eaPons put into storage. (Hundreds re of these weapons are already in m ‘be United States.) Similarly, lanuclear depth bombs carried by Win ^asecl P'3 maritime patrol aircraft be dismantled.
of I, e W'H be similar, far-reaching cuts n , S- Army and Air Force tactical roCs- About 1,300 nuclear artillery tjjl n“s f°r Army 155-mm. and 8-inch arT will be withdrawn from service and dismantled, as will 850 Lance battlefield tactical missiles with nuclear warheads. Most of these weapons are now with Army units in Western Europe. This move will leave the Army without nuclear weapons.
The only tactical nuclear weapons to be left with U.S. operational forces will be B57 and B61 bombs with Air Force fighter-bomber squadrons. The only U.S. tactical nuclear modernization program that was under way at the time of the President’s speech, the Air Force SRAM- T missile, has also been terminated by the President’s action.2
The U.S. Navy had a theoretical nuclear strike capability as early as 1948 with the Mk-4 atomic bomb and a dozen land-based P2V-3C Neptune bombers. These twin-engine piston aircraft could fly from airfields in Europe or North Africa, or be loaded by cranes aboard carriers for shipboard launch. It was a primitive force with a questionable capability. At the time, atomic bombs had to be assembled by teams of up to 40 men and required hours to “glue” them together.
Beginning in 1951, with the Mk-6 atomic bomb and AJ-1 Savage piston-engine attack aircraft, the Navy has continuously had nuclear weapons on board ships, although the early carrier deployments were made without certain nuclear materials. In a crisis (or war) they would be flown by B-47 jet bomber from storage sites in the United States to airfields in the Mediterranean area, and then flown on board carriers by carrier on-board delivery aircraft for bomb assembly. Subsequently, surface combatants and submarines were fitted with nuclear-armed antiship and antiair missiles; land-attack and antiship cruise missiles; antisubmarine torpedoes and rockets; and 16-inch projectiles for the four Iowa (BB-61)- class battleships.
The recent decision to remove the remaining tactical weapons from warships follows the 1989 decision also to dismantle the surviving antisubmarine (AS- ROCs) rockets and Terrier antiaircraft missiles fitted with nuclear warheads. Those weapons, like some of the current bombs, were overage, and their remaining “shelf life” was severely limited, while their effectiveness was questionable.
Department of Defense officials contend that in the future the Tomahawks and B61 bombs could be taken out of storage and returned to the fleet within a very short time—perhaps days. However, with the weapons removed, the ongoing personnel reductions, and severe budget constraints, it is unlikely that the capability will be retained to bring nuclear weapons rapidly back aboard submarines and surface ships and use them effectively.
Within a few years, the only nuclear weapons that will remain in the U.S. fleet will be Trident C-4 and D-5 submarine- launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). There are still 23 ex-Polaris missile submarines (SSBNs) in service, but the 11 boats armed with the Poseidon C-3 missile stopped operating on 1 October 1991, and the remaining 12, armed with the Trident C-4 missile, will be phased out over the next few years.
Thus, by the end of this decade there will be no more than 432 SLBMs with 3,456 warheads in the 18 submarines of the Ohio (SSBN-726) class, constituting the sea-based leg of the so-called strategic Triad. Those weapons will comprise 70% of the 4,900 multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle (MIRV) missile warheads allowed to the United States under the pending START agreement with the Soviet Union.3
The other U.S. strategic weapons in the year 2000 are expected to consist of 500 Minuteman III missiles (three MIRVs) and 50 MX Peacekeeper missiles (ten MIRVs) in underground silos, 97 B-IB bombers, and some number of the controversial B-2 “stealth” bombers. However, the cancellation of the SRAM II missile, which was to be carried by strategic bombers, should raise further questions about pursuing production of
r°<*ed
ln8s/ November 1991
121
cuts of sea-based tactical nuclear weapons as has the U.S. Navy.
The surviving U.S. strategic offensive force will be commanded by a new unified defense organization—the U.S. Strategic Command. The new force, whose commander, Cheney said, will rotate between the Navy and Air Force, will direct all U.S. strategic offensive forces. This move replaces the 30-year arrangement whereby land-based missiles and bombers were under the Strategic Air Command, while the sea-based leg of the Triad was under naval commanders: submarines carrying cruise missiles or ballistic missiles as well as aircraft carriers in the Atlantic and Pacific were under the direction of the Atlantic Command (CinCLant) and Pacific Command (CinC- Pac), respectively, both historically commanded by four-star admirals. Nuclear- capable forces in the Mediterranean area were under the Commander Sixth Fleet, a three-star admiral, who in turn reported to the CinC U.S. Naval Forces Europe, a four-star admiral, and he in turn to the CinC U.S. European Command, an Army or Air Force four-star general.
The new Strategic Command, which is being established at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, is founded on the current Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (JSTPS). The Strategic Air Command, an all-Air Force “specified” command, is being abolished.
All of the services are in agreement with the new Strategic Command arrangement, according to the Defense Department. However, it is obvious that on a personal basis this change has generated much hard feeling within the Navy, especially in the submarine force. Still, the decision has been made and, in the current U.S. political-military environment, the decision to establish a Strategic Command will not be overturned.
the B-2 aircraft.
While the pending START agreement calls for the phaseout of 450 single-warhead Minuteman II missiles over several years, President Bush has ordered those missiles to be taken off alert immediately. At the same time, the manned bomber alert—which has existed since the 1950s—has been terminated. About 40 B-52 and B-l bombers had been kept on “runway alert,” armed with nuclear weapons and their crews briefed and waiting nearby. This alert was intended to enable some of the bomber force to escape a possible Soviet “sneak missile attack, especially with submarine-launched ballistic or cruise missiles. The runway alert can be reestablished in less than 24 hours, if necessary.
As soon as START is ratified, the 450 Minuteman II missiles will be dismantled on an accelerated schedule. In the same mode of unilateral nuclear force initiatives, the Bush administration has cancelled the development programs that are under way for the MX Peacekeeper rail- mobile and small road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Looking even further into the future of strategic weapons, President Bush has proposed a “de-MIRVing ’ of all land- based strategic missiles. This means that the surviving 500 Minuteman Ills and 50 MX Peacekeepers would be downloaded to just one re-entry vehicle per missile or be replaced by the single-warhead small ICBM. This proposal, if accepted by the Soviet Union would affect considerably more Soviet warheads.
The Bush administration has gone to considerable lengths to explain that his de-MIRVing would not affect U.S. and Soviet strategic missile submarines. In a background briefing at the White House, a senior administration official explained.
“Land-based MIRVed missiles are viewed as destabilizing in part because they’re such a rich target. You can use
up one warhead to take out ten, for example, if you put a warhead down on [a Soviet] SS-18 silo or a Peacekeeper silo.” “That exchange ratio is what has always been viewed as being destabilizing....They don’t know where the submarines are. You can’t take one warhead, for example, and launch it and knock out a submarine or knock out a submarine silo. It’s a totally different kind of system.”[1][2]
Secretary of Defense Cheney reiterated this viewpoint the following day, citing the high survivability of strategic missile submarines.
The President has called on the Soviet Union to undertake similar nuclear force reductions, including rapid dismantling of their tactical nuclear weapons, reducing development efforts of new nuclear weapons, and returning their mobile ICBMs—the SS-24 MIRV rail-mobile and SS-25 single-warhead, road-mobile systems—to their garrisons. While details were not announced when this issue of Proceedings went to press, the Soviet Union promised “comparable actions” to President Bush’s initiatives. Three days after the President’s speech, President Mikhail Gorbachev told journalists, “The USSR supports the U.S. initiative. . . . Moreover, we would propose that the initiative be expanded, that the proposed concept be made more complete. We would complement the nuclear arms reduction with the reduction in nuclear tests.” A short time later a Soviet defense official said that Soviet strategic weapons would also be placed in a reduced alert status.
At this time the Soviet Union is estimated to have some 27,000 nuclear weapons (compared to some 20,000 U.S. nuclear weapons). Of the Soviet weapons, about 27% are under naval cognizance.' (See Table 1.)
For several reasons, it is less likely that the Soviets will make the same level of
199*
Proceedings / November
'Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Pentagon presS briefing, 28 September 1991.
’SRAM = Short-Range Attack Missile. The earl«jr SRAM-A was carried by Air Force B-1B, B-52G/ •
and FB-lllA strategic bombers; Secretary of Defens
Cheney had ordered removal of that missile fj° ground alert aircraft in June 1990 because of safe > considerations. The follow-on SRAM II strateg weapon has also been terminated by the action. ’START = Strategic Arms Reduction Talks; START treaty is expected to be submitted Congress for ratification this fall.
[2]A “senior administration official," While House Pre . briefing, 27 September 1991; this briefing was he one hour before the President’s speech.
’Data provided by William M. Arkin of Greenpe.' and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources V fense Council; the data are based primarily on We>