Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know we have some savvy folks with military knowledge on here. So what do you think -- do we need a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile, the proposed LRSO? Or is that money better spent elsewhere in the defense budget?

I am definitely an advocate of a strong military and especially a potent nuclear deterrence force. However I figure the bombers are the weakest leg of the triad and always will be -- more easily wiped-out in a first-strike and most vulnerable even if launched as opposed to fixed ICBMs or SLBMs (the most likely to survive and most effective of the triad).

What say you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I guess I was figuring if a nuclear war broke out, it would most likely be a sneak-attack first strike, and our bombers would probably be destroyed on the ground. We only have a few bomber bases and no contingent of bombers airborne 24/7 like in the old days, so they are the most easily taken out. So, is a LRSO cruise missile and its mothership bomber (now a B-52, later the proposed very pricey LRS-B) the best place to put the bucks for more nuclear punch?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,673 Posts
I guess I was figuring if a nuclear war broke out, it would most likely be a sneak-attack first strike, and our bombers would probably be destroyed on the ground. We only have a few bomber bases and no contingent of bombers airborne 24/7 like in the old days, so they are the most easily taken out. So, is a LRSO cruise missile and its mothership bomber (now a B-52, later the proposed very pricey LRS-B) the best place to put the bucks for more nuclear punch?
How do you know what we have in the air? You do realize that we have things called SUBMARINES that can launch cruise missles, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Even if we don't have bombers in the air 24/7, they're a visible, mobile aspect of our nuclear deterrence. When a bomber flies in international airspace near an ally, our enemies and theirs are forced to wonder if that bomber is currently transporting nuclear weapons. For that to be a truly effective deterrent, those bombers need to be carrying the most advanced missiles possible and the LRSO gets us there.
 

·
Why do you ask? 2 Dogs!
Joined
·
14,152 Posts
A big part of out nuclear deterrent consists of missiles whether they be launched from the ground or from submarines.

Anti-missile technology will be something our enemies will be utilizing on our missiles in time.

The cruise missile would have an intermediate range and are a lot harder to detect along with being able to hug the terrain and take evasive maneuvers.

I'm all for it!

These are high yield weapons, I'd like for them to produce tactical nukes along with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sneeky

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I agree the LRSO would be nice to have. I'd like to have more guns and ammo than I do.

My only question is, is this the best place to put the limited dollars we have or would, say, an improved sub/SLBM combo and/or a better (mobile?) ICBM be a better place to put the money?
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top