More Bad News for the AF

goaliedad said:
Taking this discussion in another direction...

I suspect that some of the lesser committed folks who are assigned to these units may be wondering what is the point.

Unfortunately, they have bought into the thinking that these are minor roles and have forgotten that there are no minor roles, just minor actors.

Is this currently a primary focus of our military engagements? No.

There is a perception that you cannot get ahead as a missileer, perhaps true, perhaps not. If you believe it, though it is self-fufilling.

From the report, I would guess that that thinking has become a bit of the problem.

They have forgotten that they are there to serve. It may be a small role that doesn't get the attention of the press, but without a large nuclear force, the North Koreas and Irans of the world might get the idea that they could actually compete with us - something even scarier than spending a career guarding a silo. Right now they are just developing nukes to be relevant and maximize the cost of invasion (in their own minds, if nothing else). There isn't a hallucinogen powerful enough to make them believe (despite Kim's rhetoric) that they could actually survive a US nuke retaliatory attack (which would probably happen if they chose to attempt more than 1 launch - the first launch resulting in an assault that makes shock and awe look like a warmup).

And while the idea of launching from a sub sounds quite strategic (can be done close-in so as not to alarm other countries), we are loathe to give up the position of our subs, so I'm guessing that we would probably use a B52 (another less-than-popular AF assignment in some eyes).

I'm glad to see someone come in and rattle some cages. You wonder if they need to do that in a few more areas (like the guys who hired that recently arrested Lt Col) to get the point across that folks need to straighten up and fly right.
Click to expand...

SAC went away in 1992, I think, and from that time until about three years ago, an officer assigned to missile duty was categorized a 13S, which was for "Space and Missile Operations." All operations fell under AFSPC, and it was encouraged that officers "cross flow" between the two communities (space ops and missile ops...very different worlds). When the bomber flew from Minot to Barksdale with live weapons a few years back, the AF got to thinking that there was a lack of focus on the nuke mission, and stood up AFGSC. Now, there is no more "cross flow." A missileer is a missileer for life (which is what it was like when SAC was around during the Cold War).

I don't know if that's good or bad. It seems good for the purposes of establishing a group of competent ICBM experts; however, the converse is that officers have to spend their careers doing jobs that the rest of the Air Force doesn't think too much about.

Missileer life is tough. It's not getting shot at or living in a mud hole tough, but it does involve living in remote areas, with exacting standards (In nukes, 100% is the standard), doing a job that is invisible and thankless. I have been there, so I sympathize with these guys. Of course, that doesn't mean you have an excuse to not act professional.

SAC had an unofficial saying that "to err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy." SAC may have gone, but the culture is still there, and it is plenty hard to deal with sometimes.

I do think that the Wing and Group Commanders should take some of the responsibility here.
 
Last edited:
OSDAD

Inspection earns a D and 17 Minute Man missile launch officers need "additional training". Story

While it might be fun to bash the AF, this raises a more important question:

Why do we still have these units at all?

Can anyone imagine an instance where we would actually launch a ICBM? Even if Pyongyang somehow managed to destroy Seoul would we retaliate inkind? (And if so, would it really come from S.D. and not some sub off the coast?)
------------------------

Can't remember the last time I fell off a bike and nearly split my head open, but I still wear a helmet, can't remember the last time I flew threw the windshield of a car but I wear my seatbelt. Can't remember the last time North Korea shot 100000 ballistic missiles at it adversaries yet we have patriot batteries all over the theater. I am glad it's called the Department of Defense and not the Department of Offense. We win the war every day they aren't used.
 
goaliedad said:
Taking this discussion in another direction...

I suspect that some of the lesser committed folks who are assigned to these units may be wondering what is the point.

Unfortunately, they have bought into the thinking that these are minor roles and have forgotten that there are no minor roles, just minor actors.

Is this currently a primary focus of our military engagements? No.

There is a perception that you cannot get ahead as a missileer, perhaps true, perhaps not. If you believe it, though it is self-fufilling.

From the report, I would guess that that thinking has become a bit of the problem.

They have forgotten that they are there to serve. It may be a small role that doesn't get the attention of the press, but without a large nuclear force, the North Koreas and Irans of the world might get the idea that they could actually compete with us - something even scarier than spending a career guarding a silo. Right now they are just developing nukes to be relevant and maximize the cost of invasion (in their own minds, if nothing else). There isn't a hallucinogen powerful enough to make them believe (despite Kim's rhetoric) that they could actually survive a US nuke retaliatory attack (which would probably happen if they chose to attempt more than 1 launch - the first launch resulting in an assault that makes shock and awe look like a warmup).

And while the idea of launching from a sub sounds quite strategic (can be done close-in so as not to alarm other countries), we are loathe to give up the position of our subs, so I'm guessing that we would probably use a B52 (another less-than-popular AF assignment in some eyes).

I'm glad to see someone come in and rattle some cages. You wonder if they need to do that in a few more areas (like the guys who hired that recently arrested Lt Col) to get the point across that folks need to straighten up and fly right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am not alone in seeing that there is a morale problem here...

http://news.yahoo.com/morale-crisis-us-nuclear-force-122512238.html
 
bugsy said:
------------------------

Can't remember the last time I fell off a bike and nearly split my head open, but I still wear a helmet, can't remember the last time I flew threw the windshield of a car but I wear my seatbelt. Can't remember the last time North Korea shot 100000 ballistic missiles at it adversaries yet we have patriot batteries all over the theater. I am glad it's called the Department of Defense and not the Department of Offense. We win the war every day they aren't used.
Click to expand...


Nuclear planning for Cold War-style nuclear conflict between our countries, driven largely by inertia and vested interests left over from
the Cold War, functions on the margins using outdated scenarios that are implausible today. There is no conceivable situation in the contemporary world in which it would be in either country’s national security interest
to initiate a nuclear attack against the other side. LINK
Click to expand...

I'd add China to that also.

But the third and last case was totally different. It happened on September 11, 2001. A powerful nuclear arsenal proved utterly powerless. It failed to deter the 9-11 terrorism and proved completely useless in responding to the multi-pronged attack. ibid
Click to expand...

One of the signatorys: Sen Chuck Hagel
 
If you can convince Russia and China to get rid of their nukes, I'll maybe go along with the premise.

If you can convince Iran and North Korea to stop pursuing these weapons, then likewise, I'll maybe go along with the premise.

Until then, we need to have them too.

There is a quote that I like from the movie Other People's Money (an underrated and very funny movie) that goes like this : "Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. They have theirs, so I have mine; once you use them, they fu#k everything up."

It may be pretty unlikely that we'll ever have a nuclear exchange with another nation-state. Thankfully, that is the case. And, I agree, nuclear missiles are not great deterrents against non-state actors (like those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks). Still, to say that there is no "conceivable" scenario where weapons could be exchanged is to speak with an absolute certainty on something that we can't possibly know. Circumstances may change tomorrow (and they might not).

I think that the likelihood of an exchange is certainly much less than what it was in the Cold War, and our current state of the force reflects that. There are only three ICBM wings, which is a substantial reduction from the Cold War force. The Peacekeeper system (MX) has been de-alerted, and it was the most advanced ICBM ever devised. I think these are reasonable concessions to the movement to disarm; however, unless other countries are willing to go even further on limiting the amount of weapons and delivery systems, I can't support getting rid of our missile force.
 
Last edited:
Quote

Those who choose to beat their swords into plowshares are destined to plow for those who didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top