U.S. Tomahawk Missiles Deployed Near China Send Message

Yahoo News ^ | July 8, 2010 | Mark Thompson

[lbryce]

If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week.

A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads.

Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan. (See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.)

That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood.

[lbryce]

"There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."

That Bejing has indirectly been financing our military through the purchase of government bonds makes for interesting circumstances between China and the US. That for the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion while at the same time China holds in excess of $900 Billion in US debt, makes for a situation some might consider unacceptable for the world's only military superpower.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I don’t understand the strategy of message-sending here. How does downgrading the punch of a sub that used to carry nuclear missiles to one that delivers bombs by Tomahawk signal strength? It signals a measured, limited, and survivable threat, instead of a cataclysmic one.

Maybe the argument is that the conventional threat is more impressive because it has a higher probability of being used. I disagree—in a country the size of China, the Tomahawks will just piss ‘em off if used.

[lbryce]

It's part of the "Yes We Can" politically-correct approach to military defense called appropriately enough, the "O Doctrine".

The centerpiece of the OD is the philosophy whereby treating your adversaries, enemies the way you want to be treated, with love, kindness, compassion, will make the world a better place, first and foremost by "putting an end to Cold War thinking" and move toward a world without nuclear weapons, merely because "Yes, We Can".

[BIGLOOK]

Heads up...ping.

This is from Time magazine but am not sure whether the Ohios are there to counter the PRC or the DPRK.

[Pan_Yan]

USS Michigan in Korea

U.S. Posts Pictures of Nuclear Sub in 'Show of Force'

[EQAndyBuzz]

I think what Obama did here was tell the Chinese, “See we already converted 4 subs. We will get to the next 14 in a year or so.”

[lbryce]

The revelation of having reconfigured our nuclear weaponry to that of Tomahawk-grade is not just a matter of a downgrade of military stance only regarding that of China but much more ominously as it relates to all our enemies throughout the world.

Sarcasm aside, your speculation is much too horrifyingly close to what might very well be the truth to contemplate.

This is a most troublesome revelation, ostensibly the result of what can only be by command of the current White House occupant, a scenario of which might very well be the first incident of squatters taking over the White House, as far as US presidential eligibility requirements of being born in the US are concerned.

[merry10]

Regarding the technical part of you question, the reconfiguration was decided on years ago; perhaps even before President Bush took office.

Regarding the political part, I think it is just a show of force.

[Pan_Yan]

the reconfiguration was decided on years ago; perhaps even before President Bush took office.

It was on the drawing board by the mid 90s.

[merry10]

Thank you for the validation. I know the process is very long, with the engineering design, alternatives, and testing.

[AustinBill]

A trident missile's only purpose is as part of a MAD deterrent. The U.S. will always maintain that as a "ast resort" but that level of threat is greatly diminished from the cold war era.

Tomahawks are much more versatile. Leaving aside the fact that they can be nuclear-tipped, a dozen or more sub-launched conventional cruise missiles can deliver a devastating pin-point conventional blow with little to no warning to just about anywhere on the planet. That's a level of tactical flexibility which is tailor-made to today's world.

[lbryce]

Thank you very much for setting the record straight in having illuminated what I had erroneously perceived in a most troubling way, the revelation very heartening in how our country's defenses have been improved, upgraded in this way. Thank you once again very much for yout time, consideration.