Posted on 11/21/2013 2:18:48 AM PST by markomalley
The Obama administration has drafted a plan to shutter an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) squadron three years after it assured hesitant lawmakers that the New START U.S.-Russia arms reduction treaty would not lead to deep cuts in the ICBM force.
A new timeline prepared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon maps out a strategy to eliminate an ICBM squadron—and destroy its missile silos—by Dec. 5, 2017. An environmental assessment would begin next month.
The document says the reductions are necessary to “meet the New START Treaty compliance date by closing an ICBM squadron and eliminating the associated Launch Facilities.”
Several Democrats on the Senate ICBM coalition voted for New START, vowing that the treaty would maintain a strong ICBM force. Sens. Max Baucus (D.) and Jon Tester (D.), both from Montana, the home of many ICBMs, issued a press release in 2010 backing New START and saying that the missiles would “continue to play a key role in U.S. national security for decades to come.”
“There was some talk around this town about making deep reductions to the ICBM force,” Baucus said in the press release. “We made it clear to the president that was unacceptable, and fought hard to make sure the START Treaty recognized the critical role that ICBMs play in U.S. national security.”
Baucus and Tester did not respond to requests for comment.
According to the OSD timeline, the military would begin removing ICBM missiles from their silos next October, after the environmental assessment is complete. The silo elimination would begin in May 2016 and is estimated to take 19 months.
Analysts say they are particularly troubled by the proposed destruction of the missile silos, a likely permanent move that is not required by New START. They say the silos would be difficult to rebuild if the military needs to bolster its ICBM force in the future.
“If you destroy the silos, it would be much harder to rebuild them [...] and very politically difficult,” said Michaela Dodge, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Dodge said the New START requirements could be met simply by removing the ICBMs and maintaining the empty silos in reserve status.
The administration’s plan would also shrink the ICBM force below the mandated numbers. The Air Force previously said it planned to reduce its number of ICBMs from 450 to a baseline of 420 under New START.
Shutting down a squadron would eliminate 50 ICBMs, 66 percent more than the prior Air Force proposal.
Republican members of the Senate ICBM coalition said they were alarmed by the proposal.
“America’s nuclear deterrent helps keep Americans safe and our country free,” Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) told the Free Beacon. “As countries that are not our friends grow closer to modernizing their nuclear weapons programs, it would be irresponsible for us to weaken our own program.”
“If the president is serious about protecting Americans and our allies, he should immediately drop any plans for his Administration to further reduce our ICBMs,” he said.
Sen. Mike Enzi’s (R., Wyo.) office said he “opposes efforts that would impose arbitrary and unilateral reductions in our nuclear force. He believes this would only increase threats to our national security and have a very visible effect on our deterrence strategy. A strong ICBM force is a critical part of protecting our nation. That’s why he opposed the New START Treaty and other attempts to hamstring the role Wyoming plays in our nuclear deterrent.”
The ICBM coalition introduced an amendment on Friday that would block the administration from destroying emptied ICBM silos.
Defense experts say the proposed eliminations would be detrimental to U.S. national security.
“We see that Russia is modernizing and building up its nuclear weapons program; we don’t have that good of an understanding of how many weapons China has; we had recently a North Korea nuclear weapons test,” Dodge said. “So international trends are against us and we are sending the wrong signal by continuing reduction despite these international developments.”
John Noonan, spokesman for House Armed Services Committee Republicans, said there does not appear to be any strategic justification for the proposed reductions, adding that the United States has a responsibility to maintain a large and disperse ICBM force that will deter large-scale enemy attacks.
“Nuclear deterrence is about balance,” he said “This is something that would put the deterrence equation out of balance.”
Another lie by the fabricator-in-chief.
Peace is our profession. War is our hobby. McConnell AFB KS. Titan II missile site communications systems tech. USAF 1972 - 1976.
OBAMA IS A LIAR AND TRAITOR....he’s been reducing the ICBM stockpile since he took office...
3 more yrs people!...and then what? - Hilary???
The haul of the USS America has been compromised and is taking on large amounts of water!
What lets me sleep at night is our Trident submarines where no one knows where they are. An no, they don't travel alone and have Los Angeles attack subs to protect them. A Trident has 24 (or use to) nuclear tipped missles with numerous warheads to launch further than most believe. Can't say the distance, because it's classified.
Land/sea/space based intercepters are our future. Land based nuke ICBM's have long been identified as in location and pretty much useless. Also, bombers can be shot down. Our Navy is our main deterent and why no one (other than the Islam crazies) won't attack us.
God bless our Bubbleheads. No one knows where they are and how hard they work to keep it that way. They are as clandestine as the CIA and SEALs. Yet, they get no credit for what they do. I appreciate you nuke submariners and realize what a tough life it is on such a small boat.
If it decreases the security of the USA,
then the undocumented Tyrant-by-Fraud supports it.
Just what he promised Lebvedeb on the open mic, “Tell Vladimir I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”
I really don’t see any present need to have ICBMs in underground in silos, at least in great numbers. We have Subs that can do pretty much the same things, along with bombers that can fly anywhere in the world without being ‘seen’. This isn’t even considering what we may have in space that we aren’t aware of.
The Navy can also launch conventional attacks that can be as effective as a D5 strike. One SSGN can launch 50-100 Tomahawks into the Three Gorges Dam and mortally wound China.
Wait... hold on... you are telling me Barack Obama LIED???!?
One of my RINO Senators actually supported this.
This fellow is going to cause as much destruction as humanly possible before leaving office, if he ever leaves.
It's not irresponsible.
It's treason.
We need an Obama Lie of the Day thread. There’s a new one every day of the year.
He’s opening new ones up in Iran.
Why not just sell them to your terrorist friends, seeing as how you are all in anyway. /s
While I agree that ICBMs are a generation behind, they are the backbone of our deterrent. Moreover, the democrats - and many RINOs - have absolutely no interest whatsoever in space-based weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
