Trump and the Nuclear Triad

[righteousdude2]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-should-end-his-campaign-but-it-wont-20151216

Was this a gotcha question, and does it make a difference to the voter?

As for me, I didn't even know what a "nuclear triad"was until Rubio gave a great answer. But then again, I don't believe this will hurt Trump or anyone else running for POTUS who may not have known the answer. That is why it is important to appoint top notch people to head up your cabinet, people like Fiorina named in her response; and I trust whoever becomes President to do just that. And the one thing I like about the Donald is his ability to surround himself with great people. He seems to be good at delegating.

What do you think?

 

[Rob_BW]

The triad is a totally dated concept, and needs revision. Namely, we need to remove manned bombers from the lineup. They are an enormous expense, which will never be used to deliver nuclear arms. ICBMs and the Navy's Submarine force can handle the job. Well, that is if the Air Force will ever take their missile responsibility seriously. But the purpose of the Air Force is to produce and employ pilots, and a missile doesn't need a pilot. The Navy does a great job with their portion, I must admit.

 

[HankD]

The triad is a totally dated concept, and needs revision. Namely, we need to remove manned bombers from the lineup. They are an enormous expense, which will never be used to deliver nuclear arms. ICBMs and the Navy's Submarine force can handle the job. Well, that is if the Air Force will ever take their missile responsibility seriously. But the purpose of the Air Force is to produce and employ pilots, and a missile doesn't need a pilot. The Navy does a great job with their portion, I must admit.

I partially agree Rob. But we keep making bombers so the government thinks they are necessary. There is probably something classified about thermo-nuclear delivery devices that makes a manned bomber a better choice than a missile anyway.

HankD (USAF Veteran)

 

[Rob_BW]

The idea of sending the bombers up as a visual threat while still having the option of recall seemed good when we were developing our mutually assured destruction philosophy. But in practice it just isn't worth the expense.

 

[HankD]

The idea of sending the bombers up as a visual threat while still having the option of recall seemed good when we were developing our mutually assured destruction philosophy. But in practice it just isn't worth the expense.

Survival is always worth the expense Rob.

I don't think you know the capability of our stealth bombers.
You may have not even seen one or ever will

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/10/29/air-forces-new-stealth-bomber-what-need-to-know.html

This is only what they want you to know.

You can have the last word Rob.

HankD

 

[Rob_BW]

You can have the last word Rob.

Hank, I hope you don't feel like I have a grudge against the Air Force. If you'd like, we can start a thread about the Army, Strykers, and MRAPs, and I'll point out our flaws all day long.

With that said, I'm not against bombers. I just don't think they serve a purpose as a nuclear deterrent. And now we have a service planning a new bomber, because they say there are too many hours on the old frames.

And why is that? Because we've been using Bones and Buffs for missions in Afghanistan. Using strategic bombers to drop ordnance on 5 to 10 guys at a time. It's an insane expense. We should have developed/bought a long loiter time turboprop, like the Super Tucano, purpose built for COIN style close air support. But we'd rather rack up hours on super expensive airframes and then complain that they need replaced.