Biden has completed the nuclear posture review.

Two things to take away:

  1. Biden did NOT commit to a “no first strike” stance. Instead, he stayed with the status quo of “flexible deterrence.”

  2. Biden cancelled development of the nuclear cruise missile introduced under Trump.

I am happy with both.

Biden likely yielded to the wisdom of the defense establishment in not shifting to an absolute “no first strike” position, though Biden has advocated this view in the past.

The nuclear cruise missile would have been expensive to develop and deploy, non-necessary and wasteful.

Kind of nice to see him do something that will likely piss the ■■■■ out of both extremes, both the progressives and the hawks. :smile:

3 Likes

The CCP will be pleased.

1 Like

Why is that?

1 Like

It benefits them.

In what way?

it’s pretty obvious

2 Likes

[quote=“JayJay, post:5, topic:241751, full:true”]

You think “Biden cancelled development of the nuclear cruise missile introduced under Trump” doesn’t benefit China ?

I asked you what YOU think and why.

You can’t have a good board without Soros on it.

glenn_beck_tides

3 Likes

[quote=“Paul_Thomson, post:7, topic:241751”]

I’ll answer without phrasing it as a question

Biden cancelled development of the nuclear cruise missile introduced under Trump. This leaves the US weaker relative to China than would proceeding with the development. That would benefit China.

Do you think “Biden cancelled development of the nuclear cruise missile introduced under Trump” doesn’t benefit China ?

Why? We already have a crap ton of ALCMs in inventory. The B2 and B-52 both can carry a dozen or so each.

There was no need a new nuclear armed cruise missile. Deterrence is maintained primarily by our Trident D5 SLBMs and Minuteman III ICBMs. They carry much larger and more destructive payloads and also have a much faster flight time to target.

I mean it would possibly mean that if we didn’t already have a ■■■■ ton of ALCMs in our inventory. It’s the primary weapon carried by our B-52s since they wouldn’t survive five seconds in Chinese airspace attempting to drop gravity bombs. The B-2 could probably still make it through, but they can be outfitted with the ALCM if the Air Force feels like they won’t make it through the gauntlet.

Gives both planes stand-off options.

Naval based or ground based cruise missiles are less versatile than air launched versions. There’s a reason the US military stopped deploying nuclear armed Tomahawks, although the Naval version can be equipped with a nuclear payload if its deemed necessary.

Is that a “No”? It does not benefit China in any way?

No it doesn’t benefit them. It doesn’t affect their pre-existing strategy in regards to a potential conflict with the United States. The PLA is designed to fight a conventional war against a near peer or even a superior opponent in the South China Sea, Taiwan, and even on Chinese soil itself.

We would be wasting money for no gain in return. The money spent on a new nuclear armed missile would be better spent on F-35s, the new B-21 Raider, and accelerating production of the Columbia class submarines. All three of which are far bigger threats to China.

Is the cruise missile the hypersonic one?

If that was cancelled, that definitely puts us behind.

No. We are still working on hypersonic cruise missiles armed with conventional payloads.

For a nuclear payload, it’s duplicating capabilities. ICBMs and SLBMs are significantly harder to intercept, have much longer ranges, and most importantly carry significantly larger payloads with MIRV.

Ok, so we can fit a nuke warhead onto a conventional hypersonic missile if the need does arise.

Here’s the thing: Hypersonic missiles are very hard (if not impossible) for China or Russia to stop due to their speed.

We are going to need that capability to hit the Chinese or Russian navy without resorting to subs. Otherwise we will need to build a crapload of subs to do the job (at a much higher cost than hypersonic missiles should cost).

No need to worry about the Russian navy. Outside of their their ballistic missile submarines, they’re a joke. American Virginia, Seawolf, and late build Los Angeles class attack submarines would have a field day with the Russian navy and Moscow knows it. They wouldn’t even leave port.

The PLAN is a much more worthy opponent. But it isn’t well known how good their ASW capabilities are. But considering just how good Virginia class submarines are and the supposed capabilities of Chinese attack subs, it’s likely both sides surface navies would get sunk pretty quick.

So, you think the CCP would have preferred that the US continue with the development of the nuclear cruise missile introduced under Trump.

I don’t think they would have cared one way or another.