# Nuclear deterrence: why not station two boomers in the US Great Lakes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2014, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309 "2014-07-29T07:13:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/1 "2014-07-29T07:13:13Z")
This has been bugging me for a long time. The US Great Lakes are huge, and no enemy attack submarine could reasonably expect to penetrate the locks and gain entry, much less sail up the seaway. US boomers could operate with impunity several hundred feet under the lakes and have a high expectation of surviving a first strike. As a practical matter, the draft of the current Ohio class is such that they couldn’t get through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the locks because they aren’t deep enough, but that is no reason that the boats couldn’t be purpose built on the lakes. Wouldn’t it make deterrence sense to have a portion of the fleet where enemy wessels simply could not hunt them down? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/2 "2014-07-29T08:35:00Z")
Enemy subs were never a huge threat to the U.S. nuclear fleet. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/3 "2014-07-29T10:51:57Z")
Also during the Cold War submarine-launched missiles didn’t have enough range to make it from the Great Lakes to the Soviet Union. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/4 "2014-07-29T10:57:30Z")
Plus, well Canada might object. And the UK before 1981. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/5 "2014-07-29T12:02:38Z")
Less expensive to dig a hole in the ground. Easier to operate a hole in the ground, 'cause it just sits there. And then there’s the [Rush–Bagot Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty)that severely limits the number of warships on the Great Lakes. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/6 "2014-07-29T12:50:43Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > enemy wessels Russian spy detected! Sorry, Comrade Chekhov, not putting our fish in a nice barrel for you to shoot. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/7 "2014-07-29T12:58:45Z")
There are no “US Great Lakes”. All of the lakes are shared with Canada, for one thing, and what exactly are you protecting yourself from with this? An attack from Canada? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/8 "2014-07-29T13:04:20Z")
\ ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/9 "2014-07-29T13:23:09Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > There are no “US Great Lakes”. All of the lakes are shared with Canada . . . Michigan is a US Great Lake, albeit that hydrologically Michigan, Huron, The North Channel, and Georgian Bay can be considered a single water body. Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario are not shared, but rather are divided into separate distinctly bounded American and Canadian territories. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/10 "2014-07-29T13:29:10Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > There are no “US Great Lakes”. All of the lakes are shared with Canada, for one thing, and what exactly are you protecting yourself from with this? An attack from Canada? Lake Michigan is entirely within the US, no? And the idea was for a nuclear deterrent against the USSR that was close to home and still very difficult for the USSR to target. Keeping a boomer in Lake Michigan would be presumably easier than keeping one in the Atlantic with the same benefits. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/11 "2014-07-29T13:52:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > US boomers could operate with impunity several hundred feet under the lakes and have a high expectation of surviving a first strike. I don’t think they’d even need to be built with the intention of survivng a nuclear strike because wouldn’t they have already launched as soon as any incoming threat was detected? I’d imagine (as I think you do) that their main benefit _is_ as an additional deterrent since they could operate with mobility without being located anywhere across a vast area, and since they’ll not be required to go as deep or withstand an attack they presumably can be built for much cheaper than a conventional sub. It’s a good question. No saltwater corrosion: +1 Collision with Edmund Fitzgerald: -1 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/12 "2014-07-29T13:53:17Z")
What is this “boomer” of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/13 "2014-07-29T13:55:17Z")
During the nuclear arms race, land based nukes’ range couldn’t cover the entire world, so range was extended with subs and planes. Putting a sub in the same territory as land based nukes would not have extend range of the American nuclear arsenal, and would have drawn on resources that otherwise could have been put to better use, e.g. salt-water SSBNs that could greatly extend the arsenal’s range and response time. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/14 "2014-07-29T14:15:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is this “boomer” of which you speak? > **[Ballistic missile submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine)** > > A ballistic missile submarine is a submarine capable of deploying submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with nuclear warheads. These submarines became a major weapon system in the Cold War because of their nuclear deterrence capability. They can fire missiles thousands of kilometers from their targets, and acoustic quieting makes them difficult to detect (see acoustic signature), thus making them a survivable deterrent in the event of a first strike and a key element of the mutual assur... > [@](#): > > In the U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines have the designation SSBN (Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear) and are nicknamed ‘boomers.’ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/15 "2014-07-29T14:26:49Z")
A Trident II missile probably couldn’t reach a lot of places in China if it were launched from the Great Lakes. As far as missiles go, the Trident is relatively compact, meaning there’s only so much propellant you can stuff in it, meaning its range is more limited than other ground-based missiles. ETA: Plus, any of our adversaries would know where any second strike would be coming from, and be able to at least build radars to carefully monitor what’s going on in the Great Lakes region. It’s harder to build early warning sensors that cover all of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/16 "2014-07-29T15:02:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is this “boomer” of which you speak? > [@Telemark](#): > > [Ballistic missile submarine - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine) or an adult male kangaroo. Bet the russians would be surprised if they found a bunch of them guarding Canada and the US! ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/17 "2014-07-29T15:07:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is this “boomer” of which you speak? Its a “recreational vehicle”. And you don’t even need a permit to travel with it. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/18 "2014-07-29T15:23:02Z")
I’m all for posting Chris Berman underwater in the Great Lakes, especially with the NFL season coming up. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/19 "2014-07-29T15:26:49Z")
I’d miss Esiason, though. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/20 "2014-07-29T15:28:55Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > As a practical matter, the draft of the current Ohio class is such that they couldn’t get through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the locks because they aren’t deep enough, but that is no reason that the boats couldn’t be purpose built on the lakes. Back in WWII, [twenty-eight submarines were built on Lake Michigan](http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/the-submarine-experience/28-freshwater-submarines/), but of course they were not used there. I doubt if the Great Lakes would be the best place to operate subs, for it would cause a traffic problem. Aside from Superior, the Great Lakes are not that big (you can see both shores from the deck of a freighter), and aside from Superior (which is deep but has rocks and shoals) and Michigan, the Great Lakes are often not that deep (especially Lake Erie., which averages about [62’](http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/lakes.html)). If you discount running a sub in Canada, in shallows, shoals, and the very busy shipping channels, that greatly limits the options to parts of upper Lake Michigan and parts of the southern bays of Lake Superior. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309.md?page=2)