# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/41 "2014-07-30T11:52:36Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Keeping a boomer in Lake Michigan would be presumably easier than keeping one in the Atlantic with the same benefits. Why would it be easier? About the only significant difference is that salt water is somewhat more corrosive than fresh water, but that’s a long-solved engineering problem (i.e. the old Navy maxim “if it moves, salute it; if it doesn’t, paint it”). ---
**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 30, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/42 "2014-07-30T13:16:58Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Standard cargo containers that you see on trucks, trains and ships. Build some of them so that they open up automatically on command and shoot guns or missiles. Thus, the Maersk Bakersfield has a couple of cargo containers on the top row and pirates are reported coming up on a ship in the area. A signal is sent to the military containers nearest, which happen to be on the Bakersfield, on the top layer. One of them opens up and a missile shoots out and is then guided by satellite 100 miles to the incoming pirate ship and boom! Or, if pirates attack the Bakersfield itself, one pops open and a couple of mini guns take out the pirate ship. I see. I guess nobody could foresee anything ever going wrong with the U.S. military smuggling heavy weapons onto a commercial ship without the knowledge of the captain, and then making that privately-owned ship into a remote controlled death machine. And we all know that things that are satellite controlled are utterly unhackable, too. Seems like a solid plan. > [@AK84](#): > > Plus, won’t mobile ICBMs provide a similar capability at much reduced cost? Oh my god yes. Not as survivable as a submarine, but the cost of such a system is a minor fraction of an SSBN. Currently, the U.S. Navy is planning to build new SSBNs 10 years from now, and the estimated cost of each ship is in the neighborhood of $7 billion, not including the cost of actually operating the ship for the thirty-plus years of its expected life span. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/43 "2014-07-30T14:04:39Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > During the nuclear arms race, land based nukes’ range couldn’t cover the entire world, so range was extended with subs and planes. This isn’t really true. The LGM-25C ‘Titan II’ and LGM-30A/B ‘Minuteman II’, both deployed around the same time as the UGM-27 ‘Polaris’ SLBM, could reach every significant target in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states. (There were a number of locations beyond its range in the Peoples Republic of China and North Korea, but as neither state was then nuclear-capable that isn’t germane to the discussion.) The purpose of the nuclear triad was ostensibly to provide redundancy and robustness against a disarming attack. The reality was that each military service sought nuclear capability and the expedient political answer was to distribute capability along these lines. Indeed, the initial range of the Polaris A-1 was so short (less than 2500 mmi in prograde trajectories, less from Pacific locations) that there were concerns about exposing the submarines to attack or counterattack rather than the deep ocean patrols carried out by later, longer range missile submarines. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The undeclared secondary value of the submarines was their ability to launch a quick first strike. I don’t think this was ever a declared part of American doctrine because we didn’t want to admit that we might plan such an attack. But we did talk about how the Soviet submarine force could be used to make a quick first strike and obviously our forces could do the same. The principle was that missiles and bombers had to travel around the world. Even for missiles this took enough time for them to be detected and a counter-attack to be launched. But submarines could be stationed right off the coast of an enemy nation and launch an attack across a much shorter distance. In theory, a surprise attack by submarine-launched missiles might so quick that the enemy command be destroyed before it had time to order a counter-attack (see the first paragraph about making a complete surprise attack). Although there is a lot of hand-wringing made about the capability of submarines to launch a “sneak attack” with the missiles flying on depressed trajectories, an SLBM launch and flight will still be readily apparent to modern early warning systems, and there is still a minimum range at which the booster can effectively deliver its weapons. The flight time might be reduced from the ~30 minutes from CONUS to 15 or 20 minutes from a submarine launch but the ballistic profile necessary to loft the RVs accurately is apparent to any space-based observation as well as any early warning radar systems looking in that direction, and the track of a ballistic missile (especially dozens or hundreds being launched simultaneously) is unmistakable. The “sneak attack” scenario has been implausible since the late 'Sixties. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I see. I guess nobody could foresee anything ever going wrong with the U.S. military smuggling heavy weapons onto a commercial ship without the knowledge of the captain, and then making that privately-owned ship into a remote controlled death machine. And we all know that things that are satellite controlled are utterly unhackable, too. Seems like a solid plan. It sounds like the story pitch for the _Under Siege 3_ sequel that Seagal has been trying to make for the last twenty years. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/44 "2014-07-31T19:45:47Z")
You mean _Diehard Afloat 2_ ? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/45 "2014-08-02T03:05:26Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Plus, well Canada might object. As well as those of us on the North Coast. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309/46 "2014-08-02T08:46:50Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > It sounds like the story pitch for the _Under Siege 3_ sequel that Seagal has been trying to make for the last twenty years. _Dive Hard_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deterrence-why-not-station-two-boomers-in-the-us-great-lakes/694309.md?page=2)