S.A.C. Rises Once Again...? New "Global Strike Command".

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
It appears that the recent Pinnacle Nucflash incident of August, 2007 was the catalysis needed to establish a new global nuclear strike command. While the USAF may be the best when it comes to precision warfare and close air support. The nuclear strike mission has likely suffered given its relevance at such a time. With near peer adversaries developing once again this decision could not have come at a better time.

The entire ICBM force including the B-52 and B-2 fleets will be under the new command's control. However going against the recommendations the B-1 fleet was left under the command of Air Combat Command. Presumably they will continue to function as a more conventional force. One the surface this seems like a bad idea but for the long term it's the best option. The Air Force has a new bomber coming online in 2018 which will be procured in large numbers. Influencing this design now with the nuclear mission in mind would be more efficient than converting the older B-1s, not the mention it wouldn't be as survivable. And having a conventional bomber fleets gives us some flexibility no matter what the threat may be.

But this command will differ from S.A.C. in two aspects, one is that it will only be headed by a three star instead of a four. Perhaps it's fear of another LeMay? Anyway, it will likely not have its own electronic, tanker and fighter support. Such additional support is better served training under A.C.C. as one and integrating with new G.S.C.. It will be interesting to see if plans to decommission older nuclear missiles and bombs will be put on hold and reversed. Or if new munitions with a nuclear capability be developed fitted with the new warhead designs.



USAF Creates Global Strike Command



The U.S. Air Force will stand up a new major command called Global Strike Command devoted strictly to the nuclear enterprise, the service announced Oct. 24 at the Pentagon.

Air Force leaders released a so-called roadmap, titled “Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise,” that details major actions the service will take, including:

* Establish the new command, led by a three-star, lieutenant general, and a Headquarters Air Force staff office, both devoted to nuclear enterprise matters;

* Consolidate sustainment functions under Air Force Materiel Command’s Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center;

* Improve nuclear stewardship in Air Force corporate processes; and

* Create strategic plans that address long-term nuclear requirements, including those for cruise missiles, bombers, dual-capable aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The so-called Schlesinger Report - from the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management chaired by James Schlesinger, who has been both an energy and defense secretary - had recommended all bombers fall under a new command. But, Donley said, “We thought we should preserve the gains made in the last 15 years in making the bomber force more effective for support of theater [operations].”

Source


[edit on 27-10-2008 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 27-10-2008 by WestPoint23]




posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
What a spectacular waste of time, personnel and money.



If you want to blow the sht out of the planet, you don't need a whole separate command structure to push the button. What is the MAD overkill at anyway? 30? 40?


Also, resources that could be used for conventional warfare are now under another umbrella and will require transfer across to be utilised.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Westpoint,

I feel that what you are saying is little more than putting a positive spin on something that has come about because USAF has been getting sloppy lately with their handling of nukes.

It is really an attempt to make the USAF more accountable when it comes to enforcement of nuclear materials safeguards.

Such is the nature of 'spin', I'm afraid - something that has been done because the USAF is getting slack suddenly becomes something 'positive and new' that the USAF has thought of doing (all by itself if you just read their press release - a USAF initiative if you will). In fact it is being done (under external pressure) because the USAF stuffed up.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 29/10/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Whatever the reason, and I in fact agree with you, it stands to reason that this move will focus the USAF when it comes to the nuclear mission. Ever since S.A.C. was abolished the nuclear mission has lost favor and importance within the USAF. Clearly it is a vital function and one that needs to be addressed.

Putting an emphasis on conventional bombing and exploring the latest in precision warfare and close air support is a necessary must. However this should equal the importance of the nuclear mission, having crews which are dual proficient would be best. It's sad that it had to come to this but reviving once again the rigorous training, procedures and culture which S.A.C. established is needed. That command should have never been closed, sure it needed change after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. but it's purpose was hardly irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Westpoint,

I'm sorry, but your argument seems to be self contradictory.

The dismantling of SAC was deemed appropriate due to the collapse of the USSR and the reasoning that there was no longer a nuclear threat of that magnitude that would require the maintenance of a separate command to address it.

Now, according to your reasoning (and perhaps the unwritten reasoning of the USAF press release) that argument is no longer appropriate - without spelling out just who is now deemed to be as threatening (specifically in a nuclear sense) as the USSR used to be.

Your whole last paragraph is contradictory, in that the the whole scenario of the abolition of SAC was due to the factors you state - that is conventional bombing should be given equal importance to the nuclear mission and that the way to dual proficiency was through combined commands rather than specialized ones. After all, the whole SAC experience was one of over-specialization necessitating the parallel existence of TAC to prosecute conventional warfare. So you have tried to use the reasoning for the demise of SAC as a reason to re-introduce it.

IMHO, the re-establishment of a SAC-like structure has no strategic or even tactical reasoning whatsoever at the moment, especially considering the system of separate specialized commands was so wasteful of resources and resulted in so much duplication. I really don't believe that we have returned to the cold war situation that might require that kind of wastefulness

No, it is simply a spin on the fact that without a specialized organization, the USAF is simply unable to keep up the administrative security necessary for the handling of nuclear materials. You might recall the old adage that when it comes to security, the more people involved the less likely it will be maintained.

It is NOT a "brilliant new initiative on the part of the USAF with regard to the worldwide maintenance of global security through nuclear deterrence" - it is simply establishing "an accountable and responsible department" to keep track of the nukes and make sure they don't get lost or stolen - because the USAF as a whole doesn't appear to be able to do that.

But then nobody would expect the USAF to issue a press release saying 'We are going to group everything nuclear under one office and make that office holder responsible for them, because otherwise we are likely to lose some of them'

By the same token, it's a bit over the top to interpret the establishment of such an office as the 'triumphant and well-overdue re-establishment of SAC'.

So I really do question your reasoning (other than in the sense of losing nuclear material) that the nuclear mission 'needs to be addressed' or that it has 'lost favor and importance'. Does the USAF currently NEED the 'rigorous training, procedures and culture which SAC established' (especially the 'culture') - an inference that there is somehow something wrong with current training, procedures and culture within the USAF (once again with the exception of the recently displayed talent for slack handling of nukes) ? Surely such things should be appropriate to the current world situation, rather than to a past Cold War one.

And in any case the aircraft are not part of the command, only the nukes! As the USAF says, why give up all the gains of the past 15 years ?

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 30/10/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
With all due respect this new command only has authority of the ICBM force and the B-2/B-52 fleets. S.A.C. had fighters, electronic warfare assets, tankers etc... It is very difficult to have dual proficiency within such a larger force as ACC, especially when the day to day reality is one of conventional bombing. The crews which will transfer over are well trained and very experienced when it comes to conventional bombing. Adding on to that knowledge and achieving that dual proficiency should only be beneficiary.

Perhaps you do not think a separate command is required in light of current global threats, but that is not long term thinking. 10-20 years from now there will be multiple, and credible, nuclear threats. With the US armed forces shrinking every year having once again a credible nuclear triad is paramount. With new bombers and global strike assets coming online within the next decade it's good to have established commands before such assets enter service so their mission is well defined.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Honestly Westpoint, I cannot comprehend how you could imagine that a SAC-like structure could possibly encourage dual proficiency when SAC ordered the B-1 without any conventional warfare capability at all !!! The B-1 did not gain any conventional warfare capability until after the demise of SAC!

Such was the culture of SAC!

Of course, you know better than anyone, as you seem to be the self appointed expert (even if you contradict US government or USAF policy or theory - or indeed wish to invert the whole history of SAC), so you just keep on believing the spin, and I'll leave you to your delusions.

My delusion has been that the purpose of ATS is to deny ignorance, but it is now clear that its purpose is to provide a platform for crackpot ideas from those who see no need to justify their arguments with facts. What a waste.

ATS - the platform for delusion!


The Winged Wombat

[edit on 30/10/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
We won't lose....with what we got.
The Harshwind blows in the face of reason.
Strike-up the band Zimmerman.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join