South Korea Could Have It's Own Boomer

Seoul, South Korea (The Loose Nukes): Republic of Korea (ROK) President Yoon Suk Yeol and First Lady of the Republic of Korea Kim Keon Hee recently kicked the tires on one of the US Navy's aging OHIO Class “Trident” submarines in anticipation of possibly purchasing one of the soon to be retired ballistic missile submarines for their own nation.

The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Kentucky (SSBN 737) was on a port visit in Busan, South Korea on July 19, 2023 to not only demonstrate the United States’ ironclad commitment to the (ROK) for its extended deterrence guarantee, but to also give the President and First Lady a chance to tour and test drive a fully functioning ballistic missile submarine. A secondary purpose was to scare the pants off of President of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong Un.

ROK First Lady Kim Keon Hee checking out North Korea.

The 14 OHIO Class submarines currently in service, which represent the US Navy's kick-ass nuclear deterrent force, are scheduled to be replaced by the new and improved Columbia Class, which is slated to begin entering service in 2031. As the aging OHIO Class boats are taken out of service there will be a tremendous opportunity for countries like South Korea to have their very own nuclear deterrent and no longer need to rely on the US nuclear umbrella. It will also provide an opportunity for the US Navy to make some extra cash to keep building all the ships on its wish list.

Besides the deterrence aspect of owning your own ballistic missile submarine, there is also the major prestige factor of owning a vessel capable of incinerating an entire continent with the full complement Trident II D5 missiles loaded with a the maximum number of thermonuclear warheads.

"Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are the most powerful nuclear assets in the world," said Park Won Gon, professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. "North Korea's solid-fuel Hwasong-18 ICBM is no match to the SSBN. … North Korea is going to realize the imbalance between its nuclear capabilities and the U.S.'" After those comments, Park was overheard saying, “If Kim messes with us he will be toast.”

During the guided tour of the Kentucky the first couple viewed the missile compartment and they were blown away by the explanation of the Trident missile's capabilities, and nearly choked on their lunch with the realization that even after incinerating all of North Korea in a first strike (which is what Trident is designed for), they would still have plenty of missiles left to deal with China should the need arise.

The couple was assured by U.S. National Security Council Coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell that the United States is committed to strengthening the ROK to meet its sovereign self-defense needs and to improve its capabilities to operate with U.S. forces to address shared security challenges. At the inaugural meeting of the long-lauded US-ROK Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG), coinciding with the Kentucky's port call, Campbell stated that the US is committed to ensure that the ROK is prepared to show Kim Jong Un who's boss on the Korean peninsula.

When President Yoon asked about the potential price tag, a representative of the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs assured him that he would be getting a huge price break, and that the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.], authorizes the President to finance procurement of defense articles and services for foreign countries and international organizations. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) may be provided to a partner nation on either a grant (non-repayable) or direct loan basis.

The commanding officer of the Kentucky, Lee Fake (Gold crew), assured President Yoon that prior to purchase, their submarine would receive a thorough overhaul, including reactor refueling.

When asked how he felt about the prospect of owning his very own ballistic missile submarine bristling withorth enough thermonuclear firepower to start World War III, President Yoon retorted, “How can one put a vualue on such a treasure as ultimate nuclear deterrence? I am humbled, and at the same time somewhat agiddy, at the thought of such power.”

Disclaimer/Fine Print/etc: Although most of what is written in this post is true, the ROK first couple did not test drive an OHIO Class submarine, nor do they intend to purchase one for their country (as far as this journalist is aware).

A Little Help for Jeremy Corbin's Nuclear Weapons Policy

The big news out of the United Kingdom these days is that Labour Leader Jeremy Corbin, the person who one day could have his finger poised over the little (or maybe it's big) red nuclear button, has stated unequivocably that he would never push the button [that would send the message to Trident submarine crews to launch their Trident II D-5 missiles bristling with really nasty thermonuclear warheads that would bring about the end of tourism in whatever part of the world those missiles land].

However, there is just one slight problem with Corbin's position. On a recent BBC news program, panelists reminded us that "if Corbin becomes Prime Minister but the party decides to keep Trident, it will be tricky, because there is no point in having a nuclear deterrent unless you're willing to use that crucial element of bluff, and Jeremy Corbin doesn't seem like the kind that can" (bluff that is) - he's no poker player.

Well, one of the panelists on the BBC show The News Quiz has come up with a brilliant solution. Andy Hamilton says, "If we don't have nuclear weapons, but pretend that we do... we could still have a red button... It wouldn't be hard; we'd build missiles out of cardboard or recycled plastic or whatever... so they show up on... satellite photos; mysterious convoys going up and down; fake the occasional accident; fence off Wales..."

Of course, this is not necessarily an altogether original idea. The North Koreans are geniuses when it comes to clever uses for cardboard (and other cheap materials made in forced labor camps). Just look at how the world pays attention when fearless leader Kim Jong-un thumps his chest and crows about his latest nuclear feat.

A North Korean prototype.

So there you go! We just "scrap Trident but don't tell anyone it's been scrapped. Brilliant!!!

Rather than wasting billions of pounds (or in the case of the United States roughly a hundred billion dollars; $1,000,000,000 Billion) for a Trident replacement, we could simply pretend to have built a replacement.

Since the official policy of the US (and I'm sure it's the same for the UK) is to "neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons," what's the difference?

Hey, it works for North Korea!

Just think of the savings. The big question is, can we trust the government (either one) to put the money to good use? After all, they decided to build these useless nuclear weapon systems in the first place. But that's another discussion for another day...

At any rate, I think Hamilton might be on to something here... Have a listen at The News Quiz.

Editor's Note: There really is no nuclear button for the President or Prime Minister to push; it's much more complicated than that - phew!

Trident Makes Bad People Go Away!

The following graphic was issued this week by the United States Navy, Commander, Submarine Forces in an effort to help members of Congress better understand the rationale for building a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines to replace the current Trident fleet.

The Trident II D-5 missiles deployed on the nation's 14 OHIO Class submarines carry multiple thermonuclear warheads, each one many times the destructive force of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Rear Adm. Joesph Tofalo has said that, “A single Trident submarine is the sixth largest nuclear nation in the world all by itself."

Carrying enough nuclear warheads to incinerate an entire continent, Trident is certainly an important tool in our nation's military tool box, and it most certainly can make lots of people "go away" in a flash.

The successor to the OHIO Class submarine fleet is known as the SSBN(X), and is currently in research and development.  A fleet of 12 new submarines will cost approximately $100 billion to build.

Rogue Seals takes over Trident sub

Silverdale, Washington  A rogue Seal team breached security at a Trident nuclear submarine base in Washington State.

In an unannounced exercise rogue Seals took over the USS Nevada SSBN 733, a Trident ballistic missile submarine, while tied up to the pier at the Bangor Trident submarine base at Silverdale, Washington in the early morning hours on January 22nd.

According to Navy officials the takeover was short lived. The Seals were quickly driven topside and off the ship by quick acting members of the ship's security detail.

Photo: Courtesy of U.S. Navy

In preparation for the exercise the Seals studied the 2009 incursion by the Disarm Now Plowshares, a group of elderly peace activists who breached multiple levels of security at the sub base and nuclear weapons storage depot before being captured by base security personnel.  The five members of the Plowshares action made it through the final security fence into the nuclear weapons storage bunker area of the Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific (SWFPAC) before being detected.

The seals went undetected by the Marine Mammal Base Protection Detail that was patrolling Hood Canal at the time of the incursion.  Members of the detail were questioned about their whereabouts during the incursion, and all denied having been drinking on the job.  They were, however, observed feasting on shrimp earlier in the morning by fishermen working nearby.  They also denied any prior contact with the rogue seal team.  

Rogue Seal in custody (Navy file photo)

A Navy spokesperson said that although this was a serious breech of security, at no time were the nuclear weapons on board the submarine in any danger.  He also stated that they would undertake a full investigation to determine where security can be improved.  

The spokesperson denied that the Navy was considering consulting with any of the members of the Disarm Now Plowshares regarding security improvements on the base.

###

Editor's Note:  Thanks to comic co-conspirator Shelley Douglass for giving me this idea AND for much of the content!  The Navy actually has a Swimmer Interdiction System staffed by ever capable marine mammals (dolphins and sea lions) to apprehend any pesky terrorists who might try to swim undetected to do some sort of mischief to our nation's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent. 

Trident: Circumcision or...

All right Friends,

I know, I know!!!  You're all thinking I've gone off the deep end, and the censors should be called in right about now.  But wait; this is all very much on the up and up.  It seems that just maybe we in the U.S. can learn a thing or two about how to get a discussion going about nuclear weapons - Trident in this particular case.

I'm referring to Willard Foxton's article in the Huffington Post titled "Is it Time for Britain's Nuclear Circumcision?"  You certainly won't see an article - at least we haven't yet - with that kind of title authored by anyone here in the Colonies... er, States.

I love this guy; it's like we're kindred spirits.  He starts off by saying, "Sometimes, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."  I know just how he feels!  He also refers to himself as a "Feminist, Multiculturalist Tory."  That just has to be good.   But I digress... He continues: 

I seem to be one of the only people who has noticed that amid the biggest financial crisis in a generation, parliament has just insouciantly waved through £350 million on some drawings of some new submarines. Maybe I'm being unfair - maybe there will also be scale models to sit on an admiral's desk too, maybe even a Troy Tempest uniform for Nick Clegg to dress up in - but it still seems like a hell of a lot of money.

Of course, this £350 million quid is just a down-payment - the start of the whole bloated nightmare of the hooting defence procurement panjandrum. Now that we've paid out £350 million quid on sci-fi submarine drawings, any attempt to now withdraw from this commitment will be met with a round chorus of boos and hisses about wasted money.

There is almost literally no political debate on this issue, which I find astounding. I mean, I understand why, in narrow, party political terms.

But wait!  It keeps getting better. Foxton comes up with a new corporate moniker for BAE Systems the folks who make a killing on the British Trident whether or not it ever fires off a nuke: Ocean Going Holocaust Delivery Mechanism Manufacturers Inc.

Still, this is a big deal - we are not only putting a truly vast sum of money at stake - the defence contractors estimate £25 billion, so we can assume at least three times that, 10 years late - we are also binding ourselves into a strategic commitment to maintaining not just a nuclear arsenal, but to a uniquely cold-war era one, based around submarine launched ballistic missiles.

The question someone in parliament - be they a pinko, dope-smoking commie-coddling lefty pacifist, or an austerity loving, state-hating, swivel eyed right winger - should be asking is "Would Britain in the mid-21st century become a significantly less safe place if we possessed different, cheaper nuclear weapons?"

Even if you leave aside the moral arguments around nuclear weapons - and I'm sure BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, unlikely to rebrand any time as Ocean Going Holocaust Delivery Mechanism Manufacturers Inc any time soon - would like us to, there are compelling practical arguments for a different kind of weapons system. A real public argument around what form our should take deterrent, or indeed, whether we should have one at all, and about defence generally, is badly needed.

If you look around, and ask the forbidden question, "what are the plausible threats to Britain?", the Trident system becomes increasingly suspect.

Does it stop Terrorism? Do nuclear weapons deter that? Where are we going to fire a Trident in retaliation for a terrorist attack? Mecca? Belfast? Bradford?

Then, Foxton takes up the age old question of "deterrence."  And he asks all the right questions, including what's up with Britain's reliance on the U.S.???  But he really hits the nail on the head when he asks how deterrence will work with rogue states like Iran or France!!!

Is it a deterrent to rising powers like China or Russia? If Britain were to stand alone in a showdown with nukes on the table, it would be doomed. The UK's security against big power aggression must depend on our alliance with the USA. It's hard to swallow but sadly true - and in any case, the trident system is totally reliant on US technology, expertise and support, so any idea it is an "independent deterrent" is sadly flawed.

Of course, there is a real threat that could be deterred from rogue states like Iran or France. But we must ask ourselves the question, is a ballistic missile system the best answer for that? There is an important distinction between retaining a some nuclear weapons and none at all.


Are cheaper nuclear cruise missiles fired from cheaper, multirole attack submarines any less deterring? Are they less deterring if the missile is fired from a ship? From a plane? From a really big cannon?

I'd conclude that they are slightly less deterring, but only slightly - there is a slim chance of shooting down a cruise missile, or destroying an aircraft before it launches one. But it ignores the reality that there could be tens or hundreds coming through - it's not a chance I'd bet on, when losing the bet is a whole city and hundreds of thousands of people burned to ashes. It's a gamble someone would only take if they probably wouldn't be deterred by our ballistic missiles anyway.

Foxton really gets it.  And I mean GETS IT!!!  He truly understands the ultimate rational for a nuclear weapons system like Trident (subs, missiles, the whole catastrophe).  And he articulates it in terms that are so beautifully and artfully British.  It is, of course, the "big willy" argument (or "massive willy" as the case may be).  In Foxton's own words:

The arguments deployed for keeping Trident, rather than some other system, are often weak, even laughable. Notably, some worry about trifles like the international legality of cruise missiles - as though a bomb that incinerates hundreds of thousands is fine so long as it drops vertically rather than horizontally. Among those who want to keep Trident, probably the most cited, but least convincing, is what is known in the as the "big willy" argument.

This argues that Britain's influence - our permanent UN security council seat, our trade links, our ability to have David Cameron cheering for Chelsea in the White House situation room - would be in jeopardy if we began dismantling some of our nuclear weapons. This is tragic, 1950s, post-imperial thinking. National security is vital - but having a massive willy to wave in the faces of other leaders is not.

Of course, Foxton keeps the options open when he calls for open discussions about issues of such magnitude as Trident. 

That's not to say there aren't some convincing reasons to have a like-for-like replacement - I just wish we would have those discussions openly, unfettered by weak-kneed short-term political calculations. What we really need is real debate on the topic - personally, I'm sure we can be just as safe if Mr. Cameron decides he can cope with a little circumcision.

As for Foxton's closer, this is the only part of his brilliant essay with which I must vehemently disagree.  From a kosher standpoint circumcision would never be enough for Trident.  The only option I can see for such a horrific, omnicidal weapons system is ________________ (fill in the blank). 

###

Read Willard Foxton's full article, Is it Time for Britain's Nuclear Circumcision?, at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/willard-foxton/britains-nuclear-circumcision_b_1536588.html