@Alan, that is very interesting about strat/tac distinctions in nuclear weapons. I had the same misconception. Thanks for clearing it up!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 03, 2025 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Context is everything. You can use an SLBM or even an ICBM for a tactical target, but there are a lot of things you could do that have a dozen reasons why you should not.

I for one don't think storing nukes in South Korea is a horrible idea. It invites attacks on the storage sites. Better to keep them on Guam where you can still use them pretty quickly.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Wednesday, September 03, 2025 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Re: tactical vs strategic nuclear weapon: for much of the Cold War, the black joke in Germany was that the difference was that a tactical nuclear weapon was one that landed on Germany, most likely in the general vicinity of the Fulda Gap.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 04, 2025 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Air Defense: Missile Defense Agency Seeks Low-Cost Interceptor
In October 2024, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced it was “investigating technologies” and concepts that could “dramatically decrease cost per kill” of enemy missiles. In August 2025, the MDA issued a more formal solicitation for white papers detailing “innovative approaches” to rapidly prototype and demonstrate “very low-cost (less than $750,000 per missile), modular interceptor designs to counter ballistic and hypersonic threats.”
Given the high cost of current anti-missile missiles and their rapid expenditure in Middle Eastern and Ukrainian airspace warfare, the MDA has concluded the U.S. must have hundreds, if not thousands, of Low-Cost Interceptors (LCIs) on hand to win the next major missile war.
The MDA seeks creative ideas from small businesses—innovative technology and conceptual manufacturing methods from “non-traditional” suppliers. In other words, the MDA is looking for outside-the-Beltway thinking.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), via its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program’s website, provides one of the best summaries of the MDA’s request. The MDA wants a “detailed design of a low-cost interceptor (LCI) to supplement legacy missile defense systems and provide affordable options to help rebalance the offense/defense cost disparity.”
Large-scale attacks, like Iran’s air and space assaults on Israel, drive the MDA’s search. The enemy will use various offensive systems, some of which are low-cost compared to defensive missiles. The MDA specifies that the LCI must be able to engage supersonic cruise missiles (SCMs), short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs), and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs).
The baseline LCI design “should be capable of endo-atmospheric engagements, with a maximum range of 100–300 km from the launcher.”
LCI proposals should “utilize Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components and supply chains” as well as current subsystems and employ “rapid, low-cost manufacturing practices.” Using proven systems accelerates acquisition and fielding.
Are the requirements brutal? Absolutely. MDA staffers know that rapidly developing a cheaper yet adequate missile will require trade-offs. The solicitation notes that MDA warfighters will accept “reduced performance in exchange for greatly decreased unit costs.” Why? Because a larger missile stockpile allows them to fire four or five affordable interceptors at a target instead of two expensive anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs).
The MDA believes enough cheaper but adequate missiles can achieve the same “aggregate probability of kill (Pk)” as current, more expensive missile interceptors.
Is the MDA asking for too much? The fact that it’s reaching out to small businesses and individual innovators is a significant advantage.
FYEO

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, September 04, 2025 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Various outlets are reporting that there's going to be an executive order tomorrow redesignating the Dept. of Defense as the Dept. of War.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 04, 2025 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Various outlets include Fox and the fake media, so maybe true. It is said it would be a secondary title, whatever that is.

Owen Riley wanted to merge Commerce, State, and Defense into the new Department of Mergers and Acquisitions.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, September 05, 2025 - 10:37 pm: Edit

The executive order was issued today. And by day's end, there was new signage at the Pentagon, including a large plaque for "Secretary of War Pete Hegseth".

Given the way the order is written and how it's being implemented, the whole "secondary title" business appears to be an end-run around the fact that Cabinet-level departments are established and named by Congress, with the intent being to refer to the department more or less exclusively under this secondary moniker (for example, the order ends with the line, "The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.").

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 12:35 am: Edit

Congress did not create the department of education, it was created by executive order.

That correction not withstanding, this department of war stunt falls into the 20% of Trump’s actions I cannot get behind. We had better things to do. If he needed to get Epstein out of the news he could have canceled the tax exempt status for some cult pretending to be a church.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 04:50 am: Edit

Public Law 39-73, 14 STAT 434, created the first U.S. Department of Education on March 2, 1867. most recent The Department of Education was created in 1979 when Congress passed Public Law 96-88 and President Jimmy Carter signed it into law.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 09:44 am: Edit

When Congress passed 96-88, President Carter had already created the department of education by executive order. Congress caught up the paperwork after the fact.

Aside from all that, the DoW order is dubious and stupid.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 10:14 am: Edit

"Dubious and stupid" is an excellent summation, yes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 10:52 am: Edit

Hey, every leader got something right and something wrong. Even Hitler (the real one) was a halfway decent artist. Guderian, arguably the greatest tank general who ever lived, said that rocket-firing helicopters would never be part of tank divisions. Genghis Khan, arguably the world's greatest military leader of all time, made Epstein look like a boy scout (Twelve percent of men in Asia have genes traceable to him). Even Obama had some good points, signing death warrants for a bunch of terrorists and he a had a better free-throw record than I do. Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents ever, was the greatest ex-president we ever had. FDR, the paragon of a Democrat president, locked up Japanese-American civilians and destroyed their wealth. Thomas Jefferson, one of the best presidents, panicked when governor of Virginia and let the British take over his colony. Woodrow Wilson, who built the modern political world, thought Birth of a Nation was a great movie. I am arguably a really super game designer but I designed a couple of real losers of games and added a few rules to SFB and F&E that everyone regrets. We all did some thing sometime that was "dubious and stupid" and we all did something that was "elegant genius" at some point. One bonehead move by Trump doesn't change the tremendous good he's done and the 25% boost in my IRA.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 09:32 pm: Edit

A phrase I use is, "Pobody's Nerfect."

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 06, 2025 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Now you did it, I gotta go make a pobody wandsich.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Looks like they've made the change pretty much completely now:

https://www.war.gov/

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Russia launched the biggest missile/drone attack in the entire war, effectively ending Trump’s peace process. Trump is apparently going to hit Russia with a stern letter and more sanctions.

By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Not many sanctions remaining which haven't already been put in place.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Just enforcement left.

If you think Putin has been making threats, just wait. Impounding Russias “Shadow Fleet” will likely send Putin ballistic.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 08:28 pm: Edit

And then we're back to that old, familiar question. How far can you push Putin without him nuking you?

--Mike

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 10:03 pm: Edit

And the opposed question, How bad is it to let everyone in the world know that "has nukes" is a get out of jail free card with unlimited uses and that non-proliferation is a sucker's bet?

Once Putin invaded, there was and is no good solution. I'm not at all sure that Putin's invasion could have been stopped, there's some chance that a harder line by the USA might have stopped it, or it might have escalated things faster and harder. I'm not second guessing the Biden administration's handling of pre-invasion diplomacy.

But we have to bet that almost anything short of NATO troops actively shooting at Russian soldiers will be allowed to pass without Putin blowing up the world, because betting the other way makes proliferation effectively unstoppable and means that sooner or later, someone hits the button and the survivors are looking into the mine shaft gap from the end of Dr. Strangelove.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, September 07, 2025 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Unless the Russian nuclear arsenal turns out to be just another bluff designed to intimidate western politicians.

Just how many Russian nuclear warheads will actually function at or near their designed capacity is an open question.

Just look at the list of weapons the Russians deployed, and compare them to actual real world results on the battle field.

T-35 and T-55 tanks are now being reported in the current Russian front line, and that is something that never should have happened, ever.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 01:56 am: Edit

Jeff, if you're standing there with a rifle, a T34 is deadly enough and a T55 is even more so. True, their appearance means Russia is running out of tanks, but it doesn't mean the ones they are using are are jokes. Now, if they were deploying FT17s you might say junk because armor piercing 5.56 will go through them. But even a Char B is going to be something an infantry soldier must respect.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 01:59 am: Edit

It does seem that Team Jessica is going to get their first wish (the war continues). She might get her second (Russian collapse) but I fear she will get her third wish, the one she never made but which came attached to the first two (a nuclear war).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 02:01 am: Edit

I don't think Putin would fire a mass volley of nuclear missiles at the US or anyone else. I do think he might make a demonstration attack, setting off a nuke on a military HQ in Ukraine. I think the most dangerous thing he would actually consider is to have a Russian submarine fire a few nuclear missiles at some random US destroyer crossing the Atlantic.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 08:15 am: Edit

Steve, that was not the point I was trying to make.

Western Europe and the United States spent decades preparing for war with Russia.

Much of the weapons and equipment the U.S.S.R. Produced turned out to be less than advertised. Note: I am not saying it all was junk.

It wasn’t until Putin attacked Ukraine did we find out the actual truth.