Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) system program holds informative town meeting

A forum to report and analyze technological progress in the military sector.
Post Reply
User avatar
Drumboy44
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 3397
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:29 pm
Contact:

Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:21 am

If you weren't able to attend the town meeting on the 18th here is a recap of what you missed.

As you may have heard, This area is in the running to be the first of three for a serious upgrade to our defense system. As many will know, we currently have silos that house America's Minuteman Missile system. As that system becomes obsolete the government has approved over ninety-billion dollars to upgrade to the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) system. The government is obviously not releasing any information on the system itself, but it does mean some possible major changes to the area. So here's what that could possibly look like to our local area.

Dale Steenbergen, President and CEO of the Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce, and his vice president Stephanie Meisner were on hand to outline the timeline and the plan should our area be chosen. The biggest difference to the community would be the influx of approximately 2250 people to the area. The breakdown of this would be 500 laborers, 1500 certified technicians, and 250 advanced degree positions. The first on the list of concerns was where these new residents would live. Steenbergen admitted that the biggest challenge to both Cheyenne and the Pine Bluffs community would be housing. As many people may already be aware of, there is just not enough houses in the area to work for the people that already live here much less handle an influx of over 2000 more including their families. Steenbergen wanted residents to know that the chamber is already in research with the Cheyenne Board of Realtors and the Southeast Wyoming Home Builders to determine what we already have and what the future need would be.


Another major concern that was voiced by Superintendent Abrams was the impact on our local schools which are already at or near capacity. Steenbergen wanted residents to know that once a contractor is chosen one of the first discussions will be the impact on local schools. LCSD #1 is already assessing future needs with a MCER Study which will determine which schools would need construction or expansion. Chamber Vice President Meisner stated that the Wyoming State Legislature would be determining the funding allocated for school improvement, and that LCSD #2 should definitely participate in their own study to determine the needs locally.
https://www.pinebluffspost.com/story/20 ... /7345.html
" man fears time, but time fears the pyramids "

Guest

Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:30 pm

Are we upgrading our icbm triad leg? Is this in reaction to Russia’s recently unveiled ICBM system?

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2121
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:33 pm

Guest wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:30 pm
Are we upgrading our icbm triad leg? Is this in reaction to Russia’s recently unveiled ICBM system?
We are. It's part of the new nuclear arms race. But as far as I'm concerned, silo-based missiles are obsolete and should be stood down. All they provide is a huge stationary target across much of the nation's midsection, and since they are hardened targets, groundbursts will be required to destroy them, resulting in heavy radioactive contamination to points east of those silos. And remember, as a primary strategic target, they will get hit whether their missiles have launched or not. Despite their remote location, those silos represent a huge threat to half the country.

Mobile launchers would be a much better solution than static silos if we really need ground-based missiles for deterrence.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Encyclopath
Regular contributor
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:26 am

Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:43 pm

Honestly, couldn’t our existing SLBM systems fill the entire strategic nuclear deterrence role? It really seems like air and ground based systems yare completely unnecessary if that really is all we need them for.
AFAIK, none of the limitations of the platform prevent it from filling the role, and subs are about the most independent, survivable, and redundant system I can think of.
It would make a lot of farmers and ranchers less anxious, too.
RiffRaff wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:33 pm
Guest wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:30 pm
Are we upgrading our icbm triad leg? Is this in reaction to Russia’s recently unveiled ICBM system?
We are. It's part of the new nuclear arms race. But as far as I'm concerned, silo-based missiles are obsolete and should be stood down. All they provide is a huge stationary target across much of the nation's midsection, and since they are hardened targets, groundbursts will be required to destroy them, resulting in heavy radioactive contamination to points east of those silos. And remember, as a primary strategic target, they will get hit whether their missiles have launched or not. Despite their remote location, those silos represent a huge threat to half the country.

Mobile launchers would be a much better solution than static silos if we really need ground-based missiles for deterrence.

rudemarine
Regular contributor
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:47 pm

Drumboy44 wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:21 am
If you weren't able to attend the town meeting on the 18th here is a recap of what you missed.

As you may have heard, This area is in the running to be the first of three for a serious upgrade to our defense system. As many will know, we currently have silos that house America's Minuteman Missile system. As that system becomes obsolete the government has approved over ninety-billion dollars to upgrade to the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) system. The government is obviously not releasing any information on the system itself, but it does mean some possible major changes to the area. So here's what that could possibly look like to our local area.

Dale Steenbergen, President and CEO of the Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce, and his vice president Stephanie Meisner were on hand to outline the timeline and the plan should our area be chosen. The biggest difference to the community would be the influx of approximately 2250 people to the area. The breakdown of this would be 500 laborers, 1500 certified technicians, and 250 advanced degree positions. The first on the list of concerns was where these new residents would live. Steenbergen admitted that the biggest challenge to both Cheyenne and the Pine Bluffs community would be housing. As many people may already be aware of, there is just not enough houses in the area to work for the people that already live here much less handle an influx of over 2000 more including their families. Steenbergen wanted residents to know that the chamber is already in research with the Cheyenne Board of Realtors and the Southeast Wyoming Home Builders to determine what we already have and what the future need would be.


Another major concern that was voiced by Superintendent Abrams was the impact on our local schools which are already at or near capacity. Steenbergen wanted residents to know that once a contractor is chosen one of the first discussions will be the impact on local schools. LCSD #1 is already assessing future needs with a MCER Study which will determine which schools would need construction or expansion. Chamber Vice President Meisner stated that the Wyoming State Legislature would be determining the funding allocated for school improvement, and that LCSD #2 should definitely participate in their own study to determine the needs locally.
https://www.pinebluffspost.com/story/20 ... /7345.html
Dont bother getting involved with this project. Congress will let it get nearly or completely done and then some Democrats will pull funding for it as they have done for every good weapon system, that defends CONUS in the last 40 years.
The Sprint missile defense system was completed then shut down the next day. The US had civil defense, every city and base was once protected with Nike missiles but they dont care about THE PEOPLE ANYMORE.

User avatar
DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 5815
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:35 pm

Encyclopath wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:43 pm
Honestly, couldn’t our existing SLBM systems fill the entire strategic nuclear deterrence role? It really seems like air and ground based systems yare completely unnecessary if that really is all we need them for.
No. Subs can be sunk. The idea of the land-based silos were that they were far enough away that the US could get them off before being destroyed.

However, as RiffRaff said, they are a known entity. Mobile launchers are much better, though less accurate. Russia uses mobile launchers. The US should.

Obreid
Regular contributor
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:51 am

Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:23 am

DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:35 pm
Encyclopath wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:43 pm
Honestly, couldn’t our existing SLBM systems fill the entire strategic nuclear deterrence role? It really seems like air and ground based systems yare completely unnecessary if that really is all we need them for.
No. Subs can be sunk. The idea of the land-based silos were that they were far enough away that the US could get them off before being destroyed.



However, as RiffRaff said, they are a known entity. Mobile launchers are much better, though less accurate. Russia uses mobile launchers. The US should.
Oh man can you just imagine the uproar and fear porn every time a Mobil launcher was spotted running down an interstate out west.
Then there would be the decades of lawsuits “not in my state”. Or PTSD lawsuits because they Passed a ICBM going the other way on I-70.

Post Reply