A nuclear armed Coast Guard

Freemason

Banned
A nuclear armed Coast Guard

The Air Farce has nuclear gravity bombs and ICBMs
The Navy has nuclear cruise missiles and torpedos
The Army has nuclear artillery shells

What about the Coast Guard? Consider that North Korea is saying they have a big nuclear pecker and China lusting after Taiwan, nuclear deterrance is the sexy thing to do - again.

For the non-Coastie pukes, it's lesson time:
The Coast Guard is comprised of the surface vessels and the air wing.
The fleet ships I'm concerned with consist of the 378 foot cutters. They are armed with a rapid fire 90mm cannon, 4 torpedo tubes with Mark-48 torpedos, 4 Harpoon launchers and several .50 machine guns. The Harpoon missile is a nuclear capable weapon as well as the Mark-48 torpedo.

We regularly send the 378s into the Pacific for fisheries enforcement and the occasional rescue of distressed vessels. It's not uncommon for our cutters to operate outside of Japanese waters. It wouldn't be a problem for a cutter to make a port call to Taiwan - i.e. placing a nuclear armed vessel right where it'd be both highly visible and quite capable of ruining the day of an invasion fleet.

So what do you think? Should the Coast Guard become part of our nuclear deterrance?
 

LorveN

D3 Off Topic Moderator
I never thought the coast guard was meant for fighting wars? They are supposed to deal with smaller crimes (ok, maybe not small crimes, but small compared to a full-scale nuclear war).
The navy alone should do fine imo. But then, I'm a swede. We have no goddamn nukes! :lol:
 

Freemason

Banned
The Coast Guard has a long and storied past of warfighting. If I'm not mistaken, there's a cutter in the Persian Gulf right now.

One 378 foot cutter of today is capable of putting the hurt on most navies of today - by itself.
 

giantpinkbunnyhead

Diabloii.Net Member
My good friend is a submarine radio room supervisor for the Navy. His sub is a nuclear sub. We talked a little about this sort of thing this weekend, and he mentioned that his sub is capable of launching nukes from anywhere it might be, and between his sub and the other nuclear subs floating around the planet, virtually anywhere on earth is within striking distance at any time. If this is true, I don't see why we'd need more nukes with the Coast Guard. The fact that we even have subs with nukes makes those subs targets, so the navy keeps those subs hidden yet strategically positioned at all times. Having more nukes only makes more targets for the enemy, considering we can hit anywhere with a nuke as it is... I'd say we have enough.
 
The day that Cuba develops nuclear weapons I might agree with you. Until then I'm not sure plucking Elian outta the ocean requires a multi-megaton nuclear weapon (though who knows, those sharks are pretty nasty).

The only time that the Coast Guard is used as part of the Navy is in wartime or national emergency, and perhaps if DPRK were to become more of an issue the CG could be armed as a reactionary measure.

Until then, however, I believe we have the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th fleet out there to protect us. And last I checked any one of them was more powerful than most nations' entire arsenals. And that doesn't even take into account ourNaval Forces Commands. Not sure why we need to be handing out nukes all over the place, really. Perhaps our police officers should carry assault rifles?

I think that the implications to giving nukes to the CG extends further than the mere nuclear proliferation issues. Besides the fact that it's like throwing sand in the eyes of Iran and DPRK right now to start handing out our nukes more liberally on one hand while telling them they should really stop working on making their own on the other, I'd imagine that a hell of a lot of training and procedure needs to go along with nukes. You don't just attach a nuke to a CG cutter, show em where the button is and let em sail away. So how do you propose to retroactively introduce a nuclear arsenal into the Coast Guard, complete with the requisite training and safety features to be certain that we don't have a misfire or nuclear accident that leads us into nuclear war or causes needless death and environmental damage?
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
I think the U.S. military presence on Okinawa might be a more effective deterrent to any potential shenanigans in the China Sea than a single cutter lolling about Taiwan.

You don't need nukes to do SAR or border patrol.
 
Freemason said:
The Air Farce has nuclear gravity bombs and ICBMs
The Navy has nuclear cruise missiles and torpedos
The Army has nuclear artillery shells

What about the Coast Guard?
Yes, the Coast Guard needs nukes. You need nukes. I need nukes. Everybody needs nukes. They are the exclusive tool for the furtherance of humankind and life on this planet.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Freemason said:
So what do you think? Should the Coast Guard become part of our nuclear deterrance?
Forward your idea to the Pentagon Smeg. I am quite sure that they will give it all the time and consideration that it deserves. :rolleyes:
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
If the enemy can get pass the US Navy and US Airforce and within the reaches of the US Coast Guard, it may be a little late for the US Coast Guard to do anything about it.

I'd rather use the funding for recruiting and training for a bigger and better Coast Guard. They're undermanned, not under armed.
 
Top