Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[bobbymike]

Strategic Review Suggests Potential New U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cuts

The United States might have opportunities to achieve additional nuclear arsenal cuts without undermining its strategic deterrent, the Obama administration said in a defense planning document issued on Thursday (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2011).


"As long as nuclear weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal. We will field nuclear forces that can under any circumstances confront an adversary with the prospect of unacceptable damage, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments," the defense strategic guidance states. "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy" (U.S. Defense Department release, Jan. 5).


The document, released by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Pentagon press briefing, calls for an increased U.S. armed forces focus on Asia and the withdrawal of some military personnel from Europe, Reuters reported. The paper, which addresses spending plans only in general terms, was published amid efforts to reduce defense spending by no less than $450 billion over the next 10 years. ???
==========================

Submitted without commentary - gnashing teeth

 

[bobbymike]

Meanwhile;


Russia this year intends to conduct 11 ICBM trial firings, ITAR-Tass reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2011). “Four launches will be carried out for the purpose extending service life and seven under experimental programs to test new missiles and improve existing ones with a view to piercing missile defense systems,” said Col. Oleg Koval, spokesman for the Russian strategic missile forces.

 

[pathology_doc]

What is the point beyond which disarmament constitutes treason?

 

[Gridlock]

Www.armscontrolwonk.com is an invaluable resource if you find proliferation and nuclear issues interesting.


There's a good article debunking the notion that China might have more than 400 warheads, for a start.


Also can't miss the opportunity to post a link to playboy on SP

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/the-secret-treachery-of-a-q-khan

 

[bobbymike]

WASHINGTON -- Forthcoming updates to the U.S. nuclear weapons force structure should eliminate the long-held objective of deterring a massive surprise atomic attack by Russia, arms control advocates said on Friday (see GSN, Jan. 6).


Only by doing away with the requirement, which necessitates a much larger nuclear force than otherwise necessary, can Washington and Moscow negotiate arms reductions beyond those mandated under the New START treaty that entered into force last year, said Morton Halperin, an adviser with the Open Society Institute. The size of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal is far beyond what is needed to deter Russia two decades after the end of the Cold War, Halperin indicated. “We need to start from scratch,” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Arms Control Association in Washington. “We need to ask ourselves the question: Under what circumstances might the Russian leadership wake up and say, ‘Oh, it’s Easter Sunday, the Americans are at rest, we can launch a surprise attack and it will be successful?’ What would have to be going on in the world that would make that even conceivable?”


New START requires each government by 2018 to reduce deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from a cap of 2,200 mandated by next year under an older treaty. It also limits the number of fielded strategic warhead delivery platforms to 700, with an additional 100 systems permitted in reserve (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2011).


The United States as of last September had 1,790 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on bomber aircraft and land- and submarine-based missiles, according to data from an exchange mandated under the treaty (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2011). The U.S. nuclear stockpile totaled 5,113 warheads in September 2009, including stored weapons, according to a Pentagon disclosure (see GSN, May 4, 2010).


President Obama is set in coming weeks to assess options for updating guidance on plans for the possible employment of nuclear weapons in combat. His resulting Presidential Policy Directive would initiate preparation of a succession of highly classified defense planning documents and culminate in a new strategic war plan.


The president’s decisions could prove crucial to his administration’s hopes of carrying out additional arsenal reductions in conjunction with Russia, Gary Samore, National Security Council coordinator for arms control and nonproliferation, suggested in comments published last May by Arms Control Today.


“Reductions below the level that we have now are going to require some more fundamental questions about force structure,” Samore said then.


http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/arms-control-proponents-question-us-nuclear-readiness-doctrine/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So would they support more nukes if a strategic targeting review included Russia, China, North Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, etc. warranted it? Of course not because the goal is for the US to have zero nukes even unilaterally.

 

[sferrin]

Zero from Zero. Would you expect anything more?

 

[bobbymike]

Meanwhile Russian Military Continue Massive Re-armament Russia’s Defense Ministry has released information about its weapons procurement in 2011. According to the first deputy minister Alexander Sukhorukov, the Ministry has purchased 30 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) and Yars ballistic missiles, 4 military satellites, 21 aircraft, 82 helicopters, one Stereguschiy class corvette, 8,531 military trucks and other military hardware. The total weapons procurement budget for 2011 amounted to 721.2 billion rubles (about $23 billion) including both federal budget money and government-guaranteed loans what was significantly more that in previous years, said the military official.

 

[Gridlock]

I will bet you every penny I am ever going to earn that the US will never unilaterally achieve zero (overt or covert or one-stage-from-completion like Japan and others). :


Seriously, how can so many Americans be so very, very naive? Name one action of the current administration, action not statement, that has demonstrated anything other than a continuation of exceptionalism and desire to be the sole global superpower. How's that promised closure of gitmo coming along? Did Bush ever dare to claim the power of global extra-judicial execution of US citizens?


It'd be hilarious how scared and dogmatic you are if there wasn't a non-trivial chance the US could be solely responsible for ending life on earth. Look at how obsessed the 42 administration was with abrogating the ABM treaty for that strange 9-month period between Bush v Gore and 9/11. Just a bunch of ex-Kremlinologists and defence industry chiefs pining for the cold war while the actual, real threat was making final preparations to do you-know-what.


Anyhow, your apparent belief that islamo-commie Obama is secretly implementing unilateral disarmament is a nice thought, if not the paranoia behind it, but it is demonstrably false. So can we talk physics packages and rogue states and NPT and NSG now?

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Pushes Back Future Nuclear-Armed Sub Jan. 27, 2012

The U.S. ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming approaches Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga., in 2009. The Obama administration on Thursday announced plans to set back by two years the preparation of a successor to the nation’s Ohio-class fleet of nuclear-armed submarines (U.S. Navy photo). The United States will push back by two years the Navy's time line for preparing a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines, a move intended to defer related expenses and promote a stronger foundation for the project, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday (see GSN, Jan. 6).

The Pentagon chief announced the decision in laying out plans to reduce armed forces spending by $487 billion across 10 years, the New York Times reported. The future submarines would eventually host the U.S. sea-based nuclear deterrent in place of the nation's existing fleet of Ohio-class vessels. The first of the next-generation submarines had been scheduled to enter service in 2029, according to a previous report (see GSN, Jan. 24). The Defense Department also intends to build a successor to its line of B-2 strategic bombers (see GSN, July 21, 2011; Christopher Drew, New York Times, Jan. 26). The cuts announced on Thursday would not affect the country's existing nuclear bomber or ICBM fleets, according to the Associated Press (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Jan. 27).


With the exception of the coming fiscal year, U.S. defense spending would rise annually over the next half-decade with the reductions in place, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Pentagon's $525 billion budget request for the 2013 budget cycle is $6 billion less than lawmakers provided for the current fiscal year, but projected spending would increase in following years until peaking at $567 billion in 2017. Still, Defense Department figures indicate the budget would remain largely consistent from year to year with inflation taken into account. Fiscal 2013 begins on Oct. 1 (David Cloud, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26).


The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.


“[Panetta's] announcement today is yet another indication that the president is backing off his part of the deal. Ultimately, this changes the circumstances for U.S. participation in the treaty under both Condition Nine of the New START Treaty Resolution of Ratification and language I offered in the National Defense Authorization Act for [fiscal 2012]." Turner said he would "look carefully" at the administration's spending plan for nuclear weapons activities overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration, focusing on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex and Uranium Processing Facility programs "which the president pledged to accelerate" (see related GSN stories, Dec. 19, 2011 and July 8, 2011).


"These two facilities are absolutely critical to the ability of the U.S. to maintain a credible and reliable deterrent, and they were an essential piece of the New START treaty bargain," he said. “I am also concerned about the administration’s missile defense plans," the lawmaker added (see GSN, Jan. 18). "For three years, the administration has underfunded and diverted funding from national missile defense. With rising threats from Iran, North Korea, China and others, we cannot afford the risk created by the administration’s irrational opposition to the missile defense of the United States. I hope the [fiscal 2013] budget undoes more than three years of neglect of national missile defense” (U.S. Representative Michael Turner release, Jan. 26).

 

[sferrin]

The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.

 

[bobbymike]

The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.

For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.

 

[sferrin]

The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.

For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.

I hope he's got the backing.

 

[bobbymike]

Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream

 

[sferrin]

Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream

We have a lot of former ATK employees where I work. Spoke to one of the new guys a few weeks ago and he said there are NO large solid motors of any type being made by them right now.

 

[bobbymike]

Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream

We have a lot of former ATK employees where I work. Spoke to one of the new guys a few weeks ago and he said there are NO large solid motors of any type being made by them right now.

I posted a link on the "Future ICBM and SLBM" thread a report I believe from the Defense Science Board about the solid rocket industrial base, to paraphrase, "For the first time in the last fifty years the US does not have a large strategic missile in development or production"

Apparently in the 2013 defense budget there are funds to be made available to develop something if only to keep the industrial base warm.

 

[sferrin]

Apparently in the 2013 defense budget there are funds to be made available to develop something if only to keep the industrial base warm.

They'll have to have the janators run the machines. Everybody else is either already gone or will be. Just what I hear from the people I work with is scarey as hell.

 

[bobbymike]

Russia plans in 2012 to begin assembling a line of upgraded Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, Defense and Security reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Jan. 23). Russia so far has three Borei-class submarines -- Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh -- in various preparation phases. "Next year we will lay down the lead submarine of project Borei-A, that is the improved Borei. This will be the fourth submarine of this project," said Rubin Andrei Dyachkov, who heads Russia's Sevmash shipyard and maritime hardware central design office. "The state armament program for the period until 2020 makes provisions for beginning of construction of the fifth and sixth hulls in 2012," the official said.


The Russian Defense Ministry last November finalized a deal for assembling the first Borei-A submarine, referred to informally as Svyatitel Nikolay, Dyachkov said. Moscow is expected within the first three months of this year to ink deals for constructing components of the fifth and sixth Borei vessels, he said (Sergei Safronov, Defense And Security, Feb. 1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it appears I can find almost perfectly alternating headlines;
One day - Russia to build or test or expand or deploy
Next day - US to curtail or postpone or retire or downsize or cut funding for

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Takes Critical Step Toward New Nuclear Cruise Missile Program

February 2, 2012 Inside Defense

Related Expert: Natalya Anfilofyeva

The Pentagon is taking a crucial first step toward developing a new nuclear-armed cruise missile called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, a key component of the Defense Department's plan to modernize its long-range strike capabilities and ensure it can hit targets in well-defended, hard-to-reach areas such as China and Iran/.../

Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, authored a report last year recommending ways in which the Pentagon could sustain its strategic advantage in long-range strike capabilities, including the development of a new cruise missile capable of carrying a range of warheads -- nuclear and conventional.

"A new cruise missile should have the capability to penetrate [and] survive in A2/AD environments," Gunzinger told InsideDefense.com. "An analysis of alternatives should inform decisions on specific performance attributes. Compared to a subsonic missile, supersonic and certainly hypersonic missiles can be much more expensive."

With defense budgets projected to grow more slowly over the next decade compared to previous plans, unit cost is likely to be scrutinized as the Air Force formulates a program over the next year. Tighter future defense budgets were among the reasons Gunzinger cited in saying the Defense Department should "develop a new cruise missile that could be carried by a range of platforms, not just the new bomber and possibly not just Air Force platforms."

The omission of the word "missile" from an effort to recapitalize a missile may not be significant, said Gunzinger. "If anything, the Air Force may be trying to make the point that it will look at a wide range of potential capability solutions to meet its future needs for a survivable standoff attack weapon."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take back my last post some positive news after all ;D

 

[sferrin]

Air Force Takes Critical Step Toward New Nuclear Cruise Missile Program

The Pentagon is taking a crucial first step toward developing a new nuclear-armed cruise missile called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, a key component of the Defense Department's plan to modernize its long-range strike capabilities and ensure it can hit targets in well-defended, hard-to-reach areas such as China and Iran.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take back my last post some positive news after all ;D

Hopefully it doesn't end up something like, "well, since we have no money we're going to take a performance hit and use JASSM-EX. Well, we were except we forgot how to make nuclear warheads, the W80s don't work anymore, and nobody knows how to intergrate them anyway, so we cancelled the program."

 

[aam641]

Meanwhile Russian Military Continue Massive Re-armament Russia’s Defense Ministry has released information about its weapons procurement in 2011. According to the first deputy minister Alexander Sukhorukov, the Ministry has purchased 30 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) and Yars ballistic missiles, 4 military satellites, 21 aircraft, 82 helicopters, one Stereguschiy class corvette, 8,531 military trucks and other military hardware. The total weapons procurement budget for 2011 amounted to 721.2 billion rubles (about $23 billion) including both federal budget money and government-guaranteed loans what was significantly more that in previous years, said the military official.

You are correct that Russian procurement completely dwarfs the US procurement. After all, in FY2011, US DOD only paid $137.5 billion for (at quick glance) 1 satellite, 250+ aircraft, 250+ helicopters, 6 ships, 2 subs, 9000+ tactical missiles, 100+ armoured vehicles, and 5000+ other vehicles. No contest at all.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_p1.pdf

 

[sferrin]

You are correct that Russian procurement completely dwarfs the US procurement. After all, in FY2011, US DOD only paid $137.5 billion for (at quick glance) 1 satellite, 250+ aircraft, 250+ helicopters, 6 ships, 2 subs, 9000+ tactical missiles, 100+ armoured vehicles, and 5000+ other vehicles. No contest at all.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_p1.pdf

How many of those were nuclear armed? None you say? So what was your point again?

 

[bobbymike]

Russia Might Need to Increase Nuclear Arsenal, Defense Official Says

Feb. 6, 2012


Russia might someday need to increase the size of its arsenal of nuclear weapons to counter developing dangers, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Monday (see GSN, Jan. 23). “New challenges emerge, including missile and nuclear proliferation. Look at how unstable the situation in the Middle East is. That’s why Russia’s military doctrine envisages the use of nuclear weapons in specific cases. I do not rule out than under certain circumstances we will have to boost, not cut, our nuclear arsenal,” Antonov told the Kommersant newspaper. Russia as of Sept. 1, 2011, had 1,566 nuclear warheads deployed on ICBMs, bombers and submarines, according to data released by the U.S. State Department. The New START arms control accord requires Russia and the United States by 2018 to reduce their arsenals of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems (see related GSN story, today). The Obama administration's plan for missile defense in Europe is among the dangers to Russia, Antonov said. Washington has sought to persuade Moscow to join the U.S.-NATO effort, but significant disagreements persist after more than a year of talks (see related GSN story, today). Chief among them is the Kremlin's demand for a legally binding pledge that the system would not target Russian nuclear forces. Brussels and Washington say the system is aimed at countering ballistic missile threats from the Middle East, but have rejected calls for a binding agreement.


Antonov renewed the Russian threat to withdraw from the New START pact if the missile shield dispute continues. "This is one of possible variants of our retaliation measures. We have warned about it beforehand," he said (RIA Novosti I, Feb. 6). Meanwhile, Russia intends to maintain the current duty life of third-generation strategic nuclear submarines longer than planned, RIA Novosti reported on Thursday. “The most successful projects will undergo two repairs instead of one. The subs' period of service will be extended to 30-35 years instead of the current 25,” according to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.


Extending the vessels' operational life will serve to cover Russia's strategic needs until its full fleet of eight Borei-class submarines is put to sea by 2020, Rogozin said (RIA Novosti II, Feb. 2). “On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, head of the Russian navy, said on Friday. There are now 12 Russian strategic submarines in service that are powered by atomic energy, RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti III, Feb. 4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my original concern when Russia is producing new delivery systems capable of carrying many additional warheads (SS-18 replacement, Yars, Bulava, etc.) with active warhead production lines when the US systems continue to atrophy with no active warhead production and no political will to begin any.

 

[Gridlock]

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010


Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010?

 

[bobbymike]

Lawmakers Seek $100B in U.S. Nuke Spending Cuts
Feb. 8, 2012

A U.S. Navy submarine test-launches a Trident 2 D-5 ballistic missile off the coast of Florida in 1989. Democratic lawmakers were expected on Wednesday to propose a bill intended to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons spending by $100 billion (AP Photo/Phil Sandlin).


A bill slated for submission to Congress on Wednesday aims to eliminate $100 billion in U.S. nuclear weapons spending through cuts to current and planned support facilities and delivery systems, the Boston Globe reported (see GSN, Jan. 30). U.S. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass) is leading 24 other Democratic lawmakers in pushing for the proposal, which would advise ending the use of B-2 and B-52 bombers for carrying nuclear weapons and postponing until 2023 manufacturing of a successor to the strategic planes. The policy would essentially eliminate one component of the decades-old U.S. "triad" of silo-, aircraft- and submarine-based nuclear-weapon delivery systems, according to the Globe. The legislation suggests eliminating six of the country's 14 ballistic missile submarines. Initial assembly of a future nuclear-capable submarine would be pushed back to 2023 under the proposal, and just eight of the vessels constructed.


In addition, the bill recommends scrapping plans for other nuclear weapons initiatives such as a new line of ICBMs, a nuclear capability for the F-35 fighter jet and the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee. The legislation would require the United States to maintain no fewer than 200 ICBMs and 250 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The bill is unlikely to gain the GOP political support it would need to advance through the House of Representatives, according to the Globe. Still, a number of Republicans have called for nuclear-weapon spending reductions; Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) last year proposed eliminating nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles in a plan aimed at saving $80 billion over 10 years.

Markey said his legislation was designed as an invitation to rethink the continued need for nuclear capabilities originally intended for deterring Soviet aggression (see GSN, Jan. 24). President Obama is now assessing the quantity of nuclear weapons needed to stave off aggression by present U.S. antagonists. “Many say that we need a fundamental re-evaluation of Medicare and Medicaid and the entire domestic side of government spending,” Markey said. “You never hear them talk about a fundamental re-evaluation of whether the Cold War defense budget approach makes sense any longer for the 21st century.” Nuclear stockpile reductions could free up funding for other military-related initiatives targeting more significant dangers, Markey added. “It’s better to cut unneeded submarines than Navy SEALs and better to cut nuclear bombers than unmanned drones,” the congressman said. “Which weapons are we going to be using in the 21st century?” “How many Americans know each Trident submarine has the capacity to totally destroy Russia or China?” Markey asked. “That’s each submarine, not the entire fleet.”


“What is the greater terror? That Americans will be attacked in nuclear war or they will get a call that cancer or Alzheimer’s has struck one of the members of their family,” he added. “We need to have this wider debate.” Arms control advocates voiced support for Markey's proposal. “This is not a road map to zero weapons,” said Joel Rubin, policy and government affairs head for the Ploughshares Fund. “Markey is calling for sound strategic and fiscal decision-making for our national defense.” Daryl Kimball, who heads the Arms Control Association in Washington, said the legislation "highlights some of the ways which the United States can save tens of billions of dollars in systems that are simply not required for our security.” “None of this is really radical thinking in the context of the budget environment we are in,” added Carl Conetta, who co-leads the Project on Defense Alternatives in Cambridge, Mass. “The nuclear weapons industry is huge and they are going to lobby against it, but we still have dramatic overkill in this area.”


Armed forces commanders might back such reductions, Conetta suggested. “You might get agreement among the Joint Chiefs, who might want to rescue other weapon systems” from decreases in funding, he said (Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, Jan. 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always the deception language and arguments with the "disarmacists" (my new word for the disarm America at any cost crowd) having people believe we are at "Cold War levels" of armaments, always using the "false choice" argument, "If we have nukes Grandma will get cancer" as if in a $3.9 Trillion dollar federal budget you can't fund both. the "we don't want zero nukes this is not a radical policy" meaning let's make those who want to keep the current force structure seem "radical and out of touch". The argument that the opposition wants to cut Medicare but not nukes as if Medicare has been cut and nuclear weapons have not.

Of course the disarmacists want zero nukes they have been making the same argument for the entirety of the Cold War, do they think we forget the nuclear freeze movement and their opposition to every nuclear weapon system for the past 50+ years even at the height of the Cold War when SS-18s, 17s, Typhoons, etc were rolling off the assembly lines.

The US has MASSIVELY reduced its' Cold War arsenal from over 12,000 deployed strategic warheads to soon to have 1550 under New Start. IMHO It is time to say no further.

 

[GeorgeA]

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about this particular proposal, Bobby. He's attempting to slay all the sacred cows at once.

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon Seeks $25 Billion for Strategic Nuclear Efforts Through 2017
Feb. 14, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire


The US Defense Department has budgeted more than $25 billion for strategic nuclear weapon programs between fiscal 2013 and 2017, according to budget documents released on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 13). The funds are largely to pay for maintenance and upgrades to existing nuclear-capable aircraft, ships and missiles. It does not appear to include research and development funds for a number of major new nuclear platforms, including an additional $6.3 billion for a new bomber aircraft and $5.5 billion for a future submarine over the same five-year period. Nor do the so-called “strategic deterrence” budget figures include the money used for operating today’s nuclear triad. The Air Force alone, for example, will spend $5.1 billion in fiscal 2013 for operations and training on bomber aircraft and ICBMs, according to a service budget overview. The plans are all part of a $525.4 billion budget request that the Obama administration has sent to Congress for Defense Department expenditures in 2013, excluding funds to be spent on overseas operations. Of the total $25.1 billion to be spent on the strategic deterrence programs over the next five years, $2.7 billion is budgeted for fiscal 2013, which begins on Oct. 1. Nearly $3 billion spread across the total five-year plan is intended to support nuclear weapon and naval reactor efforts by the National Nuclear Security Agency, a semiautonomous arm of the Energy Department, according to a half-inch thick Pentagon budget overview document. Other projects to be funded during that time frame include a life-extension program for the B-61 bomb warhead, which will undergo a two-year schedule slip; an Analysis of Alternatives for the Long-Range Stand-Off missile, slated to replace today’s Air-Launched Cruise Missile; a life-extension effort for the Trident D-5 ballistic missile fielded aboard the Navy’s Ohio-class submarines; and sustainment of the Air Force Minuteman 3 ICBM.

The Pentagon said in a new “strategic guidance” issued last month that it intended to reduce the nation’s reliance on nuclear weapons relative to conventional forces, as defense officials crafted their program and budget plans for fiscal 2013 and subsequent years (see GSN, Jan. 6). However, at a press conference on Monday, the Pentagon’s top financial official, Comptroller Robert Hale, could not point to efforts aimed at implementing this policy shift during the next fiscal year. “We fully support all three legs of the triad in this budget, and are making investments in all of them,” Hale said. The comptroller mentioned a previously announced two-year schedule delay for developing the Navy’s future ballistic missile submarine, but noted that the program restructuring was based mainly on affordability concerns. “I believe that we are continuing full support for the nuclear triad in this budget,” Hale told reporters. To meet a congressional budget-cutting mandate enacted last year, the Defense Department has trimmed back $259 billion in its five-year plan and a total of $487 billion in reductions over the next decade. The Navy’s future ballistic-missile submarine, known as the SSBN(X), is one among several programs altered to meet those reduction targets. Under the new budget plan, the Pentagon intends to delay first delivery of the Ohio-class replacement submarine to 2029, and the vessel is to become operational by 2031, service officials said this week. The Ohio-class vessels begin reaching the end of their service lives in fiscal 2027.


The Navy in 2010 told Congress that the Ohio-class “replacements must start reaching the operational force by [fiscal] 2029. There is no leeway in this plan to allow a later start or any delay in the procurement plan,” according to a Congressional Research Service report issued last year. “The implication from this statement is that deferring the procurement of one or more SSBN(X)s … would result in an SSBN force that drops below 12 boats for some period of time,” CRS analyst Ronald O’Rourke stated in his 2011 report.


It is unclear whether that assessment of force structure implications has changed, but Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter last month said the newly planned delay would reduce schedule risk in what had previously been an “aggressive” developmental plan.


“The department determined that it is a manageable risk to delay SSBN(X) development by two years,” the new budget overview states. The move will allow the Pentagon to save $600 million in fiscal 2013 and a total of $4.3 billion by 2017, according to the document. The Navy has allotted $565 million in its 2013 budget for R&D on the Ohio-class replacement submarines, the service said in an outline of its programmatic highlights. Under prior plans, the Navy would have begun advance procurement spending in fiscal 2015 to start building the first SSBN(X) submarine; under the schedule slip, those initial funds will be spent in 2017, Rear Adm. Joseph Mulloy, the deputy assistant Navy secretary for budget matters, told reporters at a service briefing. Full procurement for the first ship will now be budgeted in 2021 instead of 2019, he said. The Pentagon appears to be signaling that it intends to continue a cost-conscious approach to development and procurement of the future submarine. “Program managers must demonstrate affordability before granting milestone authority to proceed with the program,” according to the defense budget overview publication. “Understanding and controlling future costs from a program’s inception is critical to achieving affordability requirements.” The Navy said in briefing slides that fiscal 2012 would be the last year in which the service is buying Trident D-5 ballistic missiles, with a total 108 missiles being procured this year. The nuclear-armed weapons are currently deployed on Ohio-class submarines and are also intended for initial fielding aboard the future SSBN(X) vessels. Into the future, the service will procure only “necessary [D-5] components to support Ohio-class missions,” according to a Navy budget document. A separate service document adds these details: “Continued investment is required to ensure that all Ohio class submarines will deploy fully loaded, while guaranteeing sufficient inventory exists for periodic required test launches into the 2040s. The D-5 weapons system will also be the initial weapons system utilized by the Ohio class replacement.” Navy officials would also like to eventually design a new nuclear-armed ballistic missile to replace the D-5 on the SSBN(X) submarines. New development efforts in 2013 include a Navy bid to increase the conventional Tomahawk cruise missile capacity of its Virginia-class attack submarines at a cost of $100 million in 2013. Two new launch tubes, each accommodating six Tomahawks, will be installed in the undersea vessels. Mulloy, the Navy budget leader, said an additional price tag for developing a medium-range ballistic missile capability on the same attack submarines would not be known until later, when the Office of the Secretary of Defense apportions conventional “prompt global strike” funds among the three services (see GSN, Jan. 27).


The Defense Department is also moving ahead with plans to develop a new nuclear-capable strategic bomber, which it revealed Monday has an estimated average procurement cost of $550 million for each of 80 to 100 aircraft, measured in 2010 dollars. The budget overview document appears to hint that the bomber’s unit cost -- which does not account for billions of dollars to be spent up front for research and development -- would have been even higher under previous Air Force plans. “The new bomber will not need the same capabilities that were planned for the previous Next Generation Bomber,” states the text, adding that the aircraft “will incorporate many subsystems (engines, radars, other avionics) and technologies that are already proven.” The Air Force 2013 budget includes $300 million for R&D on the new bomber, part of a five-year spending plan for the project totaling $6.3 billion, according to the Pentagon documents. The service also said in its own newly released spending publications that it plans in next year’s budget to fund work on a new communications system for its B-2 bomber and increase the precision weapon capabilities for the B-52 bomber.


Additionally, the Air Force intends to launch a formal Analysis of Alternatives for its future ICBM in fiscal 2013, building on preliminary studies completed last year (see GSN, Feb. 10). Air Force budget deputy Marilyn Thomas said on Monday that $11.7 million would be spent on the major review of options for replacing the Minuteman 3 fleet with a next-generation system. The U.S. arsenal of 450 Minuteman 3s -- which is to shrink to no more than 420 ICBMs under last year’s New START arms control pact -- is slated for retirement in 2030. Fiscal year 2014 funds for continuing the Analysis of Alternatives total $9.4 million, according to new Air Force documents delivered to Capitol Hill. Once complete, the study will allow the Pentagon to recommend to the president how today’s Minuteman 3 force should be replaced. The service also plans to build on its existing efforts to design a new nuclear cruise missile to replace those fielded on today’s bomber aircraft. The Defense Department has estimated the new-design weapon could cost roughly $1.3 billion (see GSN, March 9, 2010). “A study for the future long-range standoff (LRSO) weapon, the Air Launched Cruise Missile follow-on, is also under way,” the Air Force states in its budget overview publication. The service included $2 million for this R&D effort in its 2013 budget.

 

[bobbymike]

Russia Expects Next Nuclear Bomber by 2030 Feb. 14, 2012

Russia has announced plans to prepare within two decades a next-generation bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to targets, Interfax reported on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 6). "We are developing an advanced long-range aviation system and we have entered the stage of project tender. I think we will inform the General Staff chief and defense minister in February about the advanced aircraft which is to be developed and to join the new and upgraded air force in the 2030s," Russian air force commander Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said "Among the main state tasks that the command of the air force's long-range aviation tackles, is that of being part of the Russian strategic nuclear deterrence forces," Zelin added. "This question is in the focus of attention and we have been dealing with this problem substantively and in detail. Everything that has to do with strategic aviation is of priority importance in the development of the air force and is not to be reviewed" (Interfax, Feb. 13). Moscow intends by the end of this decade to switch out its Su-24 bomber aircraft for Su-34 planes, ITAR-Tass reported. Zelin described the plan in responding to a query by ARMS-Tass on a crash of an Su-24 jet. The Russian air force now holds 124 Su-24 planes, he said; the service expects this year to receive 10 Su-34 aircraft (ITAR-Tass, Feb. 14). Meanwhile, Russia's Defense Ministry could move to acquire as many as 20 Borei- and Yasen-class class submarines by the end of the decade, the Xinhua News Agency quoted General Staff chief Gen. Nikolai Makarov as saying on Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 10). Makarov said his country's military modernization plan calls for procuring 16 of the vessels. "If such an opportunity appears, we will order two couples of Borei 955 and Yasen 855 submarines additionally," he said (Xinhua News Agency, Feb. 14).

 

[RyanC]

Link

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons. No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

...

Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

 

[bobbymike]

Link

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons. No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

...

Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

So in my travels around the internet I have posted and posited on many sights that the goal is unilateral disarmament, to which most responses are "you're crazy never happen" :

 

[sublight]

Even some of the top Air Force researchers are bolstering the argument for a smaller nuke force. http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2010/spring/forsythsaltzmanschaub.pdf
Maintaining the nuke force is extremely expensive and slimming it down would pave the way for acquiring a larger arsenal of exotic strike/prompt strike weapons.

 

[sferrin]

"Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon."

Gotta love it. All hail Emperor Obama.

 

[bobbymike]

"Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon."

Gotta love it. All hail Emperor Obama.

Shouldn't we create the war plan FIRST before you decide on the levels of weapons? I suspect if a new comprehensive war plan was completed covering all contingencies from Russia to China to North Korea to India/Pakistan to Iran, etc it would actually show we need MORE WEAPONS! And God help us cause that report would never see the light of day.

Also nuclear weapons are not "extremely expensive" and do you think the so-called exotic strike weapons you envision replacing them would be less expensive?

At the end of the Cold War when Bush 41 cancelled basically all nuke weapons and delivery system programs I put a lot of this on him because with a Republican WWII hero and the President during Desert Storm doing the disarming/cancelling the proponents of continued modernization no longer could find any political support on either side of the aisle. In fact during the term of Bush 43 all his proposals for modernization for "Advanced Concept Development of warheads to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrater were voted down with help from Republicans in Congress.

I predicted that if we did not adequately communicate the importance of the nuclear deterrent mission we would be overwhelmed by activists calling for reduction after reduction until we were basically [effectively] no longer a nuclear power. From 12,000 warheads to 6000 to 4000 to 2200-1700 to 1550 maybe now down to 300 the disarmacists have not changed their tactics, "We have too many, they are too expensive"

If we ever get down to 300 weapons I predict on these pages they will begin to say, "Well we only have 300 warheads what good are they really?" Which of course they may not have to do because there will be no more weapons work and definitely no weapons scientists left to build weapons anyway.

Most Superpowers aren't killed they commit suicide.

 

[sferrin]

Most Superpowers aren't killed they commit suicide.

The way I see it, we already had the rope around our neck, Zero kicked the chair out, and now we're waiting for the inevitable.

 

[sublight]

Also nuclear weapons are not "extremely expensive" and do you think the so-called exotic strike weapons you envision replacing them would be less expensive?

They are an order of magnitude more expensive to secure and maintain. A nuke has a spectacular security array surrounding it compared to its conventional counterpart. And since we cant go testing our nukes any more, we have billions of dollars in supercomputers (at Sandia labs) that do nothing but nuke simulations to see how they are aging and what effects it might have on them and related components.

However I agree the war plan should dictate the level of nukes, but they'll certainly never have that out there for scrutiny. And what of the possibility of a classified "next gen" weapon? They certainly wouldn't announce it to allay fears of a shrinking nuke force.

 

[bobbymike]

Putin Vows to Pursue Enormous Military Rearmament Campaign

Feb. 21, 2012


Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has vowed if re-elected to the presidency to pursue the largest arms buildup the country has experienced since the end of the Cold War, the Christian Science Monitor reported on Monday (see GSN, Feb. 17). Putin in the latest article laying out his presidential objectives said over the next 10 years he would allocate $772 billion to replenishing Russia's armed forces. That would include acquisition of 400 new ICBMs and eight strategic ballistic missile submarines.

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Air Force Plans Two-Year Delay in Developing New Cruise Missile

Feb. 24, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force now plans a two-year delay in the development of a new $1.3 billion weapon to replace today’s nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile aboard bomber aircraft, according to budget documents submitted to Congress last week (see GSN, Feb. 14). Under current plans, the service in fiscal 2013 would spend $2 million to continue work on a secret “Analysis of Alternatives” that weighs various technological options for the new missile, called the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon or “LRSO” for short. However, the “LRSO program start [is] delayed two years,” the Air Force states in newly released charts on research and development funding. The service will save $39.4 million in its five-year budget plan by postponing the beginning of the cruise missile’s technology development phase from fiscal 2013 to 2015, according to the documents.

 

[sferrin]

U.S. Air Force Plans Two-Year Delay in Developing New Cruise Missile

Feb. 24, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force now plans a two-year delay in the development of a new $1.3 billion weapon to replace today’s nuclear-capable Air Launched Cruise Missile aboard bomber aircraft, according to budget documents submitted to Congress last week (see GSN, Feb. 14). Under current plans, the service in fiscal 2013 would spend $2 million to continue work on a secret “Analysis of Alternatives” that weighs various technological options for the new missile, called the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon or “LRSO” for short. However, the “LRSO program start [is] delayed two years,” the Air Force states in newly released charts on research and development funding. The service will save $39.4 million in its five-year budget plan by postponing the beginning of the cruise missile’s technology development phase from fiscal 2013 to 2015, according to the documents.

Well that didn't take long. What's it been, weeks, since the announcement of the program? Give it a month or two and we'll see the "basing it on JASSM" announcement followed shortly thereafter by cancellation.

 

[bobbymike]

It would be interesting to for three officers to hold a press conference where their assigned roles are:

1) Announce new program
2) Announce it has been delayed
3) Announce it has been cancelled

 

[bobbymike]

Modernize or Fall Behind:


While the United States is reducing the size of its nuclear arsenal, Russia and China are modernizing and developing their own strategic forces, according to Air Force Global Strike command boss Lt. Gen. James Kowalski. "It should be clear that other nuclear powers do not necessarily see [New START] as a tipping point on the way to zero nuclear weapons," he said in his address at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 24. "Russia and China are committed to near-term and long-term modernization of their nuclear forces and have active production lines,” he explained. "In contrast, our nation has enjoyed an extended procurement holiday as we've deferred robust modernization of our nuclear deterrent for almost 20 years." Within the limits of New START—a US-Russian treaty reducing each side's strategic nuclear forces—Russia is modernizing its TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and ICBM fleets as well as "fielding a new air-launched cruise missile" and developing a new heavy ICBM, ballistic-missile-class submarine, and sea-launched ballistic missile, noted Kowalski. "We have lost robustness and diversity," he said, but "by modernizing across our triad . . . we can achieve our goal of reducing nuclear weapons" while managing the inherent risk of a smaller arsenal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My title for this article would be: Modernize Now We Are Already Behind

 

[bobbymike]

Robo Defenders:

The 90th Missile Wing installed a network of remotely controlled machine guns to defend locations vital to the Minuteman III ICBM mission at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo. Mounted in an armored turret, the Remote Targeting Engagement System's 7.62 mm M-240 machine guns are controlled from a central command center. "The RTES is a system that keeps our people out of harm's way, while still being able to engage the enemy," said TSgt. Michael Firos, RTES non-commissioned officer in charge with the 90th Security Forces Squadron. When potential threats breach a perimeter, security forces identify intruders using barrel-mounted infrared and wide-angle cameras. Using the weapon's sniper-style optical scope, security forces can engage targets using a touchscreen and controller. Though remotely controlled, "the weapon still recoils," explained intrusion detection specialist SSgt. Ryan Nelson. He added, "there is no question as to the reality of what you're shooting at." (Warren report by SSgt. Torri Savarese)