Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[bobbymike]

https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/05/09/us-officials-to-decide-future-of-nuclear-weapons-work/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The federal agency that oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile is expected this week to release a report on the best option for the United States as it looks to ramp up production of the plutonium cores that trigger nuclear warheads.

At stake are hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars in federal funding that would be needed to either revamp existing buildings or construct new factories to support the work.

New Mexico’s U.S. senators have been pushing to keep the work at Los Alamos National Laboratory — the northern New Mexico site where the atomic bomb was developed decades ago.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/hasc-kicks-around-trumps-nuclear-plan-approves-it-along-party-lines/

CAPITOL HILL: The House Armed Services Committee voted to approve the Trump administration’s initiative to develop new sea-based nuclear cruise missiles — the so-called low-yield ballistic missiles capable of being launched from submarines.

The plan was unveiled in the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review released earlier this year, and caused sharp debate during the committee’s annual markup hearing for the 2019 defense budget and policy bill on Wednesday.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/aged-us-nuclear-stockpile-and-infrastructure-must-evolve-address-21st-century

The United States’ nuclear weapons infrastructure is in dire need of modernization to address emerging challenges.

The U.S. has not produced a new nuclear warhead in 30 years and is unlikely to be able to do so within a time frame to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

The U.S. approach to its stockpile and infrastructure must evolve so that it can continue to fulfill its deterrence and assurance roles.

 

[bobbymike]

Old new but interesting

https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/05/inside-the-secret-cities-that-created-the-atomic-bomb/559601/

Built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at rapid speed beginning in 1942, the instant wartime cities of Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford/Richland, Washington; and Los Alamos, New Mexico, revolved around military research. They held laboratories and sprawling industrial plants, but also residential neighborhoods, schools, churches, and stores—war workers had personal lives and families, after all. At their peak in 1945, the three cities had a combined population of more than 125,000.

Their research facilities later morphed into national laboratories. But during the war, none of the cities appeared on any maps: They were the top-secret centers of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. military’s initiative to develop nuclear weapons before the Nazis got there first. The project achieved bitter success in August 1945, when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, instantly killing 150,000 people. Japan surrendered several days later, effectively ending the war, although historians still disagree about whether the use of nuclear weapons hastened the end.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2018/05/09/mattis-defends-trump-administrations-call-low-yield-nuclear-weapons

Defense Secretary James Mattis called Moscow’s strategy of threatening to use low-yield nuclear weapons to get its way “bellicose and cavalier,” and he said the administration’s plan to develop America’s own low-yield nuclear weapons and deploy them on submarines would checkmate the Kremlin.

Mattis, speaking to the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee Wednesday, said having a stash of low-yield nuclear weapons would negate Russia’s plan to “escalate to de-escalate” tense confrontations in its favor. As matters stand now, he reminded the subcommittee, the United States’ only nuclear response to a low-yield first strike by Russia would be with high-yield weapons, which would lead Russia to respond with similar weapons – with the result being catastrophic for both nations and the world.

He added that the idea behind the U.S. move to develop low-yield nuclear weapons “is making sure our deterrent is fit for its time.”

https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/joint-statement-ellen-m-lord-and-lisa-e-gordon-hagerty-recapitalization-plutonium-pit

WASHINGTON – An evolving and uncertain geopolitical landscape calls for the United States to recapitalize its defense plutonium capabilities. The Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) has certified that the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) recommended alternative for recapitalization of these capabilities is acceptable and represents a resilient and responsive option to meet Department of Defense (DoD) requirements.

To achieve DoD’s 80 pits per year requirement by 2030, NNSA’s recommended alternative repurposes the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to produce plutonium pits while also maximizing pit production activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. This two-prong approach – with at least 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos – is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking. Furthermore, by maintaining Los Alamos as the Nation’s Plutonium Center of Excellence for Research and Development, the recommended alternative improves the resiliency, flexibility, and redundancy of our Nuclear Security Enterprise by not relying on a single production site.

 

[bobbymike]

Weapons Engineering and Experiments (ADW) Capability Overview

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-18-20926

Nukes in the Post-Cold War Era A View of the World from Inside the US
Nuclear Weapons Program

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-18-20950

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/16/pivot_with_a_nuclear_edge_low_yield_in_the_scs_113453.html

The much vaunted, U.S. “Pivot to Asia” was launched by the Obama administration in 2011. It was intended to deter China’s challenge to U.S. leadership and curb Chinese coercion in the South China Sea. The idea was sound, but the problem was lack of any real implementation. Aside from a symbolic deployment of U.S. Marines to Darwin, the Pivot failed, as discussed by Hugh White in his Quarterly Essay piece, “Without America.” China continued to systematically militarise and fortify the Spratly Islands, and in May 2018 there were reports that China had deployed land based anti-ship cruise missiles (YJ-12B) and long-range surface to air missiles (HQ-9B) to three islands within the chain.

This effectively means that China now can close the South China Sea if it chooses to and significantly affects the global economy. Approximately $3.4 trillion of trade passes through the South China Sea annually. It’s a major global trade route and China’s recent deployments of anti-ship cruise missiles and surface to air missiles in combination with the range of the DF-21D ‘carrier killer’ ballistic missile provides significant Area Denial Anti-Access (A2/AD) capability. In the case of war, any surface naval vessels including aircraft carriers veering within the range of these weapon systems run a huge risk of being sunk. Even with the Aegis missile defense umbrella in place, the targets face the prospect of being overwhelmed with multiple cruise missiles. So how does the U.S. combat this problem that has entrenched itself as a major trade chokepoint? Enter the low yield tactical nuclear option.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/18/the_necessary_us_response_to_russias_nuclear_doctrine_113462.html

After decades of neglect, the decline of the United States’ nuclear arsenal is being addressed by the Pentagon. This is driven in large measure by the growth and modernization of the Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals. Their nuclear doctrines are salient as well. While Chinese nuclear doctrine remains deliberately opaque—which is, in itself, worrisome and a threat to strategic stability—Russian doctrine and statements from officials have emphasized the need to maintain their nuclear arsenal and evinced a willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180518a/full/

A partially completed, billions-over-budget facility for transforming surplus weapons plutonium into fuel for commercial reactors will be repurposed to manufacture plutonium cores for nuclear weapons, the US Departments of Energy and Defense announced on 10 May. Under the new plan, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina will produce more than half of the 80 plutonium pits per year that the agencies have said will be needed for the nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), which had previously been designated as the sole pit production facility, will be responsible for fabricating at least 30 pits annually.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2018/05/17/applying_039tailored_deterrence039_302077.html

Introduction: On Deterrence

Carl von Clausewitz writes that the nature of war has enduring continuities, but its characteristics change with different circumstances. Similarly, the fundamental nature of deterrence has endured for millennia: a threatened response to an adversary’s prospective provocation causes that adversary to decide against the provocation i.e., the adversary is deterred from attack because it decides that the prospective costs would outweigh the gains. Effective deterrence shapes the calculations and thus the decision making of an adversary in a more benign direction than otherwise would have been the case.

While this threat-based nature of deterrence endures, its character must adapt to different circumstances. Numerous factors can necessitate adapting a deterrence strategy for greatest effect, including the character, attention, and health of the adversary, the deterrence goal, the historical and cultural contexts, and the available channels of communication, inter alia.

 

[bobbymike]

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/navy-looks-outside-budget-to-help-build-new-boomers/

WASHINGTON: The Navy is finally getting the funding it has sought to push production of its next-generation Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. But in a move that has raised some eyebrows, hundreds of millions of dollars for the program are not coming from the Navy budget, a situation that could become the new normal amid continuing budget uncertainty.

Navy leadership has said the Columbia program, which will include 12 nuclear-powered boats to replace the aging Ohio-class SSBNs currently in service, is one of their top priorities to stay ahead of Russian and Chinese sub-building booms, and grow the overall attack sub fleet from the current 52 to 66 by the 2040s.

But money is a major problem. With a host of expensive of modernization priorities like building multiple attacks submarines per year, getting the first four Ford-class carriers out of the shipyards, and buying more F-35s, the Navy is looking for help.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-pentagon-is-seeking-money-for-a-new-nuclear-weapon-congress-should-be-skeptical/2018/05/18/d13fe766-59e4-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?utm_term=.eaaa7310d60c

Top Pentagon officials are telling some pretty tall tales in seeking congressional support for a new, low-yield, nuclear warhead to put on a long-range, submarine-launched ballistic missile.

Gen. John E. Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, gave the most unusual rationale when he testified on March 20 before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The stated purpose of this new weapon is to deter the Russians from using any of their low-yield nuclear weapons — something Russian President Vladimir Putin has often threatened to do if he ever found himself being overwhelmed by NATO conventional forces, presumably in Western Europe.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/05/23/in_defense_of_the_low_yield_nuclear_trident_missile_113476.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=13ac943da3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-13ac943da3-81812733

Why do states go to war? Obviously there is no mechanical formula where if factors x, y, and z are present – then war is certain. Individual leadership personalities, the anarchic international system, the structure of political incentives, and multiple other theories are plausible answers to the question; but one misconception remains popular today: weapons cause war.

As strategist Colin Gray (who according to Secretary of Defense Mattis is “the most near-faultless strategist alive today”) has expounded upon at length, the amount and sophistication of a state’s arms are properly categorized as the effect, not the primary cause of war. “States do not fight because they are heavily armed; rather they are heavily armed because they judge war to be a serious possibility.”

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syuZA0r_blM

 

[bobbymike]

MOSCOW, May 21. /TASS/. Project 955B Borei-B strategic nuclear-powered submarines have stayed outside Russia’s state armament program for 2018-2027 and after 2023 Russia will build six more Project 955A Borei-A subs, a source in the domestic defense sector told TASS on Monday.

As was reported earlier, work on the conceptual design of the improved Project 955B submarines with the new water jet propulsion system and onboard equipment was expected to begin from 2018. Their development was included in the draft state armaments program and a series of four such submarines was planned to be built.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1005356

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/22/democrats-fight-pentagon-push-for-battlefield-nukes/

WASHINGTON — House Democrats are fighting on multiple fronts to block the Trump administration from developing a new tactical nuclear weapon, and the debate threatens to turn into a partisan fight on the House floor.

House Armed Services Committee Democrats broadly backed a failed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this month that would have stripped the bill’s proposed sea-launched, low-yield nuclear warhead.

Democrats have not given up and since proposed multiple NDAA amendments that are hostile to the weapons. The bill is set to be considered on the House floor this week, and on Tuesday, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, of Washington, said the fight isn’t over.

“I wouldn’t even describe it as unease. We are inalterably opposed to it,” Smith told reporters, adding that low-yield nukes are “a mistake.”

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/23/house-rejects-limit-on-new-nuclear-warhead/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Wednesday shot down a proposed limit on the Trump administration’s pursuit of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

It was among several amendments to the House draft of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that were voted down Wednesday afternoon. Of the 558 amendments filed for the NDAA debate this week, the House Rules Committee made in order 271 of them and the House voted to adopt 98 of them Tuesday night.

The rejected amendment would have fenced half the 2019 funding for low-yield nuclear warhead development in lieu of an assessment of its impact on strategic stability and options to reduce the risk of miscalculation. Reps. Jim Garamendi, D-Calif., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., sponsored it.

 

[Flyaway]

Video of the quadruple Bulava launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUdIUdouLv0

More info: http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/05/four-missile_salvo_launch_of_b.shtml

 

[Flyaway]

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (GT-224GM) was launched from LF-04 at Vandenberg AFB at 01:23 PDT on May 14.
More info:
https://thedefensepost.com/2018/05/14/us-tests-minuteman-icbm-nuclear-missile-may/
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article211136069.html

 

[sferrin]

Video of the quadruple Bulava launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUdIUdouLv0

More info: http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/05/four-missile_salvo_launch_of_b.shtml

See post three posts before yours.

 

[Flyaway]

Video of the quadruple Bulava launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUdIUdouLv0

More info: http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/05/four-missile_salvo_launch_of_b.shtml

See post three posts before yours.

Mine was the original Russian source I believe.

 

[bobbymike]

Underground nuclear test document

http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-18-24015

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-28/china-accelerates-next-gen-nuclear-weapons-development-compete-us-russia

As we have been documenting over the last year and beyond, China is rapidly modernizing its military; unveiling a new stealth bomber, an array of guided-weapons, and deploying further from home. Their most recent focus has been on next generation nuclear weapons - as Beijing ramps up blast experiments for nukes comprised of smaller, smarter warheads designed to limit damage by targeting specific targets, according to the South China Morning Post.

Between September 2014 and last December, China carried out around 200 laboratory experiments to simulate the extreme physics of a nuclear blast, the China Academy of Engineering Physics reported in a document released by the government earlier this year and reviewed by the South China Morning Post this month.

In comparison, the US carried out only 50 such tests between 2012 and 2017 – or about 10 a year – according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. -SCMP

China's development of next gen nukes will put them in direct competition with the United States and Russia, sparking concerns by experts over the prospect of a new cold war arms race that has the potential of boiling over into thermonuclear war.

Of primary concern is the notion that nations possessing smaller, targeted nukes might be more inclined to use them vs. larger and more devastating munitions - which could easily lead down the slippery slope of larger nuclear exchanges.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.cnas.org/publications/podcast/dr-brad-roberts-talks-nuclear-deterrence-and-strategic-fluency?token=ETH29gxqSzFu6ViDN2WOgRVpPHxxGoBG

Dr. Brad Roberts, the Director for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, joins Julie Smith and Jim Townsend to discuss NATO’s nuclear deterrence capabilities, the space domain, and the North Korean nuclear issue.

 

[bobbymike]

A little more detail

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/28/china-nuclear-arms-race-610028

China is aggressively developing its next generation of nuclear weapons, conducting an average of five tests a month to simulate nuclear blasts, according to a major Chinese weapons research institute.

Its number of simulated tests has in recent years outpaced that of the United States, which conducts them less than once a month on average.

Between September 2014 and last December, China carried out around 200 laboratory experiments to simulate the extreme physics of a nuclear blast, the China Academy of Engineering Physics reported in a document released by the government earlier this year and reviewed by the South China Morning Post this month.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/06/01/new-nuclear-warhead-still-under-fire-from-democrats/

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats have failed in several attempts to hinder the Trump administration’s plan to expand America’s nuclear arsenal with a low-yield nuclear weapon, but four of them are poised to take another shot.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed an amendment to the 2019 Energy and Water appropriations bill, up for floor debate next week, that would strip the weapon’s funding. The $44.7 billion bill includes annual funding for nuclear weapons and is $8.17 billion more than the president’s budget request.

Lee’s amendment would cut all $65 million for the W76-2 warhead and transfer it to defense nuclear nonproliferation account. That amendment to the bill, one of 50 lawmakers have offered as of Friday morning, must clear the House Rules Committee before it can receive floor consideration.

The Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review calls for two nuclear designs: a low-yield variant of the W76 on Trident II missiles aboard America’s nuclear submarines and a potential new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.

The systems are supposed to deter Russia from using its own arsenal of low-yield nuclear weapons, but opponents see it as easing the path to nuclear war.

House Democrats have been unable to overcome Republican majorities in recent attempts.

Less than two weeks ago, a weaker amendment to fence half the W76-2 funding in lieu on a report was debated and defeated in a mostly partly line vote, 188-226. Its sponsors — Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and John Garamendi, D-Calif., have joined with Lee and Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich.

 

[bobbymike]

How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE296.html

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/July%202018/Cruise-Missile-Controversy.aspx

The Long-Range Standoff weapon, or LRSO, is arguably the most controversial element of the Air Force’s strategic modernization plan. While there’s general—though frequently grudging—bipartisan congressional support for replacing most of the geriatric nuclear deterrence enterprise, there’s rather less enthusiasm for LRSO, a stealthy cruise missile that would be launched from B-52 bombers far outside enemy defenses or from B-21 stealth bombers that have penetrated enemy airspace.

The criticisms revolve around the weapon’s cost, whether it’s needed, and its potential to be “destabilizing.”

The Air Force has said relatively little about LRSO, explaining that it wants to keep adversaries guessing about its capabilities and technologies. Last summer, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon each received $900 million contracts to develop competing designs for the weapon, which will succeed the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and, indirectly, the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM).

 

[bobbymike]

https://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/low-yield-warhead

A couple of weeks ago, we noted that the Senate Armed Services Committee was about to get its chance to consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which in its current form includes $88 million in funding for a new, lower-yield warhead for the Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), designated the W76-2. At the time, the House Armed Services Committee had voted, along party lines, to reject an amendment that would have eliminated funding for the new warhead.

An unarmed Trident II D5 missile launches from the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska, These missiles currently carry W76 and W88 warheads with yields of 100 kilotons and 455 kilotons, respectively. The proposed W76-2 warhead would reportedly have a yield in the range of 6.5 kilotons.

Plans for the new lower-yield warhead have drawn criticism from many quarters, including a number of prominent former officials and military leaders, who collectively sent a letter to Congress asking that it not fund the program. The letter, signed by former defense secretary William Perry, former secretary of state George Shultz, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright (Ret.), and former head of the National Defense University Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (Ret.), among others, calls the new warhead “dangerous, unjustified, and redundant.” The signers say that “the greatest concern…

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-missiles-ai-insight/deep-in-the-pentagon-a-secret-ai-program-to-find-hidden-nuclear-missiles-idUSKCN1J114J

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military is increasing spending on a secret research effort to use artificial intelligence to help anticipate the launch of a nuclear-capable missile, as well as track and target mobile launchers in North Korea and elsewhere.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/06/05/pentagon-completes-draft-plans-for-new-low-yield-sea-launched-nuclear-weapon.html

The Pentagon has completed initial draft plans for several emerging low-yield sea-launched nuclear weapons intended to deter potential attackers and add new precision strike options to those currently possible with the existing arsenal.

While final requirements for both a low-yield sea-launched nuclear cruise missile and long-range sub-launched low-yield warhead are still in development, Pentagon officials tell Warrior Maven the process has taken several substantial new steps forward.

“The Nuclear Weapons Council has met and approved the draft plan moving forward. The NWC agreed to allow the National Nuclear Security Administration to begin developing scope, schedule and costs for this activity,” Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza, Pentagon spokeswoman, told Warrior Maven.

Citing the administrations Nuclear Posture Review released earlier this year, Baldanza said a new set of identified “low yield requirements” is “currently being used as the basis for initial study work and as the baseline for the program.”

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/06/06/partisan-battle-for-new-tactical-nuke-looms-in-senate/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_medium=social

WASHINGTON — Democrats want to take their fight against the Trump administration’s planned a new low-yield tactical nuclear weapon to the Senate‘s annual defense policy bill.

It’s the latest flashpoint in a partisan divide over whether to pursue a new, tactical submarine-launched nuclear missile. The Pentagon and others advocate for the systems to deter Russia from using its own arsenal of low-yield nuclear weapons, but opponents see it as lowering the threshold for a nuclear war.

The Senate Armed Services Committee began debate on its $716 billion annual defense policy bill Wednesday, which contains a provision removing restrictions on the U.S. development or deployment of such a weapon without congressional authorization. The bill would grant the energy secretary new authority to carry out the weapon’s energy development phase, or any subsequent phase, without Congress’ specific approval.

Democrats plan to offer an amendment to preserve congressional oversight, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a floor speech Wednesday. Reed is among lawmakers who crafted the restrictions in 2003.

“I have spent countless hours [on the issue], and I’m not alone,” Reed said. “My colleagues on the committee and many members of this Senate have spent hours thinking about the issues that are caused by these proposals. I’m concerned that we have not fully grasped all the complex implications. Indeed, there is an honest disagreement among experts in the field on this issue.”

 

[sferrin]

Chinese DF-41 ICBM Close to Commissioning

The American website Washington Free Beacon published an article on June 5 saying that China recently completed the 10th flying test of the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), marking a substantial step forward for the actual deployment of China's latest and most powerful strategic weapon.

An official from the U.S. Department of Defense said that the DF-41 missile was launched from Taiyuan City of northern China's Shanxi Province on May 27, 2018, and travelled thousands of miles before it hit a simulated target in western China's Gobi desert.

The article said that China issued a flight notice that day that designated a no-fly zone in the northwest airspace, same as when it test-flew the DF-41 last year.

"We noticed the latest flying test and will continue to pay attention to China's weapon development, but we won't disclose any specific information about this test," said Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Logan, spokesperson of the Pentagon.

American media reported that the last test shooting of the DF-41 missile happened on November 6 last year and this was the 10th test flight, and it is expected to be commissioned in 2018.

As one of China's most powerful strategic weapons, the DF-41 missile system has a shooting range of more than 7,500 miles and is able to carry more than ten Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV), American media reported.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/193846/china%E2%80%99s-df_41-icbm-close-to-entering-service.html


And it's mobile.

 

[sferrin]

China’s New Multi-Warhead ICBM Among World’s Most Advanced Missiles

"China’s new multi-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) Dongfeng-41 is among the world’s most advanced missiles, military expert Shao Yongling recently told People’s Daily Online.

The photo circulating on the internet shows equipment suspected to be Dongfeng-41

According to foreign media, officials from the U.S. Department of Defense revealed China's launch of the Dongfeng -41 intercontinental missile on May 27. The Dongfeng-41 missile launched a number of warheads and hit targets of the Western China range.

Shao said that if the report is true, the Dongfeng-41 is now combat ready.

Currently, China has two major ICBMs, Dongfeng-5 and Dongfeng-31. Dongfeng-5 is a silo-based liquid-propellant missile, and it is able to accommodate multiple re-entry vehicles. Dongfeng-31 is a mobile launcher based missile that is propelled by solid fuel. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/193878/china-touts-capabilities-of-new-icbm.html

 

[kaiserd]

A number of articles on the US/ North Korea summit/ agreement.
Surprised other more frequent posters haven’t already done so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44450000

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/12/north-korea-summit-trump-stuns-region-with-call-to-end-military-drills.amp.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b1f811fe4b0bbb7a0e1009c/amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2018/6/12/17452616/trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-summit

https://thebulletin.org/what-trump-gave-away11910

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/13/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear-threat/index.html

In summary;

“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

 

[sferrin]

Russian Air-Delivered Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons

"Before starting a discussion of Russian non-strategic or tactical air-delivered nuclear weapons, it is important for the reader to understand that these weapons do not exist in isolation. They are part of what amounts to a Russian non-strategic nuclear Triad composed of: 1) ground-based nuclear capable short- to intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles; 2) a sea-based force of nuclear-capable cruise missiles carried on both surface ships and submarines; and 3) an air-delivered non-strategic nuclear force of Backfire bombers and a variety of long-range fighter aircraft which carry both nuclear bombs and nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles. Russia’s non-strategic nuclear Triad has the same resilience, flexibility, survivability, and defense penetration ability of Russia’s better known strategic Triad. Only Russia, and apparently China, have a non-strategic nuclear Triad. Russia is secretive about its non-strategic nuclear capabilities, particularly its low-yield weapons; hence, it is unlikely that the picture derived from open sources is complete.

Russia routinely practices the first use of nuclear weapons in major theater exercises. Indeed, in 2014, Russian expatriate Nikolai Sokov wrote, “…nuclear exercises have been conducted with targets in Europe, the Pacific, Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and even the continental United States,” and, “…all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes.”[1] The implication of this is that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons in a variety of conflicts, including minor ones, which was suggested by its Secretary of the National Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in October 2009. He said that existing policy allowed the first use of nuclear weapons even in “local” wars.[2] Indeed, in 2010, the official newspaper of the Far East Military District said, “To suppress a large center of the separatists’ resistance and to achieve minimal losses of the attacking troops a low-yield ‘nuclear’ attack was mounted against the enemy.”[3]"

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/06/15/russian_air-delivered_non-strategic_nuclear_weapons_113537.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2151325/china-adds-nuclear-arsenal-amid-military-modernisation

China is pushing ahead with modernising its nuclear weapon delivery systems and has added to its arsenal as it boosts military expenditure, according to a report released by an independent think tank on Monday.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/2018/06/19/which-nations-increased-the-size-of-their-nuclear-arsenal-in-2017/

WASHINGTON ― The past several months have been a busy time for nuclear weapon issues: North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review steered U.S. nuclear policy towards a return to great power competition and suggested the development of two new nuclear weapons in addition to other expensive nuclear modernization programs.

But these were not the only events that impacted the global nuclear balance.

A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that although the U.S. and Russia decreased the number of nuclear warheads in their stockpiles in 2017, smaller nuclear powers like China, India, North Korea and Pakistan took steps to expand their arsenals.

According to the report China increased its total number of warheads by 10, from 270 to 280. India was believed to have between 120 to 130 warheads in 2017, and is estimated to have added 10 more warheads as well, for a 2018 total between 130 and 140. Pakistan also increased its arsenal by 10, bringing their approximate warhead stockpile to between 140 and 150. SIPRI estimates that North Korea has anywhere between 10 and 20 warheads.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/russian-and-chinese-nuclear-arsenals-posture-proliferation-and-the-future-of-arms-control/

Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating, and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss Russian and Chinese strategic capabilities, and their implications for U.S. strategy and arms control. Let me begin by stating that although I am currently a senior fellow for security and strategy at the Brookings Institution, I am presenting testimony representing my personal views. As an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue.

 

[bobbymike]

https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/Patricia%20Kim%20-%20Testimony%20at%20HFAC%20TNT%20-%20June%2021%202018.pdf

Chinese Perceptions on Nuclear Weapons, Arms Control, and Nonproliferation

 

[bobbymike]

Have to become a paying member for the full article.

https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-journal/escalation-and-nuclear-weapons-russia%E2%80%99s-military-strategy

he development of Russia's nuclear weapons programme suggests that the country may be prepared to use them to offset its conventional weaknesses.

The assessment that Russia envisages limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield nuclear weapons, as a coercive advantage over a symmetrical adversary has contributed to justify additional capabilities in the US nuclear arsenal. Contrary to the critics’ claims, Katarzyna Zysk shows that the Russian military strategy has been corroborated in strategic documents and official statements, defence acquisition programmes and deployments, and operational pattern.

 

[bobbymike]

https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/the-forgotten-side-of-arms-control-enhancing-u-s-competitive-advantage-offsetting-enemy-strengths/

In the spring of 1988, President Ronald Reagan described the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as an agreement that would, “for the first time, eliminate an entire class of U.S. and Soviet missiles.” Reagan’s description of the INF Treaty as a historic and mutually beneficial reduction of nuclear arms remains the conventional wisdom. This narrative is not wrong, of course, but it is incomplete: Arms control has never been purely cooperative. Rather, the United States employed arms control negotiations to build military-technological advantages over the Soviet Union. From the 1940s onwards, U.S. leaders sought to “offset” the Soviet Union’s advantage in conventional weapons by developing advanced military technologies that their Cold War opponent did not have. Arms control played an important role in advancing this offset strategy. American leaders raced the Soviets in military technologies where the United States was perceived to enjoy significant advantages, while simultaneously entangling the Soviet Union in an arms control regime that would limit areas of Soviet strength. By combining arms racing and arms control, the United States pursued a holistic offset strategy.

 

[Jemiba]

As bobbymike pointed out, this is a NEWS ONLY thread .

Cleaned up, apologies for being late with that.
And now, please, news only again !

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.llnl.gov/news/warhead-life-extension-passes-key-milestone

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/09/lawmaker-us-should-field-new-nukes-after-russia-violated-treaty.html

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/30/b61-12-nuclear-gravity-bomb-completes-first-qual-tests-b-2-bomber.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/394924-its-time-to-re-nuclearize-americas-defense-policy

The world’s first nuclear war was the Cold War. It was fought with nuclear weapons, and it ended in an immense victory for America. It accomplished three important objectives: First: Not a single nuclear weapon was ever detonated; second, it brought about the total collapse of the Soviet Union; and third; it exposed communism as a failure to the world.

The Cold War lasted for almost a half-century (1946-1991), and for most of that time the fate of the world hung in the balance every single moment. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons were poised for instant launch on each side, threatening thermonuclear war and unimaginable death and destruction across the world.

We won that war because we learned how to fight a nuclear war better than our adversary, and we learned it the hard way, by doing it. We advanced our technology faster than our enemy. We changed our strategy faster than he did. When an approach worked well, we doubled and tripled it. In addition to our high-yield strategic weapons, every branch of the service had low-yield weapons for every military purpose. Most of all, we out-thought our enemy in every sector of our society: military, industry, science, finance, academia, and others.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/07/03/wargaming_and_deterrence_options_signalling_a_low-yield_response_113576.html

When wargaming a Russian attack on the Baltic states, the Rand Corporation, demonstrated that current NATO forces in Europe are an insufficient deterrent. Findings indicated that if Russia was to attack the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia, the longest length of time it would take their forces to reach the outskirts of Tallinn and Riga is 60 hours. RAND found that a NATO force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades supported by air power and adequate land-based fire support would be necessary to prevent a rapid defeat until more forces can arrive in Europe. This, they argued would be the necessary conventional force required to deter a Russian attack.

The problem with fielding such a force is politics based on cost and will. Deploying seven brigades with heavy armored fire support and logistics would cost billions of dollars, and it would most likely be the United States that is required to provide the bulk of these forces. In the current climate where the Trump administration is at odds with most NATO members for failing to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, the chances of the U.S. being willing to supply the forces required to defend Europe is highly unlikely.