Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[bobbymike]

Regulators Squelching U.S. Nuke Reliability Tests: Ex-Los Alamos Chief
July 18, 2012


Regulatory activities intended n part to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapon-related accidents have prevented the Los Alamos National Laboratory from carrying out studies critical to evaluating the reliability of the increasingly old plutonium fuel in U.S. nuclear armaments, a former director of the New Mexico facility told the Albuquerque Journal in comments reported on Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 16). Prior to leaving the laboratory's top leadership position in 1997, Siegfried Hecker oversaw the creation of still-unfinished plans for studying how the fissile material changes over time. “We have never done enough of those experiments that would make me feel more comfortable with plutonium lifetimes in pits," Hecker, now a Stanford University academic, said in reference to the plutonium cores of nuclear weapons. "As far as I’m concerned, we still haven’t demonstrated that these pits can last 50, 60, 80 or 100 years as some people claim,” he said, adding the National Research Council and other groups have attested in independent assessments to the crucial nature of such experimentation. Hecker attributed delays in the plutonium studies to risk-reduction rules piled onto laboratory workers by lawmakers, the semiautonomous Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Energy Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration and offices within the Los Alamos laboratory.


“By the time you add all those up -- six, seven, eight layers -- the poor person that’s supposed to do work in a glove box, for example, is so handcuffed that he can’t get anything done,” Hecker said, referring to documentation required to conduct experiments using the laboratory's confined spaces for handling plutonium. Such regulations significantly slowed the laboratory's steps to begin producing fissile bomb components following the 1989 closure of the Rocky Flats production facility in Colorado, according to the former official. The New Mexico complex ultimately built its initial plutonium explosive parts after 11 years. Separately, a high-level laboratory official has said the nation's potential to rapidly assemble new nuclear weapons would assume greater importance if the nation continues to shrink its atomic arsenal. “If the United States is to rely upon [nuclear stockpile] reconstitution as a form of deterrence, the agility of the complex clearly must be improved," the official said in an report. Hecker earlier this year told legislators he had traveled to plutonium sites in China, France, India, Russia and the United Kingdom. “None of these countries tie the hands of their scientists and engineers as dramatically as we do with our risk-averse regulatory system,” he said in a prepared statement (John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, July 17).
======================================
Why can I imagine this is probably intentional just regulate nuclear weapons out of existence. It is already apparently illegal for the US to perform R&D on advanced new designs or more accurately no authorized funds to the labs can be used for this purpose. Why not make any testing so difficult and requiring such bureaucratic oversight as to be not worth the headache. I posted somewhere on this thread or another that there is speculation that the US is doing work cooperatively with the British because of these restrictions.

The US should be pouring money into new research to be on the forefront of everything nuclear at least in order to avoid strategic surprise.

 

[bobbymike]

Kyl Unwilling To Cut Nuclear Weapons Spending To Avoid Sequestration

July 26, 2012 By Douglas P. Guarino Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON – Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said on Wednesday he would be unwilling to consider any reductions to U.S. nuclear weapons spending in order to avoid budget sequestration as mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act (see GSN, June 21).

“The answer to the question is no,” Kyl told Global Security Newswire after speaking at a Capitol Hill event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups. Kyl said cuts should come from nondefense areas of the federal government. During the event, titled “Defending Defense,” Republican lawmakers reaffirmed their position that President Obama should take the lead on efforts to avoid sequestration. “You’re the commander in chief, not me,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, referring to Obama. “You should be leading.” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) reiterated previously expressed doubts that Congress would be able to resolve the budget issue during a lame-duck session following the November election.


McKeon last month chastised the Obama administration for not coming forward with a plan to deal with possible sequestration. Under the Budget Control Act, automatic, across-the-board cuts to federal programs would be instituted if lawmakers do not enact $1.2 trillion in deficit-reductions by January 2013. No such deal is currently in hand. Under sequestration close to $500 billion of the automatic funding cuts would come over 10 years from the Pentagon and nuclear-weapon operations at the Energy Department, according to a report by McKeon’s panel. The Defense Department is already facing a similar decade-long spending cutback.


Management and Budget Office spokesman Kenneth Baer in June said that while “OMB has not yet engaged agencies in planning, [its] staff is conducting the analysis necessary to move forward if necessary.” He said that should “it get to a point where it appears Congress will not do its job and the sequester may take effect, we will be prepared.” Fiscal 2013 defense authorization legislation that originated in McKeon's committee and has passed the House allows for $554 billion in base defense spending, more than the $551 billion requested by the Obama administration. The White House has threatened to veto the bill on several grounds, including that it would violate the Budget Control Act.

 

[bobbymike]

Russia Should Bolster Nuke Capabilities: Putin

July 26, 2012


Russia should strengthen its nuclear armaments as well as its air and space protective technologies to demonstrate their efficacy to other nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday (see GSN, June 21). “We are not going to enter the arms race, but no one should have any doubts in the reliability and effectiveness of our nuclear potential, as well as the means of air and space defense,” Russia Today quoted Putin as saying at a gathering on the nation's arms operations. Russia's atomic armaments are critical to the nation's defense, Putin added. "The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and play a key role in maintaining the regional balance and stability,” he stated. Putin has called for 75-85 percent of Russia's atomic arsenal and seven-tenths of its space and air protective measures to be updated before the end of the decade (Russia Today, July 26).


Meanwhile, the head of Russia's navy on Thursday said the service would within months conduct additional trials of the Bulava ballistic missile, the Xinhua News Agency reported (see GSN, July 24). "We are going to launch the Bulava this fall from the Alexander Nevsky nuclear submarine. If the launch fails, we will continue," Vice Adm. Viktor Chirkov said to area news organizations. Chirkov said the nuclear-ready weapon, which has an inconsistent record in testing, would officially enter active duty should it meet expectations in the trials (Xinhua News Agency, July 26).

 

[Orionblamblam]

"The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,..."

Errrrmmm... does anyone seriously think that someone is planning on invading and conquering even *part* of Russia?

 

[bobbymike]

Draft Report Urges Accepting Mutual Nuclear Vulnerability With China The United States should declare that mutual nuclear vulnerability with China is a "fact of life" for both countries rather than investing in strategic offensive and defensive capabilities designed to negate China's nuclear forces, according to a draft report prepared by a federal advisory panel led by former Defense Secretary William Perry.
----------------------------------------------------
Alternate title of report - We're broke and just give up.

Should have never gone below START II levels.

 

[Grey Havoc]

This will not end well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9435227/Private-firm-to-look-after-Trident-nuclear-deterrent.html

 

[GTX]

This will not end well

Why?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Recent history has not been kind when it comes to the outsourcing of key functions & capabilities, defense related or otherwise. Not kind at all.

 

[GTX]

Maybe in some cases but in others it has been very successful.

 

[bobbymike]

Older Lab Sites Could Assume Nuclear Arms Disassembly Duty
July 30, 2012


The U.S. Energy Department on Friday said it is looking at using standing structures at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to extract plutonium nuclear-weapon cores for conversion into material for operating atomic energy reactors, the Albuquerque Journal reported (see GSN, July 25). The disclosure followed the 2011 cancellation of plans to carry out the process at a planned Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility at the South Carolina complex. Preliminary steps to establish the facility absorbed $382 million in funding over a 13-year period (see GSN, May 3; John Fleck, Albuquerque Journal, July 28). Meanwhile, New Mexico Senators Tom Udall (D) and Jeff Bingaman (D) on Thursday warned the Obama administration against postponing completion of a planned plutonium research facility at the Los Alamos laboratory, the New Mexico Business Weekly reported (see GSN, June 8). The Obama administration has deferred the project by several years in the face of the federal budget crunch.


The move would diminish U.S. research capacities critical to sustainment of the nation's nuclear force, the Los Alamos Monitor quoted the lawmakers as saying in written communications to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (Joe Renaud, New Mexico Business Weekly, July 27).
============================================
Would like to see the word 'Assemble' in the headline one day preferably with 'New, Advanced and Pure Fusion' as well ;D

 

[bobbymike]

Arms Race May Result if Antimissile Dispute Persists: Medvedev

July 30, 2012


Russia and the United States could find themselves in a new competition for advanced weaponry if the two nations are unable by 2018 to reach accord on Western ambitions to construct a ballistic missile defense system in Europe, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the London Times on Saturday (see GSN, July 17). Moscow opposes a U.S. plan to through 2020 deploy increasingly capable missile interceptors around Europe as a stated hedge against feared Iranian ballistic missile strikes. The Kremlin views the envisioned antimissile system, which would form the backbone of a broader NATO shield, as a threat to its own long-range nuclear weapons. The Obama administration's "phased adaptive approach" program calls for deployment in 2018 of Standard Missile 3 systems capable of countering short- medium and intermediate-range threats. Brussels and Washington have invited Moscow to participate in the effort. However, several rounds of talks have not produced in agreement, as NATO and the United States have rejected Russia's demand for a legally binding guarantee on the targeting of interceptors in Europe. The Russian president asserted that NATO states in Europe were being coerced by the United States to host planned missile interceptors even though they have no security need for them, Bloomberg summarized from the interview with the Times (Stephen Kravchenko, Bloomberg, July 29).


Separately, the U.S. Defense Department has signed a $125 million agreement with defense firm Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems for enhancements to a long-range radar system at the Clear Air Force Station in Alaska, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported on Thursday (see GSN, March 4, 2010). Pentagon officials have outlined ambitions to expend roughly $400 million on the Alaska air base over the coming years. Some of that money would cover efforts to coordinate the Clear radar with the country's broader antimissile framework., which also includes 26 silo-based interceptors at Alaska's Fort Greely. The Raytheon agreement gives the Defense Department the choice of also ordering improvements to another radar unit in Massachusetts. If all options are exercised, the agreement could be worth as much as $176 million. "This is a joint Missile Defense Agency/Air Force effort and will be funded by fiscal 2012 through 2017 Missile Defense Agency research, development, test and evaluation funds, and Air Force other procurement funds," according to a Pentagon contract announcement (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, July 26).

 

[bobbymike]

Antiwar Protesters Infiltrate Y-12 Nuke Plant
July 30, 2012


Three antiwar advocates were able early Saturday to enter the most heavily guarded section of the Y-12 National Security Complex, where they dumped blood, put up placards and wrote on structures at the facility responsible for producing atomic arms components and holding the U.S. reserve of weapon-capable uranium, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported (see GSN, July 3). The incident marked the first unauthorized entrance into the Tennessee facility's "Protected Area," National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Steven Wyatt said. The demonstrators allegedly breached three or four barriers and eluded security personnel to reach the site.


"There's never been a situation like this before to my knowledge," Wyatt said on Saturday. The installation's readiness to fend off more dangerous attackers could fall into doubt in light of this incident, according to the News Sentinel. "I'm sure we'll learn from this, without question, and use what we learn to improve security," the NNSA spokesman said. Authorities were said to have detained 57-year-old Greg Boertje-Obed, 82-year-old Megan Rice and 63-year-old Michael Walli within the facility at about 4:30 a.m. Saturday. Representatives of the Energy Department 's inspector general spoke with the protesters, who could now stand accused of vandalism and trespassing violations under federal law, the News Sentinel reported. Backers said the accused individuals were due to make an initial court appearance on Monday. The three suspected intruders, identifying themselves as Transform Now Plowshares, on Saturday stated they had carried out the action in opposition to the Uranium Processing Facility slated to be built at the Y-12 complex (see GSN, May 8). The effort involved placement of multiple written statements on the outside of the $549 million Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (Frank Munger, Knoxville News Sentinel, July 29).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Where were the dogs or the bees or the dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you.

 

[GeorgeA]

Wait, the Y-12 complex was breached by an 82-year-old lady? Seriously?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wait, the Y-12 complex was breached by an 82-year-old lady? Seriously?

1: Guards are probably so unused to the idea that they saw an old lady somewhere she wasn't supposed to be and they couldn't process it
2: The guards had the mistaken notion that an 82 year old lady who breaks into a facility like this was not deserving of a bullet to the head.

 

[bobbymike]

Putin Pledges to Bolster Sea-Based Nuclear Arms
July 31, 2012

Russia will bolster its ocean-going atomic capabilities to uphold its status as a pre-eminent naval presence, Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged on Monday (see GSN, July 26). Bolstering the naval role of Russia's submarines and their missiles is a goal for the leader, according to Reuters; Moscow is set by 2020 to commit $621.3 billion to development of the systems. "We believe that our country should maintain its status of one of the leading naval powers," Putin said at an event to formally initiate assembly of Prince Vladimir, Russia's fourth Borei-class ballistic missile submarine (see GSN, July 24). "We are talking about the development of the naval part of our strategic nuclear forces, about the navy's role in maintaining the strategic nuclear parity" with the United States, he added.


Russia intends to possess eight Borei vessels before 2021, according to Putin, adding the country's sea-based military services would protect its priorities in the petroleum-heavy Arctic region. "Obviously, the navy is an instrument to protect national economic interests, including in such regions as Arctic where some of the world's richest biological resources, mineral resources are concentrated," Putin stated. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in recent months said the nation's initial pair of Borei vessels -- the Yuri Dolgoruky and the Alexander Nevsky -- would assume active duty in the middle of 2012 (Gleb Bryanski, Reuters, July 30). Ocean testing of the Yuri Dolgoruky is now under way, RIA Novosti reported on Monday. The Alexander Nevsky and a third Borei ship -- the Vladimir Monomakh -- are still being built. The Bulava ballistic missile, intended for eventual placement on the vessels, is now in late-phase preparation and scheduled for deployment before 2013 on the Yuri Dolgoruky. The weapon has had a troubled history in testing (RIA Novosti, July 30).


Meanwhile, presumptive U.S. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has stepped back from prior remarks referring to Moscow as Washington's "No. 1 geopolitical foe," CNN reported on Monday. "Russia is a geopolitical adversary but is not an enemy with a -- you know, with … missiles being fired at one another and things of that nature," Romney stated in an interview (Gregory Wallace, CNN, July 30).

 

[bobbymike]

India Claims Successful Development of SLBM
July 31, 2012


The Indian defense sector has indicated it successfully produced a submarine-launched ballistic missile even though the new weapon likely will require further testing, the Times of India reported on Tuesday (see GSN, June 26). On Tuesday at the yearly Defense Research and Development Organization accolades ceremony, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was slated to award researcher A.K. Chakrabarti with the "technology leadership award" for leading the "successful development" of the nation's initial submarine-fired high-altitude missile, the K-15. The K-15 has a reported top traveling distance of 466 miles and can be tipped with nuclear warheads weighing 1 metric ton. "Apart from India, this capability has been acquired by four other nations, the U.S., Russia, France and China. Now, the SLBM system is ready for induction," the award reads. The United Kingdom loads its nuclear warheads on U.S.-made Trident missiles. Information on India's SLBM effort has been closely guarded in contrast to its land-launched Agni ballistic missile program, which features regular media updates on testing and development of next-generation longer-range weapons.


India might be somewhat hasty in announcing the successful development of the K-15, according to the Times, which noted the missile has a ways to go before it can be fielded. Even if the ballistic missile has been thoroughly vetted through multiple firings from submersible vessels and is now being manufactured, the submarine that would carry the K-15, the INS Arihant, is not yet finished with its "harbor-acceptance trials." The ballistic missile submarine will need a minimum of one more year before it is combat-ready, according to the Times. After dock work on the atomic-powered submarine is finished and its reactor activated, the domestically developed vessel must complete comprehensive sea assessments and the trial-launch of the K-15.


The INS Arihant can be loaded with up to 12 K-15s or, at a later date, four of the developmental K-4 missile, which has a target distance of approximately 2,175 miles. Once the INS Arihant assumes deterrent patrols, India would possess the full strategic triad -- the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons by air, land, and sea (Rajat Pandit, Times of India, July 31).

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-usa-securtity-nuclear-idUSBRE8711LG20120802

 

[bobbymike]

Senate Appropriators Allocate $500M Extra to Missile Defense Agency
Aug. 3, 2012


Senate appropriators on Thursday unanimously approved increasing the U.S. Missile Defense Agency's fiscal 2013 budget by more than $500 million from the spending amount sought by the Obama administration (see GSN, Feb. 14). The Defense Department had originally requested $7.75 billion for the agency, which oversees the bulk of U.S. antimissile efforts. The $500 million in proposed extra funding includes $190 million for more Standard Missile 3 Block 1B interceptors, according to an Appropriations Committee press release (Senate Appropriations Committee release, Aug. 2). The panel also delivered $163 million for the purchase of an additional AN/TPY-2 ballistic missile tracking radar, according to Bloomberg Businessweek (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg Businessweek I, Aug. 2).


In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee backed an extra $194 million for procurement of more Patriot Advanced Capability 3 air-defense interceptors. The committee signed off on total fiscal 2013 defense spending of $604.5 billion, almost matching the White House request for $604.6 billion. The legislation will come up for a floor vote after Congress returns from its August recess. The House in July approved its version of the defense spending bill, which would provide a total of $605.8 billion for core and overseas operations. Fiscal 2013 begins on Oct. 1 (Senate Appropriations Committee release). Senate budget writers allocated approximately $400 million in continued funding for the controversial Medium Extended Air Defense System, the National Journal reported (see GSN,



June 28; Sara Sorcher, National Journal, Aug. 2). In approving funding for the experimental battlefield antimissile technology, the Senate Appropriations Committee opted to honor the wishes of the Obama administration and to ignore the example set by the House Appropriations Committee and both chambers' Armed Services panels, which all voted to end funding of the program.


The MEADS technology is being jointly developed with Italy and Germany. Even though the Pentagon in 2011 said it had no intention of purchasing any MEADS units when they become available, it still asked Congress for one more year of program funding in order to avoid the more expensive penalties that would follow an early contract pull out and to maintain good relations with Berlin and Rome.


The antimissile technology was intended to replace Patriot air-defense systems and envisioned as having the ability to protect troops from hostile fighter planes, tactical ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. The Senate Appropriations defense subpanel on Tuesday recommended allocating $380 million of the Pentagon's $400 million ask for the MEADS initiative in the coming fiscal year, Bloomberg Businessweek reported. The subcommittee also ordered the Defense Department to choose whether the new funds would help to finance a "proof of concept" technology test or to meet the contractual obligations necessary for the United States to exit the MEADS partnership (Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg Businessweek II, July 31).



The Senate Appropriations Committee said it had approved Obama administration funding requests for development of next-generation ballistic missile submarines and bomber aircraft, along with work on prompt global strike capabilities intended to give the military a non-nuclear option for quickly eliminating transitory targets anywhere in the world (see GSN, Feb. 14 and Aug. 1; Senate Appropriations Committee release).
----------------------------------
Bolding mine - Good news but also hope to see very shortly funding for new ICBM, SLBM and next generation nuclear warhead.

 

[bobbymike]

Not all that accurate in terms of warhead/launcher count but a kind of cool chart of all the world's nukes;

http://zazenlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/do-not-use-nuclear-weapons1.jpg

 

[bobbymike]

India's first nuclear submarine set for trials

India on Wednesday said its first home-built nuclear submarine was set for sea trials, as it detailed billion-dollar projects to arm its navy with warships, aircraft and modern weaponry. The indigenous 6,000-ton INS Arihant (Destroyer of Enemies) was unveiled in 2009 as part of a project to construct five such vessels which would be armed with nuclear-tipped missiles and torpedoes.

"Arihant is steadily progressing towards operationalisation, and we hope to commence sea trials in the coming months," Indian navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma told reporters. "Our maritime and nuclear doctrine will then be aligned to ensure that our nuclear insurance comes from the sea," Verma said, Arihant is powered by an 85-megawatt nuclear reactor and can reach 44 kilometres an hour (24 knots), according to defence officials. It will carry a 95-member crew. The Indian navy inducted a Russian-leased nuclear submarine into service in April this year, joining China, France, the United States, Britain and Russia in the elite club of countries with nuclear-powered vessels. Verma said 43 warships were currently under construction at local shipyards while the first of six Franco-Spanish Scorpene submarines under contract would join the Indian navy in 2015 and the sixth by 2018. The admiral said the navy was also poised to induct eight Boeing long-range maritime reconnaissance P-8I aircraft next year.

by Marty Melville © 2012 AFP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last four years the US has said the era of nukes are over they will not play an important role in our defense. No one else appears to be listening ???

 

[bobbymike]

Strategic Command Chief: Outlines of Plutonium Plan Taking Form
Aug. 8, 2012
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire


OMAHA, Neb. -- The outlines of a revamped strategy for supplying the nation’s military with plutonium cores for nuclear warheads are taking shape, according to the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command (see GSN, June 5). “I do think that we are beginning to close [in] on a way ahead here that will [give us] sufficient interim capability while we look to get the long-term solution back on track,” Gen. Robert Kehler, who commands the military organization charged with overseeing any combat use of atomic arms, said during a Wednesday press conference. The 37-year Air Force veteran was referring to Obama administration plans to impose a five-year delay, for budget-cutting reasons, on construction of a $6 billion plutonium research facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Until a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement nuclear site is completed, the nation’s atomic weapons leaders must identify workarounds to meet Kehler’s annual requirement for the warhead cores, known as “pits.” The new site would help to ensure that new and existing nuclear-weapon pits would function, if needed, despite a moratorium since the early 1990s on underground explosive testing. The administration announced in February that it planned to save $1.8 billion over the next five years, beginning in fiscal 2013, in taking the half-decade pause in construction work on the CMRR facility (see GSN, Feb. 14). Earlier plans anticipated that the new plutonium research and storage plant could be built by 2024. The administration is also reviewing whether it would still need a long-anticipated production capacity of 50 to 80 nuclear pits each year -- samples of which would have to pass through the CMRR facility for analysis -- or if instead future reductions in the size of the nuclear arsenal might decrease the scale of facilities needed. Los Alamos today produces fewer than 10 pits annually, laboratory spokesman Kevin Roark has said.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 27, Kehler said he would ‘‘be concerned until someone presents a [plutonium processing] plan that we can look at and be comfortable with and understand that it’s being supported.’’ On Wednesday, meeting with reporters on the sidelines of a conference here on nuclear deterrence, the commander said he was now confident that his interim needs for warheads could be met in the years leading up to the replacement facility’s construction. “I don’t know what form that will finally take,” said Kehler, noting he had taken part in some “very good discussions” regarding the way forward. “It’s still under discussion.” The Energy Department -- whose semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration oversees the atomic arms complex day to day -- is collaborating with the Defense Department to study the matter. An interagency team is expected to report out in late summer or early fall. The issue has proved highly contentious on Capitol Hill, where some Republican lawmakers have charged that the administration has given the military’s nuclear warhead requirements short shrift. They have cited Kehler’s warnings and those from a national laboratory leader as evidence that the CMRR delay would be a mistake (see GSN, June 8).


“Without CMRR, there is no identified path to meet the nation’s requirement of 50 to 80 pits per year,” Los Alamos laboratory Director Charles McMillan told his staff in a Feb. 14 letter. “Assuming further investments in [Los Alamos] facilities, we are confident we can deliver -- but only a portion of that requirement.” On Wednesday Kehler said until a new working blueprint is complete, there could be some risk of dropping under the level of plutonium pits he sees as necessary in coming years. “I am still concerned, because we still don’t have a plan that closes” all gaps in capacity for storage, research and production during the CMRR nuclear facility construction delay, the four-star general said. However, the five-year “slip that was put in for the plutonium piece” of the U.S. nuclear-weapon infrastructure modernization plan “I think is manageable,” Kehler said. “There is increased risk doing it this way. But the more we discuss this, the more we learn, the more we comfortable I think we can get with an interim solution.” In what could be an indication of how the existing nuclear complex might accommodate the military’s annual requirement for fresh pits, Kehler said not all of the 50-to-80-pit annual requirement must be brand new. Some of the need could be filled by warhead cores that have been removed from excess weapons, refurbished and returned into the active or reserve warhead arsenal. “We don’t differentiate at all” between new versus reused pits, he told reporters. “What STRATCOM says to the NNSA is you need to provide for us is the weapons we need, when we need them,” said Kehler, referring to Strategic Command and the National Nuclear Security Administration. “And then we rely on NNSA to come back with a plan to fit our need. “It doesn’t matter to us up front how they go about that, and especially during the study phases that we are in today,” he added. “They are looking at a number of different alternatives to meet the need. And I believe that there are some viable alternatives there.” Kehler said it could take “another couple of years” to sort out the technical details of solutions embraced in the next few months. The strategic commander said he continues to support the president’s nuclear infrastructure budget request for the new fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, but “the enterprise is still in bad shape” in “a couple of places,” namely in uranium processing and plutonium research. Investment in a new Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 nuclear facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn., though, “is on track,” he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No discussion of a 'surge' capacity?

 

[bobbymike]

Implementing the New Triad from the Institute for Foreign Policy Analyses;

http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IFC36.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Shame I have to work through this:

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_21286027/nuclear-weapons-display-at-santa-teresa-air-museum

 

[bobbymike]

Draft State Department Report Urges Deeper Cuts To Nuclear Arsenal

Inside the Pentagon - 08/16/2012 The United States should offer to reduce its nuclear arsenal significantly below current treaty requirements to no more than 1,000 deployed strategic warheads and 500 strategic delivery vehicles if Russia is willing to reciprocate, according to a draft State Department report on near-term options for implementing more nuclear force cuts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read some recent articles at the Arms Control Association wanting deeper cuts to 500 warheads. All the discussion is cost (and the savings from cuts) and that 500 warheads will 'kill lots of people.'

There is no discussion of deterrence or strategic requirements, nothing. My guess would be because a comprehensive study on the strategic requirements might actually show we need more weapons and launchers and much more robust warhead and delivery system modernization.

I enjoy how they talk about saving a few billion as if this will save us from the $1.4trillion deficits.

 

[Lauge]

Wait, the Y-12 complex was breached by an 82-year-old lady? Seriously?

It's probably that "racial profiling" thing we hear about. She wasn't wearing a headscarf and didn't have a beard, so she automatically got filed under "harmless/ignore".

Regards and all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[bobbymike]

Jury Out: Do Advanced Conventional Weapons Make Nuclear War More Likely?


Aug. 22, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- Nuclear weapons policy-makers and experts gathered recently at a nondescript conference center in Nebraska to grapple with a jolting, if somewhat arcane, paradox: Is it possible that futuristic conventional weapons could actually make a nuclear blast more likely? “The big problem right now for the United States is that U.S. conventional war plans and doctrine are likely to create circumstances that will force our adversaries to threaten the use of nuclear weapons -- or to use nuclear weapons -- against us or our allies,” Keir Lieber, a Georgetown University scholar, said at a symposium on conflict deterrence. Hosted by U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, conference-goers early this month were asked to consider, for example, whether a state-of-the-art hypersonic vehicle might someday offer a viable conventional alternative to a nuclear-armed ballistic missile for situations in which a U.S. president wants a far-flung target struck in less than 60 minutes. “If it’s a long way’s away and we really need to do something about it right now, you could send a nuke,” said retired Gen. James Cartwright, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noting that today there might be no other weapons within reach of a distant, time-sensitive target. However, he said, the use of a nuclear warhead, as a weapon of last resort, “may not be proportional [and] it may not be appropriate for the neighbors.”


Over the past several years, the Defense Department has developed a number of technological candidates for the so-called conventional “prompt global strike” mission, but none appear anywhere close to fielding. These are largely regarded as niche weapons that would be deployed only in small numbers, but might eventually substitute for assignment against 10 to 30 percent of today’s nuclear target list, say some military analysts. Among the conventional weapons under development potentially capable of such strategic effects are an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile with a Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 front end that has encountered some setbacks in testing; an Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon that military leaders describe as a useful test bed; and a nascent concept for intermediate-range ballistic missiles aboard Navy attack submarines. Strategic Command, based at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, would oversee any U.S. launch of nuclear weapons and could control wartime use of future long-range conventional arms, as well. Instances in which the White House might someday order a non-nuclear rapid strike could include a sudden move by China toward destroying a U.S. or allied communications satellite by rocket or laser; a North Korean ballistic missile being readied for launch against a neighboring U.S. ally; or a potential adversary’s nuclear warhead observed being mated with a delivery system, symposium speakers said. “For me, all of those are probably important; all of those have a scenario that go with them, that [make] you go, ‘Gee, I wish I had a tool like this,’” said Cartwright, now Harold Brown chair in defense studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In fact, if the United States finds itself faced with an international crisis, a prompt conventional strike against a desperate antagonist’s weapon of mass destruction might stop a launch in its tracks, effectively preventing a deadly escalation. Here’s where the problem creeps in: An adversary leader, knowing his antisatellite weapon or nuclear-tipped ballistic missile is at risk of being suddenly destroyed by a rapid U.S. conventional strike, might rush to execute that launch. The United States and Russia during the Cold War took steps to prevent this type of nuclear use-it-or-lose-it phenomenon, installing in the White House and Kremlin a “red phone” presidential hot line for emergency bilateral consultations and developing incentives for the reduction of multiple-warhead missiles, among other measures. Now that the Cold War is over, nuclear experts and policy-makers are just beginning to sort out how the risks of crisis instability have evolved, as nations such as North Korea and allegedly Iran pursue nuclear-weapons capacities. A handful more states appear to contemplate a similar path. Over time, the world’s nuclear powers have largely transformed their thinking. They formerly devised nuclear-warfighting strategies but now see these weapons as usable purely in a political role, observed British Rear Adm. John Gower, serving as a panel discussion moderator. “The advanced conventional weapons have the potential to bridge this separation, to fill it up,” said Gower, London’s assistant chief of defense staff for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons policy. “But do they fill it as an insulator, or as a lightning conductor?”


To Georgetown’s Lieber, the answer seems apparent. Washington’s superior conventional capabilities and its willingness for military intervention abroad have spawned new global interest in acquiring nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even increased the likelihood of WMD use. “For the foreseeable future, the United States is not going to lose a conventional war … against any adversary,” he said. “The likely outcome will be clear to our adversary: Regime change.” The takeaway for would-be military challengers to the United States is that they should develop unconventional weapons. The former leaders of Iraq and Libya, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi, moved to eliminate their WMD stocks but later found they lacked an “ultimate weapon” with which to prevent their own ouster. “Our potential adversaries do not want to be Saddamized,” Lieber told the conference, prompting gales of laughter and apologizing for his Washington pronunciation. “But that outcome -- having a regime overthrown, being dragged on the gallows, have your sons murdered, to face the same fate that Saddam faced -- when you lose a conventional war, the prospects do not look good,” he said. “Given that existential risk to an adversary regime, that regime is going to face huge incentives for nuclear escalation,” Lieber said. “Why? Not to punish the United States or punish our allies, but to coerce a halt to the conflict before it’s too late.” Potential U.S. military adversaries, including North Korea and China, are increasingly hiding their launchers and warheads in tunnels, and burying key command-and-control nodes underground, all in an effort to evade targeting. “So why do we think that hitting them a little faster or a little better would strengthen deterrence?” asked Hans Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project. “It seems more likely that prompt global strike would push them even further toward more prompt-launch capabilities,” he said. “More trigger-happy postures, if you will, that could in fact weaken deterrence and increase the risk of mistaken, inadvertent or even deliberate escalation.” For example, Kristensen said, China’s war-planners “would have to assume” that any U.S. conventional prompt-attack forces could strike without warning against their own targetable nuclear-weapon forces or support installations.


“In fact, they would have to conclude that a strike against their nuclear deterrent could come before the conflict had escalated to nuclear use,” he told the audience, suggesting this assumption could inadvertently give China clear incentive to launch pre-emptively any of its nuclear arms believed vulnerable to U.S. conventional attack. “We’d better think carefully about these side effects before rushing to acquire more advanced conventional weapons for what … in any case is argued to be a very limited, niche mission against small adversaries that won’t be able to provide an existential threat against us,” Kristensen said. Cartwright -- who between 2004 and 2007 served as the first Marine to head Strategic Command -- acknowledged the risks. He suggested, however, that the inherent dangers be handled directly, rather than become show-stoppers for developing conventional weapons with the potential for useful strategic effects. “Finding ourselves in a world where proliferation is a reality, no matter how hard we work at it, and where technology is moving us forward, no matter how much we would like to be in the last war,” Cartwright said, “we are going to have to manage the stability issue.” To reduce instability, U.S. political and military leaders must signal the world about what specific new capabilities the Pentagon has at its disposal; train and exercise those capabilities to demonstrate control and proficiency; and engage with other world powers to create confidence-building protocols, treaties and verification practices, he said. “You bring the level of ambiguity … and the anxieties and instability that could come from those weapons down to a manageable point,” Cartwright said. “Uninventing them doesn’t work that well.”

 

[bobbymike]

Chinese Missile Push Seeks to Counter U.S. Protections, Experts Say

Aug. 24, 2012


China is preparing means to place more than a single nuclear bomb onto ICBMs, Beijing's government-run Global Times newspaper said on Wednesday. The journal Jane's Defense Weekly, though, was incorrect in asserting the nation had undertaken a trial launch in July of its developmental Dongfeng 41 missile, according to the Chinese publication. "The third generation ICBM equipped with multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) is exactly the developing direction" of China's Second Artillery Corps, Chinese armed forces specialist Wei Guoan said to the Global Times. The strategic missile unit probably lacks the capacity at present to vet an experimental ICBM in every flight phase, Kanwa Defense Review editor Andrei Chang said in a Friday report by the South China Morning Post.

"The challenges and difficulties between the second and third generation of ICBMs are very complicated, and the intelligence I've gathered tells me that China is still incapable of overcoming many problems, even though they have spent more than 20 years to develop it," he said. Beijing is pursuing an ability to fit an ICBM with up to 10 nuclear explosive devices as well as decoys intended to draw away missile interceptors, the New York Times quoted Larry Wortzel, head of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as saying. Wortzel added: “The bigger implication of this is that as they begin to field a force of missiles with multiple warheads, it means everything we assume about the size of their nuclear arsenal becomes wrong.” He said China had carried out trials in past weeks of submarine-launched missiles with potential to evade U.S. countermeasures. The Chinese government is faced with a developing U.S. military "pivot" toward the Asia-Pacific region. The Defense Department was reported this week to be moving to augment its missile defense capacities in the sector. Steps by Washington and other governments to augment their respective militaries have prompted comparable moves by China, Beijing-based analyst Sun Zhe said.


"We have again and again said that we will not be the first country to use nuclear force,” the expert stated. “We need to be able to defend ourselves, and our main threat, I’m afraid, comes from the United States.” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland on Thursday said that U.S. antimissile operations in the region are focused on the danger posed by North Korea, the Associated Press reported. "These are defensive systems. They don’t engage unless missiles have been fired," she told reporters. "In the case of Asian systems, they are designed against a missile threat from North Korea. They are not directed at China."
----------------------------------------------------------
I remember the 80's when I could go to the newsstand and pick up a Time or US News & World Report or my latest AvWeek was talking about MX, Trident II, Midgetman, neutron bombs and next generation nuclear weapons. Ah the good old days now I post about China and Russia's next generation systems and the constant neglect of US deterrent forces :'(

 

[bobbymike]

One issue that Congress likely will vigorously debate later this year is the future size of America’s atomic arsenal. Democrats and Republicans appear unlikely to find much common ground. Republicans favor keeping the existing nuclear fleet in place, while Democrats believe the arsenal — which is expensive to operate and maintain — is ripe for cuts. The Democratic platform notes the Obama administration already “has moved away from Cold War thinking by reducing the prominence of nuclear weapons in America's national security strategy.”

The official Democratic platform document trumpets a nuclear-arms reductions treaty with Russia that the Obama administration finalized last year — and uses it to take a swipe at President Barack Obama’s GOP foe, Mitt Romney. The George W. Bush administration had an early hand in negotiating that pact, called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START for short. “Despite bipartisan consensus among former national security advisors, secretaries of defense, and secretaries of state that New START makes America safer, Mitt Romney strongly objected to the treaty,” the Democratic platform states. To that end, the GOP platform alleges “the United States is the only nuclear power not modernizing its nuclear stockpile.” “It took the current administration just one year to renege on the president’s commitment to modernize the neglected infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex — a commitment made in exchange for approval of the New START treaty.”But administration officials in recent months have called those charges unfounded, pointing to the Obama administration’s 2013 budget proposal to show the White House intends to carry out that infrastructure work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine ok you want disarm but please $10 billion out of a $4 trillion budget is not costly

 

[Grey Havoc]

U.S. Missile Defense Strategy Is Flawed, Expert Panel Finds (New York Times, subscription may be required)

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Nuclear Commander Warns Against Rushing Further Arms Cuts


By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire


WASHINGTON -- A U.S. Air Force general who oversees nuclear-capable bombers and ICBMs warned on Thursday against seeking deeper arms control reductions with Russia until the ramifications of such cuts could be fully weighed. “I’m concerned that by pursuing a lower force structure” than laid out by last year’s U.S.-Russian New START arms control accord, “we could be on a course that would require us to be at least thoughtful and considerate of some factors that need to be out in the public arena,” Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, who heads Air Force Global Strike Command, said at a speaker forum on Capitol Hill. The senior officer’s remarks come just as the Defense Department is believed to have laid the groundwork for additional reductions in a still-secret nuclear policy “implementation study.” Pentagon officials say the document is essentially complete but the White House has not yet moved to approve it or publicly announce its findings. Media reports have suggested the study, which was to be based on the Defense-led 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, could set the stage for a lower warhead ceiling, ranging anywhere from 1,100 warheads in the near term to as few as 300 in the longer haul. The Obama administration is believed unlikely to debut any fresh proposals for further nuclear arms reductions prior to the November presidential election. Under New START, Washington and Moscow by February 2018 will each cap their deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550. The two former Cold War adversaries also agreed to limit fielded nuclear delivery vehicles -- including bomber aircraft and missiles based on land and at sea -- to 700, with an additional 100 permitted in reserve.


James Miller, the Pentagon’s top policy official, in February said deterrence of threats to the United States and its allies could actually be strengthened “with lower numbers” than those set by New START. He has declined to discuss specifics pending release of the study findings. This week, Kowalski said he was “confident” the U.S. nuclear arsenal would remain a “safe, secure and effective” deterrent against current and future threats at the force levels afforded by the existing treaty. However, he waved a red flag about going any further. “Such discussions need to be taken at a measured pace and need to be informed by analysis,” the three-star commander said. “They need to be bounded by the realpolitik of international relations.” As leader of Global Strike Command -- located at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana -- the general is responsible for the nation’s 450 ICBMs, 93 B-52 bombers and 20 B-2 bombers, all capable of delivering nuclear payloads. When asked, Kowalski said he intended no criticism of the as-yet unreleased Nuclear Posture Review implementation study. “Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not part of any other group that’s doing analysis,” he told roughly 180 attendees at a one-day conference on the U.S. air, sea- and land-based nuclear weapons triad. On Friday, a spokeswoman for Kowalski said he played no role in drafting -- or reviewing the results of -- the new implementation study.


“If we decide to pursue a number lower than 1,550, I’m laying out a list of things that need to be part of that consideration,” the general said at this week's event. Topping Kowalski’s list: “We must consider what force size is needed to ensure we have adequate human capital, adequate intellectual infrastructure at our laboratories, and an adequate industrial base. Those are three things that I have seen absent from the conversation thus far.” Rather, he said, “most of the discussion, and rightly so,” has “been about political implications and what’s the right level of weapons to ensure deterrence [of threats] and assurance” of Washington’s allies. Some in the audience shared the worry. “While I suspect the [implementation] study will recommend reductions to even lower levels, I am concerned that it will be lacking in analytical rigor or structured to justify a preordained conclusion,” said David Trachtenberg, who served as a Defense policy official during the Bush administration. “I think comments about the desirability of going lower put the cart before the horse, and may lead to doubts about U.S. resolve that embolden adversaries and unnerve allies,” he said in response to e-mailed questions. Based on his own dialogue with arms control proponents and detractors alike, Kowalski said he is convinced there is broad agreement that additional cuts to the nuclear arsenal would require a serious intellectual scrub -- particularly if they are viewed as steps toward a more ambitious goal. “The world we live in today is not a world that is ready for zero nuclear weapons,” he said, alluding to President Obama’s stated long-term objective for global atomic disarmament. “So what do we need to think about?”


Potential future threats are among those issues not yet fully vetted, he said. Advising that the United States continue to seek nuclear force “parity” with Russia, Kowalski said any contemplation of more profound U.S. reductions must assess where Moscow is headed with its own atomic arsenal. “While we don’t anticipate that Russia would have the intent to pursue conflict, it would be irresponsible to ignore their capability,” he said. “Capabilities take years to develop; intent can change very quickly.” Moscow has begun producing a new multiple-warhead ICBM, the RS-24, and is readying multiwarhead Bulava missiles for submarines. Yet, by the beginning of the next decade, roughly 98 percent of older missiles fielded in the Russian land-based force are expected to retire. “The current production and deployment rate of new ICBMs is not fast enough to offset the old-missile retirements,” according to a recent analysis by nuclear weapons experts Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists. “By the early 2020s, they will probably be down to something on the order of 400 delivery vehicles in their entire triad,” Kristensen said in a Thursday interview. “We have 450 ICBMs [alone]. The analyst, who directs his organization’s Nuclear Information Project, laid out the case for a fresh round of negotiated strategic arms reductions between Washington and Moscow. “You can see the problem,” Kristensen said. “If we don’t change our posture,” Russia will be more likely to grow its nuclear force with weapons that increase the threat to the United States, such as developing another “new, multiwarhead ICBM,” he said.



Washington faces a window of opportunity in coming years that could head off an unnecessary post-Cold War arms race between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, he said. “Even with [the RS-24 and Bulava] built, they will not be able to compensate for the reductions” due to retirement, in terms of even being able to meet New START warhead ceilings, according to Kristensen. “We need to go out and signal” a readiness to reduce U.S. forces alongside Russia’s -- “earlier rather than later,” he said. Speaking on Capitol Hill, Kowalski also cited other potential global threats that might justify maintaining New START force levels, at least for the time being. Without singling out China or other growing nuclear powers by name, the general said Washington must contemplate the “temptation that lower numbers might be offering other nations to expand their arsenals and to join us at the high end of nuclear capability.”

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Nuclear Arms Due for High-Cost Revamp


The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Maryland, shown in August. The United States could spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a looming update to its nuclear weapons, carriers and associated infrastructure, according to one analysis (U.S. Navy photo).

The United States is on track to undertake the priciest revamp to date of its nuclear weapons and associated infrastructure, despite anticipated funding reductions to other weapon initiatives by the country's armed forces during a period of budgetary constraints, the Washington Post reported on Saturday. The deteriorating status of facilities responsible for supporting U.S. nuclear-weapon operations has been an issue facing presidents for the last 20 years, but decision-makers have bolstered the ultimate expense of updates by deferring the high-cost, low-profile sustainment initiatives. The United States has established no formal expense projection for the modernization and upkeep of its 5,113 nuclear weapons, swapping out antiquated launch vehicles and overhauling sites used to carry out atomic operations. Managing and sustaining the nation's nuclear armaments would require no less than $352 billion in the next 10 years, the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington said in a June assessment; the cost could be significantly greater, especially if maintenance projects face further postponement, according to separate observers. Meanwhile, the nation's armed forces have decreased their reliance on nuclear arms to stave off foreign aggression. Instead, they have looked increasingly toward focused actions reliant on special operations personnel and toward rapid use of force in fighting contemporary antagonists. Still, the need for significant expenditures to sustain the country's silo-, submarine- and aircraft-based nuclear armaments is a matter of agreement among U.S. government personnel and a large number of independent experts. Continued inaction through 2013 would probably eliminate any opportunity to blueprint and construct replacement assets necessary if the existing weapons are undependable or potentially hazardous, the sources said. “I’ve been doing this for 20 years, and I haven’t seen a moment like this,” National Nuclear Security Administration head Thomas D’Agostino said. D'Agostino's agency, a semiautonomous branch of the Energy Department, is responsible for overseeing the nation's nuclear stockpile and its supporting facilities. President Obama is seeking more than $7.5 billion in fiscal 2013 for carrying out atomic-armament updates, $1.1 billion more than in the current budget year that ends on Sept. 30. The Pentagon has for the first time backed plans to put forward $8 billion over half a decade for such efforts. “We came in thinking it had been taken care of and were shocked to hear how poorly it had been treated,” said Jon Wolfsthal, formerly a top counselor on arms control issues for Vice President Joseph Biden. Washington would have to dole out tens of billions of dollars to ensure its nuclear weapons and missiles remain prepared for combat and resistant to accidents. The Defense Department has said updating B-61 nuclear gravity bombs alone would probably require $10 billion in half a decade.


As much as $110 billion could be necessary for constructing a dozen new ballistic missile submarines to supplant the 1980s-era Ohio-class fleet, the Congressional Budget Office has projected. A $7 billion revamp of the country's Minuteman 3 ICBMs is under way amid discussion of a potential successor to the weapon. The country is also manufacturing F-35 planes suited to carry nuclear bombs; the jets each carry a $162 million price tag. The National Nuclear Security Administration has said overhauling nuclear-weapon science and production sites is anticipated to require no less than $88 billion in a decade. The "9212" highly enriched uranium processing center, a decades-old component of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, best exemplifies the decay seen at the 40 structures judged by NNSA assessments to require improvements, according to the Post. The atomic agency has said an unexpected suspension in 9212 activities would interrupt hazards mitigation efforts for armaments while potentially idling nonmilitary reactors around the world that are dependent on the site's low-enriched nuclear fuel. Metal lining in the 9212 structure's interior has oxidized and broken down considerably, Darrel Kohlhorst noted prior to his resignation last month as head of the Y-12 site's contract operator. Liquid penetrates the site in periods of rainfall, he said. “If water hits the floor, we treat it like a contaminated spill,” Kohlhorst added.


Despite longtime calls by atomic specialists for a successor structure, cheaper updates and science-focused projects have been alternatives favored by multiple presidents. The anticipated expense of the new site has risen to $6.5 billion, an increase of more than 10-fold since 2004. Early expense projections are consistently "speculative," and end projections require plans to be near completion, NNSA spokesman Joshua McConaha said in accounting for the change. The National Nuclear Security Administration's budgetary oversight has been subject to criticism in past years from the Defense Department, Government Accountability Office and certain legislators. The agency's supervision of activities by private firms has for 22 years been included on a GAO "high-risk list" for corruption and unnecessary spending. The projected expense of an arms operations site -- once slated for construction at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina -- increased from $1.4 billion to $5 billion prior to the project's cancellation; initial preparations for the facility absorbed $700 million. The cost of a fuel production site planned for the South Carolina complex has increased to $5 billion -- a threefold jump -- and its anticipated 2016 completion date is 10 years later than originally intended. President Obama over the past 12 months has weighed potential moves for the atomic arsenal as he establishes guidance that would be used in developing the details of an updated nuclear combat strategy. Obama hopes through negotiations with Russia to decrease the deployed U.S. arsenal to 1,100 strategic nuclear weapons, down from the 1,550-weapon ceiling each side is required to meet in coming years under the bilateral New START treaty, according to independent observers and certain U.S. government insiders. Most analysts believe he would delay any statement on the matter until after the presidential campaign concludes.

 

[bobbymike]

The Abiding Strength of Nuclear Peace: Nuclear deterrence utterly changed the mission of the Air Force from combat, to preventing enemies from aggression in the first place, according to Vice Admiral C. R. Bell, former vice director of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff during the Cold War. Discussing the legacy of Strategic Air Command at AFA’s Air & Space Conference, Tuesday, Bell said that before the nuclear age, “the chief purpose of the military establishment was to win wars,” but “with the advent of the atomic bomb, its principal purpose has changed—to avert war.” This strategic change in warfare and “the knowledge to build nuclear weapons can never be erased,” stressed Bell. With fewer warheads in our current inventory, “the preservation of our capability to adapt our deterrent forces to a rapidly changing unpredictable strategic future becomes critical,” he added. Since we have “neither new delivery platforms nor new warheads in development, we must not be hasty to take an irreversible step to reduce our capabilities and their flexibility,” underscored Bell. “The greatest utility of nuclear weapons is in their non-use, in the diplomacy derived from the threat,” he concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine :'(

 

[bobbymike]

Think Before You Act: The ICBM force "is stabilizing, lethal, responsive, and highly credible," but may be coming under increased attack for reduction or all-out elimination due to increasing pressures on the defense budget and those who favor the United States reducing its nuclear deterrent even more, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who oversees nuclear and strategic matters on the Air Staff. In Fiscal 2011, maintaining the Air Force's fleet of some 450 Minuteman III missiles cost only one percent of the service's overall budget, Chambers told attendees of AFA's Air & Space Conference outside Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18. "That's not a lot of money," in the grand scheme of national security for the capability this fleet provides, he said. Even if overall size of deterrent force is reduced, maintaining the triad and an ICBM force "remains the safest, more prudent course of action," said retired Lt. Gen Frank Klotz, former head of Air Force Global Strike Command. Eliminating the ICBMs would make it much easier for an adversary against the United States by taking away the vexing challenge of having to factor a force of single-warhead missiles spread out over an area "roughly the size of Pennsylvania," he said. "Why in heaven's name would we ever want to do that?" asked Klotz.

 

[bobbymike]

Staying Relevant: Making the ICBM force more affordable, survivable, and controllable are perhaps the best ways to help it withstand its biggest potential nearer term threat: the budget axe, said Richard Colby, principal analyst at CNA. Speaking Sept. 18 at AFA's Air & Space Conference outside of Washington, D.C., Colby said ICBM critics may argue, in an era of fiscal austerity, that money spent on the ICBMs would not yield the same value as investing in areas like the F-35 or ballistic missile defense. Therefore, it's important to make the ICBM force more capable and increase its contribution to "the overall attributes of the future strategic deterrent," he said. For example, since ballistic missile submarines may become more vulnerable in coming years, bolstering the ICBMs' survivability would enhance the overall deterrent and strengthen their role in it, he said. Therefore, approaches like mobile basing might make sense for a future ICBM, he said. Further, while US nuclear forces are today "highly controllable," advances in cyber threats may make control less assured at some point, so enhancing ICBM command and control would also strengthen the deterrent. Colby, who supports maintaining an effective triad for the future, was part of the panel discussion on the role of the ICBM force in 21st century deterrence. —Michael C. Sirak

B-52 Denuclearization Plan OK: The Pentagon approved Air Force Global Strike Command’s technical plan to denuclearize a handful of B-52 bombers to keep them from counting against force levels stipulated under the New START agreement with Russia. “The proposal on how to do it so that it’s treaty compliant has been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Compliance Review Group,” said AFGSC chief Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, speaking with reporters at AFA's Air & Space Conference in National Harbor, Md., Tuesday afternoon. AFGSC has “all the money laid in” to the current program of record to permanently convert the bombers to a conventional-only configuration, in accordance with the treaty implementation timeline, explained Kowalski. The command’s preference is to split the conventional-only bombers evenly between USAF’s two operational B-52 wings, but “we’re awaiting final force structure decisions,” before moving forward said Kowalski.

 

[bobbymike]

Russia Preps Nuke-Ready Cruise Missile
Sept. 27, 2012

Russia is readying for service new cruise missiles designed to carry nuclear or nonatomic warheads, RIA Novosti reported on Wednesday. The conventionally tipped Raduga Kh-101 should become operational next year, the newspaper Izvestia quoted a Russian air force insider as saying. Its designed maximum flight distance of 6,000 miles would provide the service's long-range aviation branch for the first time with an extended-distance missile able to hit targets with high accuracy. The Kh-102, a nuclear-ready version of the missile, is also due to begin operations. Both forms of the cruise missile would be significantly larger and carry more massive payloads than the existing Kh-555 missile, meaning they could only be loaded onto the hulking Tu95MS and Tu-160 bomber aircraft. The Kh-555 will remain loaded onto the smaller Tu-22M3 aircraft. Meanwhile, the Russian Baltic Fleet conducted a flight trial of a short-range Tochka ballistic missile in the Kaliningrad region, Interfax reported on Wednesday.


"The missile flew along a ballistic trajectory and hit the simulated enemy command post. Strike accuracy was 97 percent. Burst area was about 7 hectares," according to a release from the Western Military District. The Tochka has a flight range of about 75 miles, according to previous reporting. The missile can be loaded with conventional, nuclear or chemical warheads for use against aircraft facilities, ammunition storage sites and other locations. It is believed to have been used during the conflict in Chechnya. Russia has previously threatened to deploy short-range Iskander ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad if no compromise can be reached with NATO and the United States regarding their plans for a European missile shield. Moscow says it worries the system ultimately poses a threat to its long-range nuclear force, while the military alliance says the shield is intended to counter missile strikes from the Middle East.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

U.S. Nuclear Arms Due for High-Cost Revamp

What a load these recent articles are.

Besides the integration of JADAM tail-kits on a few B61s, I don't see any revamps to nuclear weapons here; no new warheads, no new missiles. The Ohio class is being replaced because subs get old; the same Tridents and the same warheads otherwise for the new boats. The next generation bomber isn't being designed with strategic delivery as the priority; in fact, it will be operational some time before it's certified for nuclear use (if it ever is). The Minuteman IIIs are simply getting yet another upgrade among the many they've already received (the last one was completed in 2008 I believe); still the same missiles with the same warheads. Of course, my favorite is when they lump in the F-35 as a nuclear program as well. Right, the JSF was totally about nuclear weapons from the start. :

Defense writers are just cherry picking a bundle of long-planned, routine upgrades/recapitalization and calling it some kind of comprehensive program (which it isn't). I'm not taking these articles seriously unless there are plans a new-built physics package or delivery system.

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Nuclear Arms Due for High-Cost Revamp

What a load these recent articles are.

I'm not taking these articles seriously unless there are plans a new-built physics package or delivery system.

Agree 100% - there needs to be a plan for new warheads, advanced concept research, new missiles, etc. (in my lifetime anyway)

 

[1st503rdSGT]

U.S. Nuclear Arms Due for High-Cost Revamp

What a load these recent articles are.

I'm not taking these articles seriously unless there are plans a new-built physics package or delivery system.

Agree 100% - there needs to be a plan for new warheads, advanced concept research, new missiles, etc. (in my lifetime anyway)

The following would qualify as a "Revamp."

1. A new, lower maintenance warhead.

2. A nuclear armed JASSM-ER or JSOW-ER type tactical-weapon that doesn't fall under New START.

3. Replace Minuteman III with a Midgetman type missile that's capable of land-mobility.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

New START counts every deployed nuclear warhead for bombard armament equally, and allows each side to question the status of new nuclear weapons. You don't get to cheat the treaty just by fielding a 500nm range nuclear weapon that can be fired by a fighter. Such dickery is pointless anyway, the point of the recent arms treaties was to be simple so that negotiating them didn't take years on the basis that both sides would not deliberately attempt to cheat. Nothing good will be accomplished by forcing a return to the old style of treaty, or none at all.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

New START counts every deployed nuclear warhead for bombard armament equally, and allows each side to question the status of new nuclear weapons. You don't get to cheat the treaty just by fielding a 500nm range nuclear weapon that can be fired by a fighter. Such dickery is pointless anyway, the point of the recent arms treaties was to be simple so that negotiating them didn't take years on the basis that both sides would not deliberately attempt to cheat. Nothing good will be accomplished by forcing a return to the old style of treaty, or none at all.

Uh, no. New START only counts weapons on strategic delivery systems. Ergo, long-range cruise missiles like the ALCM and the bombers that carry it are limited. Tactical weapons that can be carried by bombers are not. Little known fact, the Russians are heavily dependant on tactical nukes (they have a lot more than us) and don't want a treaty limiting those. If they wanna start crying over a nuclear-armed JASSM, we can just remind them about their plans to build nuclear Iskander missiles.