Current Nuclear Weapons Development
1
1st503rdSGT
Guest
sferrin said:
I've been sayin that on on the other board for awhile. Glad to see the idea getting picked up. Our ICBM/SLBM deterrent is fine for Russia or China, but what if we were to suffer a nuclear terrorist attack by proxies of a lower-tier enemy; how would we retaliate? Do we really want to send several giant IR plumes heading for the Eurasian landmass in a situation that tense?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,897
- Reaction score
- 10,978
1st503rdSGT said:
I can't tell you how many times I've thought how useful Skybolt would be today. It could have lofted a decent size conventional penetrator in the conventional role. And while JASSM is a significant step backwards from AGM-129 (there's some short-sightedness) it'd still be better than nothing. Better still would have been a nuclear armed Fasthawk/RATTLRS/LRASM-B (ASALM). Ah well. I guess I should be happy we still know how to make subsonic cruise missiles.
1
1st503rdSGT
Guest
George Allegrezza said:I think that's what your B-2s are for. Not to say SRAMs or Skybolt wouldn't help.1st503rdSGT said:
When it comes to nukes, a stand-off weapon is always better (unless you're going for sheer numbers), keeping your launch platform clear of IADNs (even the B-2 isn't completely undetectible) and weapon effects. Stand-off also reduces risks further because your bomber doesn't have to fly to each separate target.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Securing billions of dollars to modernize the U.S. nuclear arms fleet will be challenging as Washington wrestles with its shabby finances, a senior State Department official said Sept. 26. Additionally, the Obama administration plans a “persistent” push to convince the Senate to ratify a key nuclear arms treaty, said Rose Gottemoeller, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. The U.S. possesses 1,737 deployed strategic nuclear warheads that are fitted on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bombs dropped from Air Force aircraft. The Obama administration, in its fiscal 2013 budget request, is seeking a 5 percent hike for all nuclear arms activities. What’s more, over the next four years, the administration intends to spend $9.6 billion to maintain and modernize the atomic arsenal, according to the Arms Control Association.
“We’re going to have to work with Congress on the … request for the infrastructure modernization and stockpile stewardship part to make sure that funding is forthcoming,” Gottemoeller told a forum in Washington. She noted officials and lawmakers face a “very complicated situation on Capitol Hill” to find the billions necessary for the pricey work “with the fiscal cliff [and] with sequestration looming out there.” The fiscal cliff Gottemoeller was referring to is a term used inside the Beltway to describe the perceived effect of a number of budgetary and fiscal laws slated to expire Dec. 31: George W. Bush-era tax cuts, temporary payroll tax cuts and tax reductions for business. That also is when the health care law President Barack Obama pushed through Congress kicks in.
Additionally, twin $500 billion, decade long cuts to planned federal defense and domestic spending will take effect under a process called sequestration unless Congress produces a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan that either President Obama or GOP nominee Mitt Romney would sign into law. To keep the nuclear modification work funded, Gottemoeller said Obama administration officials must form “deep partnerships” with key lawmakers and aides. Despite the 2013 modernization plans, some hawkish congressional Republicans charge that the White House is blocking efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arms fleet. “The president has really emphasized the funding for infrastructure modernization and the stockpile stewardship program,” Gottemoeller said. “He has been clear. We will continue to drive forward to get the funding we need for those.” Meantime, she also announced the administration is preparing to make a new push to convince the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). That international pact would “institute a worldwide ban on nuclear tests and the use of networks to apply pressure against states like Iran and North Korea,” according to the American Security Project, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “Ratification would be significant affirmation to the importance the U.S. gives the international nonproliferation regime,” Gottemoeller said. “U.S. ratification would increase” global efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world, she said. If the Senate ratified the treaty, “states interested in nuclear weapons would … face international condemnation,” Gottemoeller said.
Treaty proponents believe if the U.S. ratifies it, many other nations will follow suit. A wave of such approvals would make it easier to pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear arms and convince Iran to cease its pursuit of them, proponents argue. But some in Washington don’t buy the alleged virtues of the CTBT. “Opponents maintain that there can be no confidence in existing warheads because many minor modifications will change them from tested versions, so testing is needed to restore and maintain confidence,” states the Congressional Research Service. But Gottemoeller says verification technologies and tactics have improved greatly over the last decade, making evasion tougher. The Obama administration has “no timetable” for a Senate vote on the measure, but made clear officials plan to meet with key senators and staffers in an attempt to gain their vote. “We will be patient,” she said. “But we will also be persistent.”
“We’re going to have to work with Congress on the … request for the infrastructure modernization and stockpile stewardship part to make sure that funding is forthcoming,” Gottemoeller told a forum in Washington. She noted officials and lawmakers face a “very complicated situation on Capitol Hill” to find the billions necessary for the pricey work “with the fiscal cliff [and] with sequestration looming out there.” The fiscal cliff Gottemoeller was referring to is a term used inside the Beltway to describe the perceived effect of a number of budgetary and fiscal laws slated to expire Dec. 31: George W. Bush-era tax cuts, temporary payroll tax cuts and tax reductions for business. That also is when the health care law President Barack Obama pushed through Congress kicks in.
Additionally, twin $500 billion, decade long cuts to planned federal defense and domestic spending will take effect under a process called sequestration unless Congress produces a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan that either President Obama or GOP nominee Mitt Romney would sign into law. To keep the nuclear modification work funded, Gottemoeller said Obama administration officials must form “deep partnerships” with key lawmakers and aides. Despite the 2013 modernization plans, some hawkish congressional Republicans charge that the White House is blocking efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arms fleet. “The president has really emphasized the funding for infrastructure modernization and the stockpile stewardship program,” Gottemoeller said. “He has been clear. We will continue to drive forward to get the funding we need for those.” Meantime, she also announced the administration is preparing to make a new push to convince the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). That international pact would “institute a worldwide ban on nuclear tests and the use of networks to apply pressure against states like Iran and North Korea,” according to the American Security Project, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “Ratification would be significant affirmation to the importance the U.S. gives the international nonproliferation regime,” Gottemoeller said. “U.S. ratification would increase” global efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world, she said. If the Senate ratified the treaty, “states interested in nuclear weapons would … face international condemnation,” Gottemoeller said.
Treaty proponents believe if the U.S. ratifies it, many other nations will follow suit. A wave of such approvals would make it easier to pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear arms and convince Iran to cease its pursuit of them, proponents argue. But some in Washington don’t buy the alleged virtues of the CTBT. “Opponents maintain that there can be no confidence in existing warheads because many minor modifications will change them from tested versions, so testing is needed to restore and maintain confidence,” states the Congressional Research Service. But Gottemoeller says verification technologies and tactics have improved greatly over the last decade, making evasion tougher. The Obama administration has “no timetable” for a Senate vote on the measure, but made clear officials plan to meet with key senators and staffers in an attempt to gain their vote. “We will be patient,” she said. “But we will also be persistent.”
Nuclear weapon is no deterrent against Russia or china because their objective is to deny us access to regional theater. They know as well as we do we will not use nuclear weapon to break into a regional theater should they development the ability to make it prohibitively expensive for us to operate conventionally into the regional theater in question.
Our nuclear weapon is largely a psychological hedge for ourselves.
Our nuclear weapon is largely a psychological hedge for ourselves.
1
1st503rdSGT
Guest
chuck4 said:
That depends on who's most likely to go nuclear over Taiwan. Despite the wailings pundits, the US still has the conventional edge over China and will have it for some time. As for nukes, one shouldn't underestimate the willingness to use them. That's the problem with nuclear armed nations going to war; no one really knows the threshold for desperation.
TaiidanTomcat
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Joined
- 19 July 2011
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 67
1st503rdSGT said:
Yep! Ive been reading my Herman Kahn and its grimly fascinating. To imply that there is simply "never a a good time" to use nuclear weapons is dangerously simplistic. If a scenario dictates that nuclear attack is the best option, then nuclear attack will happen.
1
1st503rdSGT
Guest
Gridlock said:
So, this happened.
Doesn't matter. Israel and Iran can hardly touch each other unless BOTH sides have nukes. In which case, I doubt either would be stupid enough to strike first (well, the Iranians might be dumb enough to give a nuke to Hezbollah).
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Future of Giant U.S. Laser in Doubt Absent Fusion Success
Oct. 1, 2012
Prospects for continued federal funding of an enormous fusion array in California are murky amid criticism that the project has been an expensive failure, while proponents contend that gains have already helped ensure a reliable nuclear deterrent, the New York Times reported on Sunday. The National Ignition Facility, located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has already consumed in excess of $5 billion of taxpayer dollars without accomplishing the never-before-seen feat of nuclear fusion ignition. The NIF project was given until the end of fiscal 2012 to show Congress progress, but the fiscal year ended on Sunday. With significant federal spending cutbacks approaching, advocates for continuing investment in the fusion initiative have a tough case to make to congressional appropriators, according to the Times. "We didn’t achieve the goal," National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Donald Cook told the newspaper. He declined to offer a time line for when controlled fusion would be achieved. Instead, he said, "we're going to settle into a serious investigation" into the reasons behind the lack of mission success.
The NIF project is mainly intended to help assess the reliability and safety of U.S. nuclear weapons through the creation of controlled blasts like those of a hydrogen bomb, though it is also seen as having uses in the creation of a limitless and cheap energy supply.
"The question is whether you continue to pour money into it or start over," said Stephen Bodner, who used to direct a competitor laser program at the Washington-based Naval Research Laboratory. "I think they're in real trouble and that continuing the funding at the current level makes no sense." The project's current operating budget is approximately $290 million annually. Still, a number of researchers believe the NIF project will continue to be funded due to its uses in maintaining a safe and effective nuclear stockpile, which has cross-aisle backing. "Contrary to what some people say, this has been a spectacular success," insisted NIF project head Edward Moses. He acknowledged, however, that "science on schedule is a hard thing to do." Meanwhile, it appears that a project to build a new state-of-the-art plutonium research installation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory will be mothballed, even though officials have already expended roughly $425 million in designs for the facility, the Associated Press reported on Sunday. The Obama administration requested no new funding in its fiscal 2013 budget proposal for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement nuclear facility. The federal budget year began on Monday. Los Alamos site office official Steve Fong said roughly $80 million has been used from a budget of $200 million to wind down activities for the planned plutonium site in New Mexico, according to a Santa Fe New Mexican report.The remaining $120 million is to be redistributed to different Energy Department initiatives.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in September submitted a plan that would use the $120 million to operate and enhance the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building, which beginning in November is to handle some of the responsibilities that would have been undertaken by the now-delayed CMRR facility. The Energy Department's head of Finance and Accounting, Joanne Choi, wrote to Levin, informing him the department was still assessing alternatives for establishing the large plutonium research installation. Levin protested back that continuing to dither about the project would result in further significant project cost increases such that the "sheer size of the cost escalation ... could lead to an inability to construct." The CMRR complex is presently projected to cost between $3.7 billion and $5.8 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how do we attract the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers when the nuclear enterprise in dying on the vine.
Oct. 1, 2012
Prospects for continued federal funding of an enormous fusion array in California are murky amid criticism that the project has been an expensive failure, while proponents contend that gains have already helped ensure a reliable nuclear deterrent, the New York Times reported on Sunday. The National Ignition Facility, located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has already consumed in excess of $5 billion of taxpayer dollars without accomplishing the never-before-seen feat of nuclear fusion ignition. The NIF project was given until the end of fiscal 2012 to show Congress progress, but the fiscal year ended on Sunday. With significant federal spending cutbacks approaching, advocates for continuing investment in the fusion initiative have a tough case to make to congressional appropriators, according to the Times. "We didn’t achieve the goal," National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Donald Cook told the newspaper. He declined to offer a time line for when controlled fusion would be achieved. Instead, he said, "we're going to settle into a serious investigation" into the reasons behind the lack of mission success.
The NIF project is mainly intended to help assess the reliability and safety of U.S. nuclear weapons through the creation of controlled blasts like those of a hydrogen bomb, though it is also seen as having uses in the creation of a limitless and cheap energy supply.
"The question is whether you continue to pour money into it or start over," said Stephen Bodner, who used to direct a competitor laser program at the Washington-based Naval Research Laboratory. "I think they're in real trouble and that continuing the funding at the current level makes no sense." The project's current operating budget is approximately $290 million annually. Still, a number of researchers believe the NIF project will continue to be funded due to its uses in maintaining a safe and effective nuclear stockpile, which has cross-aisle backing. "Contrary to what some people say, this has been a spectacular success," insisted NIF project head Edward Moses. He acknowledged, however, that "science on schedule is a hard thing to do." Meanwhile, it appears that a project to build a new state-of-the-art plutonium research installation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory will be mothballed, even though officials have already expended roughly $425 million in designs for the facility, the Associated Press reported on Sunday. The Obama administration requested no new funding in its fiscal 2013 budget proposal for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement nuclear facility. The federal budget year began on Monday. Los Alamos site office official Steve Fong said roughly $80 million has been used from a budget of $200 million to wind down activities for the planned plutonium site in New Mexico, according to a Santa Fe New Mexican report.The remaining $120 million is to be redistributed to different Energy Department initiatives.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in September submitted a plan that would use the $120 million to operate and enhance the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building, which beginning in November is to handle some of the responsibilities that would have been undertaken by the now-delayed CMRR facility. The Energy Department's head of Finance and Accounting, Joanne Choi, wrote to Levin, informing him the department was still assessing alternatives for establishing the large plutonium research installation. Levin protested back that continuing to dither about the project would result in further significant project cost increases such that the "sheer size of the cost escalation ... could lead to an inability to construct." The CMRR complex is presently projected to cost between $3.7 billion and $5.8 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how do we attract the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers when the nuclear enterprise in dying on the vine.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Meanwhile
Russia May Resume Subcritical Atomic Testing: Sources
Oct. 1, 2012
Russia could conduct new sub-critical atomic tests on its nuclear arsenal at the old detonation site in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Arctic, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reported on Friday, citing informed sources with the state energy company Rosatom.
Moscow is a signatory of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits the detonation of nuclear devices. However, the Kremlin has refused to pledge an end to sub-critical atomic experiments. Separately, the first of a new generation of Russian ballistic missile submarines is ready to be inducted into the navy, ITAR-Tass reported on Monday. The Yuri Dolgoruky is one of eight planned Borei-class submarines that are to form the core of Russia's sea-based nuclear deterrent once they are outfitted with the new Bulava ballistic missile. "Sevmash [shipyard] specialists have removed all the shortcomings found by the standing commission for state acceptance of vessels, to which testifies the vessel’s inspection act, signed by Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Navy Admiral Alexander Tatarinov," the shipyard said. Elsewhere, different figures offered up by the Defense Ministry on the composition of its ICBM arsenal indicate the country's strategic missile forces are rapidly growing older, according to a separate Monday report by Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
According to Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval, "the share of modern missile systems in the Strategic Missile Forces amounts to about 25 percent now." However, toward the end of May, the head of the missile branch, Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said, "In the last few years, the share of modern armament in our troops grew to 30 percent." The Russian military has yet to give a reason behind the disparity in accounting. Koval, though, in recent days said the Strategic Missile Forces has prioritized efforts to extend the lifespan of its deployed ICBMs. Occasional test-firings of the longest-serving silo-based RS-20 Voevoda and the RS-18 Stiletto, as well as the transportable RS-12M Topol, show the missiles remain reliable.
Russian academic Yuri Zaitsev, in an interview with Interfax, said two of Russia's three most critical strategic assets -- its sea-based RSM-52 heavy missile and missile launcher railcars are no longer active. "The biggest concern of the United States has always been three Russian missile systems practically immune from missile defense. These are BZhRK missile trains, RSM-52 sea-based missiles and RS-20 heavy missiles," the Russian Engineering Academy adviser said. "Only RS-20 is still on duty now." The incoming Bulava SLBM and the Topol-M ICBM do not make up for the lost strategic capabilities of the heavy missiles, he asserted.
Russia May Resume Subcritical Atomic Testing: Sources
Oct. 1, 2012
Russia could conduct new sub-critical atomic tests on its nuclear arsenal at the old detonation site in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Arctic, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reported on Friday, citing informed sources with the state energy company Rosatom.
Moscow is a signatory of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits the detonation of nuclear devices. However, the Kremlin has refused to pledge an end to sub-critical atomic experiments. Separately, the first of a new generation of Russian ballistic missile submarines is ready to be inducted into the navy, ITAR-Tass reported on Monday. The Yuri Dolgoruky is one of eight planned Borei-class submarines that are to form the core of Russia's sea-based nuclear deterrent once they are outfitted with the new Bulava ballistic missile. "Sevmash [shipyard] specialists have removed all the shortcomings found by the standing commission for state acceptance of vessels, to which testifies the vessel’s inspection act, signed by Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Navy Admiral Alexander Tatarinov," the shipyard said. Elsewhere, different figures offered up by the Defense Ministry on the composition of its ICBM arsenal indicate the country's strategic missile forces are rapidly growing older, according to a separate Monday report by Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
According to Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval, "the share of modern missile systems in the Strategic Missile Forces amounts to about 25 percent now." However, toward the end of May, the head of the missile branch, Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said, "In the last few years, the share of modern armament in our troops grew to 30 percent." The Russian military has yet to give a reason behind the disparity in accounting. Koval, though, in recent days said the Strategic Missile Forces has prioritized efforts to extend the lifespan of its deployed ICBMs. Occasional test-firings of the longest-serving silo-based RS-20 Voevoda and the RS-18 Stiletto, as well as the transportable RS-12M Topol, show the missiles remain reliable.
Russian academic Yuri Zaitsev, in an interview with Interfax, said two of Russia's three most critical strategic assets -- its sea-based RSM-52 heavy missile and missile launcher railcars are no longer active. "The biggest concern of the United States has always been three Russian missile systems practically immune from missile defense. These are BZhRK missile trains, RSM-52 sea-based missiles and RS-20 heavy missiles," the Russian Engineering Academy adviser said. "Only RS-20 is still on duty now." The incoming Bulava SLBM and the Topol-M ICBM do not make up for the lost strategic capabilities of the heavy missiles, he asserted.
TaiidanTomcat
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Joined
- 19 July 2011
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 67
Thanks for posting all this bobbymike.
Lasers are the weapons of the future, they always have been
Lasers are the weapons of the future, they always have been
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
TaiidanTomcat said:Thanks for posting all this bobbymike.
Lasers are the weapons of the future, they always have been
No problem nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and strategic deterrence policy is something I have found interesting ever since Ronald Reagan was going to blow up the world ;D Actually going out and finding out myself what the true strategic relationship was between the US/NATO - USSR/Warsaw Pact taught me that I could not trust the media to tell the truth I had to go and educate myself. A lesson that I have applied ever since to both defense/foreign and domestic policy.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
U.S. Could Fall Behind on W-76 Warhead Updates
Oct. 2, 2012
Technicians handle a U.S. W-76 nuclear warhead. W-76 warhead life-extension efforts are in danger of falling behind schedule, the Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report published on Monday (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).
The United States must substantially increase the speed at which it is updating W-76 nuclear warheads in order to keep to its schedule, but anticipated funding constraints and difficulties in controlling costs could complicate any attempt to accelerate the operations, the U.S. Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report made public on Monday. "By the end of fiscal year 2011, [the National Nuclear Security Administration] had completed less than half of the anticipated units due to technical production issues," the Knoxville News Sentinel quoted DOE auditors as saying in the assessment. "NNSA intended to address this problem by increasing production rates in future years," the investigators wrote. The nuclear administration is a semiautonomous Energy Department agency charged with overseeing the U.S. atomic weapons complex. Still, no attempt at increasing the speed has proven effective to date, according to the newspaper.
"NNSA may be unable to complete the W-76 LEP [life extension program] within established scope, cost and schedule parameters, unless it adopts a more effective approach to reducing unit costs," the assessment adds. "This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the program is faced with a relatively flat budget over the next few years, even though its annual scope of work is projected to increase significantly." The project's manufacturing output is due to rise by 59 percent in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but the initiative would only receive a 2.9 percent funding boost in those years, the paper notes. "The increase in production appears to be unsustainable given the projected funding," according to the analysis. Additional expenses would result from personnel retirement benefits and the planned transfer of warhead activities to a new facility in Kansas City, Mo., though lowering individual component processing costs could serve some benefit. "If the NNSA is not able to lower unit costs below current projections, the W-76 LEP will face large cost overruns," the document warns.
The Energy Department atomic office to date has failed to assess the implications of potentially shifting money to the W-76 update project from still-unspecified arms initiatives, as high-ranking agency officials have pledged to do if they cannot cut the warhead program's expenses. The National Nuclear Security Administration is obligated to "conclude the W-76 LEP by FY [fiscal year] 2018, allowing only seven years to complete the 85 percent of refurbishments remaining; therefore any delays have downstream implications," the paper states. "Until the W-76 LEP is completed, NNSA cannot meet the scheduled FY 2018 start date for refurbishment of the B-61 bomb that is needed to meet United States' commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
Officials should prepare a "forward-looking plan" in anticipation of achieving project goals without exceeding expense projections, the auditors wrote, adding that funding cuts might require greater cost reductions than those anticipated in the analysis. Top NNSA personnel backed the document's call for new steps to respond to present funding circumstances, but they voiced reservations over the auditors' technique for determining expenses for individual W-76 updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These articles really worry me. Are we losing our ability to produce modern nuclear weapons including their delivery systems?
Oct. 2, 2012
Technicians handle a U.S. W-76 nuclear warhead. W-76 warhead life-extension efforts are in danger of falling behind schedule, the Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report published on Monday (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).
The United States must substantially increase the speed at which it is updating W-76 nuclear warheads in order to keep to its schedule, but anticipated funding constraints and difficulties in controlling costs could complicate any attempt to accelerate the operations, the U.S. Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report made public on Monday. "By the end of fiscal year 2011, [the National Nuclear Security Administration] had completed less than half of the anticipated units due to technical production issues," the Knoxville News Sentinel quoted DOE auditors as saying in the assessment. "NNSA intended to address this problem by increasing production rates in future years," the investigators wrote. The nuclear administration is a semiautonomous Energy Department agency charged with overseeing the U.S. atomic weapons complex. Still, no attempt at increasing the speed has proven effective to date, according to the newspaper.
"NNSA may be unable to complete the W-76 LEP [life extension program] within established scope, cost and schedule parameters, unless it adopts a more effective approach to reducing unit costs," the assessment adds. "This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the program is faced with a relatively flat budget over the next few years, even though its annual scope of work is projected to increase significantly." The project's manufacturing output is due to rise by 59 percent in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but the initiative would only receive a 2.9 percent funding boost in those years, the paper notes. "The increase in production appears to be unsustainable given the projected funding," according to the analysis. Additional expenses would result from personnel retirement benefits and the planned transfer of warhead activities to a new facility in Kansas City, Mo., though lowering individual component processing costs could serve some benefit. "If the NNSA is not able to lower unit costs below current projections, the W-76 LEP will face large cost overruns," the document warns.
The Energy Department atomic office to date has failed to assess the implications of potentially shifting money to the W-76 update project from still-unspecified arms initiatives, as high-ranking agency officials have pledged to do if they cannot cut the warhead program's expenses. The National Nuclear Security Administration is obligated to "conclude the W-76 LEP by FY [fiscal year] 2018, allowing only seven years to complete the 85 percent of refurbishments remaining; therefore any delays have downstream implications," the paper states. "Until the W-76 LEP is completed, NNSA cannot meet the scheduled FY 2018 start date for refurbishment of the B-61 bomb that is needed to meet United States' commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
Officials should prepare a "forward-looking plan" in anticipation of achieving project goals without exceeding expense projections, the auditors wrote, adding that funding cuts might require greater cost reductions than those anticipated in the analysis. Top NNSA personnel backed the document's call for new steps to respond to present funding circumstances, but they voiced reservations over the auditors' technique for determining expenses for individual W-76 updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These articles really worry me. Are we losing our ability to produce modern nuclear weapons including their delivery systems?
TaiidanTomcat
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Joined
- 19 July 2011
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 67
sounds like Its bottlenecking. Dismantling has been bottlenecking for years too. Thousands of warheads that are to be dismantled or upgraded are hitting the same issue. Too much work, too few people to do it.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
Via Slashdot:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/fissile-materials-working-group/security-y-12-nun-too-good
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/fissile-materials-working-group/security-y-12-nun-too-good
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
U.S. Military Leaders Back Maintaining Nuclear Triad Despite Rising Costs
Oct. 9, 2012
Senior U.S. military personnel continue to advocate for maintaining the full nuclear triad even as it becomes less cost-efficient to build new delivery platforms for a declining number of warheads, Time magazine reported on Monday. Expenses for upkeep, refurbishment and management of the nation's ballistic missile submarines, strategic bombers, and silo-based ICBMs could amount to roughly $391 billion over the coming decade, according to a spending projection released last month by the antinuclear Ploughshares Fund. The new extended distance nuclear weapons delivery platforms the Defense Department intends to build to replace corresponding systems will actually be mounted with fewer warheads compared to levels in years past, according to an assessment by the Natural Resources Defense Council. For example, there were 7.5 warheads in 1991 for every delivery platform. That number decreased to 5.8 weapons for every delivery vehicle in 2001 and in 2009 fell further to 2.6 warheads for every platform. Under the New START arms control accord with Russia, the United States as of the beginning of last month possessed 1,034 active and reserve strategic nuclear delivery platforms. Washington is required to lower the number of such delivery systems to 700 by 2018, though an additional 100 platforms can be held in reserve. Military leaders contend the full range of options to fire atomic warheads from land, sea, and air is needed to guarantee the survivability of the strategic deterrent should an attack eradicate one or two of the country's delivery methods.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley in April said the evolving geopolitical climate necessitates maintaining multifaceted nuclear delivery options. "The more complex the global environment comes, the more flexibility you want between land, sea, and air-based capabilities," he said. Donley said he believes "it's important to maintain the flexibility and options for the president going forward. There's no doubt in my mind that the international strategic environment is much more complex than it was when we developed this concept and capability back in the '50s and 60s." The Navy's head of underwater warfare programs, Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, said earlier this month it was essential his service receive a replacement for the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. "We have to get that submarine," the admiral said in an interview with the New London Day newspaper. The Defense Department earlier this year announced it would postpone by two years plans to develop, build, and acquire a new series of Ohio-class vessels. The first new vessel in the series is not projected to be ready before 2031.
-----------------------------------------------------
See bolded - pretty devious, hey those big missiles have only one warhead how inefficient no reason to build new ones.
Oct. 9, 2012
Senior U.S. military personnel continue to advocate for maintaining the full nuclear triad even as it becomes less cost-efficient to build new delivery platforms for a declining number of warheads, Time magazine reported on Monday. Expenses for upkeep, refurbishment and management of the nation's ballistic missile submarines, strategic bombers, and silo-based ICBMs could amount to roughly $391 billion over the coming decade, according to a spending projection released last month by the antinuclear Ploughshares Fund. The new extended distance nuclear weapons delivery platforms the Defense Department intends to build to replace corresponding systems will actually be mounted with fewer warheads compared to levels in years past, according to an assessment by the Natural Resources Defense Council. For example, there were 7.5 warheads in 1991 for every delivery platform. That number decreased to 5.8 weapons for every delivery vehicle in 2001 and in 2009 fell further to 2.6 warheads for every platform. Under the New START arms control accord with Russia, the United States as of the beginning of last month possessed 1,034 active and reserve strategic nuclear delivery platforms. Washington is required to lower the number of such delivery systems to 700 by 2018, though an additional 100 platforms can be held in reserve. Military leaders contend the full range of options to fire atomic warheads from land, sea, and air is needed to guarantee the survivability of the strategic deterrent should an attack eradicate one or two of the country's delivery methods.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley in April said the evolving geopolitical climate necessitates maintaining multifaceted nuclear delivery options. "The more complex the global environment comes, the more flexibility you want between land, sea, and air-based capabilities," he said. Donley said he believes "it's important to maintain the flexibility and options for the president going forward. There's no doubt in my mind that the international strategic environment is much more complex than it was when we developed this concept and capability back in the '50s and 60s." The Navy's head of underwater warfare programs, Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, said earlier this month it was essential his service receive a replacement for the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. "We have to get that submarine," the admiral said in an interview with the New London Day newspaper. The Defense Department earlier this year announced it would postpone by two years plans to develop, build, and acquire a new series of Ohio-class vessels. The first new vessel in the series is not projected to be ready before 2031.
-----------------------------------------------------
See bolded - pretty devious, hey those big missiles have only one warhead how inefficient no reason to build new ones.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
NNSA Can Stick to Plan for W-76 Warhead Updates: Official
Oct. 10, 2012
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration appears capable of delivering on pledges to update W-76 nuclear warheads for the country's submarine-launched ballistic missiles, even though an auditor has warned the maintenance project is in danger of falling behind schedule, a senior NNSA official told the Knoxville News Sentinel last week. The operation must accelerate substantially to adhere to its time line, but anticipated funding constraints and cost-control problems would pose obstacles to such a move, the Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report published on Oct. 1. "I have read the IG report summaries at this point," NNSA Deputy Administrator Donald Cook said. "We've taken actions." The semiautonomous Energy Department branch that oversees the nuclear weapons complex must by fiscal 2014 achieve a 35-percent cost reduction to W-76 warhead yearly maintenance expenses "to meet its scope and schedule commitments within a relatively flat budget," the DOE audit warns. The assessment refers to existing NNSA plans to decrease the expense by one-forth during that period, Cook noted. "So, you know, the devil's in the details," he said.
"If you look at the issues from a few years ago to where we are, we have gotten through some of the early issues," Cook said. He suggested the addressed hurdles include "Fogbank," a sensitive, non-nuclear material involved in the nation's warhead life-extension efforts. "There were a number of technical issues -- three or four -- and we've gotten through each of those. We've gotten to the point where full-rate production, the rate we want to be at, too. We believe we can sustain that now through the end of the W-76 build. We're meeting all the Navy's operational requirements." The National Nuclear Security Administration is required to wrap up the W-76 life extension effort by fiscal 2018. Cook said his agency could adhere to its pledges "through the end of [2018] and into [2019]." "Depending on the number of warheads right now, the build will actually go out to 2021," the official said. "The builds from [2019 to 2021] are really for the hedge. The operational requirements really conclude at the end of 2018." The official said he had "very high" faith that his agency could adhere to its obligations to the Pentagon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would begin research, development and production of a W-92, W-93 and W-94 (ICBM, SLBM and cruise missile warhead) plus start RNEP and the Advance Concept Initiative again.
Oct. 10, 2012
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration appears capable of delivering on pledges to update W-76 nuclear warheads for the country's submarine-launched ballistic missiles, even though an auditor has warned the maintenance project is in danger of falling behind schedule, a senior NNSA official told the Knoxville News Sentinel last week. The operation must accelerate substantially to adhere to its time line, but anticipated funding constraints and cost-control problems would pose obstacles to such a move, the Energy Department's inspector general warned in a report published on Oct. 1. "I have read the IG report summaries at this point," NNSA Deputy Administrator Donald Cook said. "We've taken actions." The semiautonomous Energy Department branch that oversees the nuclear weapons complex must by fiscal 2014 achieve a 35-percent cost reduction to W-76 warhead yearly maintenance expenses "to meet its scope and schedule commitments within a relatively flat budget," the DOE audit warns. The assessment refers to existing NNSA plans to decrease the expense by one-forth during that period, Cook noted. "So, you know, the devil's in the details," he said.
"If you look at the issues from a few years ago to where we are, we have gotten through some of the early issues," Cook said. He suggested the addressed hurdles include "Fogbank," a sensitive, non-nuclear material involved in the nation's warhead life-extension efforts. "There were a number of technical issues -- three or four -- and we've gotten through each of those. We've gotten to the point where full-rate production, the rate we want to be at, too. We believe we can sustain that now through the end of the W-76 build. We're meeting all the Navy's operational requirements." The National Nuclear Security Administration is required to wrap up the W-76 life extension effort by fiscal 2018. Cook said his agency could adhere to its pledges "through the end of [2018] and into [2019]." "Depending on the number of warheads right now, the build will actually go out to 2021," the official said. "The builds from [2019 to 2021] are really for the hedge. The operational requirements really conclude at the end of 2018." The official said he had "very high" faith that his agency could adhere to its obligations to the Pentagon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would begin research, development and production of a W-92, W-93 and W-94 (ICBM, SLBM and cruise missile warhead) plus start RNEP and the Advance Concept Initiative again.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Simulated Minuteman Launch at F.E. Warren: Members of the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., recently conducted Giant Pace 12-2M, a Simulated Electronic Launch-Minuteman test, as part of Air Force Global Strike Command's activities to confirm the launch-readiness of the nation's Minuteman III ICBM fleet. "A SELM is the most complete test of the operational capability of our ICBMs, from day-to-day operation to issuance of the first-stage ignition signal," said Lt. Col. Matthew Dillow, 321st Missile Squadron commander, in an Oct. 12 release from the base. This SELM was held Sept. 25 to Sept. 27. Airmen of the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., supported the test. AFGSC stages these simulated launches twice yearly with the service's three missile wings. This year's previous SELM, Giant Pace 12-1M, took place at Minot AFB, N.D., with the 91st MW. Along with SELMs, the Air Force conducts periodic operational test launches of Minuteman IIIs from Vandenberg. (F.E. Warren report by SrA. Mike Tryon
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
No Fundamental Change: Support for the nuclear triad remains strong within the Pentagon, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. "I don't think the fundamental change that would call for us to reconsider the three legs of the triad has taken place," said Chambers in a recent interview. That's despite tightening defense budgets and recent appeals in some circles outside of the Defense Department for additional reductions in US nuclear forces—even elimination of the ICBM force. Chambers said he's actually sensed "a strengthening of the consensus" within military circles in the past year or so that the triad is "actually even more important" as the United States draws down its arsenal to the New START caps, and, potentially at some later point, goes to lower levels beyond New START. "I think that is based on the fact that we've now argued well that the attributes—in particular of our two legs of the triad—actually are well-tailored for the new strategic environment," said Chambers. The Air Force's nuclear-capable bombers, for example, offer "a tremendous amount of flexibility" and visibility. The ICBM force is "stabilizing," "lethal," "responsive," and "highly credible," he said.—Michael C. Sirak
Getting to 2030: The Air Force has "a very solid master plan" in place to keep the Minuteman III fleet viable out to 2030, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who oversees nuclear matters on the Air Staff. The Minuteman's "propulsion is going to have to be addressed towards the end of this decade in order to get motors to 2030," Chambers told the Daily Report in a recent interview. "We've known that for many years because of the lifespan of the last propulsion replacement program," he noted. The Minuteman's guidance system "is another area we are going to have to invest in," added Chambers. He said the Air Force does not know yet if the guidance update would address just reliability issues, as did the previous upgrade, or also improve the missile's accuracy, since this decision is still years out. "Right now, given the requirement as we know it, it could very well just be a further reliability upgrade," said Chambers. The Air Force has already invested some $7 billion to keep the nuclear-tipped Minuteman missiles viable through 2020 as one leg of the nation's strategic deterrent. Congress has mandated that the missiles remain viable out of 2030.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just REPLACE the MMIII with a new state of the art ICBM, roughly twice the payload for extended range missions with one warhead or to have an upload ability in a changing strategic environment. Use this same missile for Prompt Global Strike.
Getting to 2030: The Air Force has "a very solid master plan" in place to keep the Minuteman III fleet viable out to 2030, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who oversees nuclear matters on the Air Staff. The Minuteman's "propulsion is going to have to be addressed towards the end of this decade in order to get motors to 2030," Chambers told the Daily Report in a recent interview. "We've known that for many years because of the lifespan of the last propulsion replacement program," he noted. The Minuteman's guidance system "is another area we are going to have to invest in," added Chambers. He said the Air Force does not know yet if the guidance update would address just reliability issues, as did the previous upgrade, or also improve the missile's accuracy, since this decision is still years out. "Right now, given the requirement as we know it, it could very well just be a further reliability upgrade," said Chambers. The Air Force has already invested some $7 billion to keep the nuclear-tipped Minuteman missiles viable through 2020 as one leg of the nation's strategic deterrent. Congress has mandated that the missiles remain viable out of 2030.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just REPLACE the MMIII with a new state of the art ICBM, roughly twice the payload for extended range missions with one warhead or to have an upload ability in a changing strategic environment. Use this same missile for Prompt Global Strike.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Perspective Matters: If fiscal pressures should lead to a debate on the relative value of the legs of the nuclear triad compared to other military weapons systems, Maj. Gen. William Chambers said he'd want those discussions to occur "from a strategic perspective," with recognition that the deterrent force represents "national weapons" warranting special consideration. "The nuclear deterrent force underpins and underwrites every other tool of statecraft, every other military capability," said Chambers, who oversees nuclear issues on the Air Staff, in a recent interview. He added, "The reason we can keep small regional, low-intensity conflicts under control is because we have this underwriting of protection against major power conflict that is produced by deterrent forces." Chambers noted that it costs the Air Force only about one percent of its budget (some $1.1 billion of a $119 billion budget in Fiscal 2011) to operate the Minuteman III ICBM force and some two percent ($2.5 billion in Fiscal 2011) to operate its B-2A and B-52H dual-role, nuclear-capable bombers. (For more from Chambers' interview, read No Fundamental Change and Getting to 2030.)—Michael C. Sirak
Diplomatic Ceiling: By around the fall of 2017, the Air Force expects to arrive at the reduced force structure levels it must meet for the United States to comply with the New START agreement's ceilings on strategic nuclear forces, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. "We want to be at the central treaty limit a little before" the treaty's February 2018 drawdown deadline, he told the Daily Report in a recent interview. New START requires the United States and Russia to reduce their respective arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, 700 deployed launchers (i.e., ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers), and 800 deployed/non-deployed launchers. The Obama Administration intends to meet those caps by maintaining a mix of no more than 60 deployable nuclear-capable bombers, up to 420 deployed Minuteman missiles, and no more than 240 deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Chambers said the White House has not yet determined the final mix of forces, but the Air Force has submitted its preferred makeup of the bomber and ICBM fleets. He said the White House's decision "has to be made" by next spring or early next summer as part of the Fiscal 2015 budget build in order to meet the drawdown timeline.
Diplomatic Ceiling: By around the fall of 2017, the Air Force expects to arrive at the reduced force structure levels it must meet for the United States to comply with the New START agreement's ceilings on strategic nuclear forces, said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. "We want to be at the central treaty limit a little before" the treaty's February 2018 drawdown deadline, he told the Daily Report in a recent interview. New START requires the United States and Russia to reduce their respective arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, 700 deployed launchers (i.e., ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers), and 800 deployed/non-deployed launchers. The Obama Administration intends to meet those caps by maintaining a mix of no more than 60 deployable nuclear-capable bombers, up to 420 deployed Minuteman missiles, and no more than 240 deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Chambers said the White House has not yet determined the final mix of forces, but the Air Force has submitted its preferred makeup of the bomber and ICBM fleets. He said the White House's decision "has to be made" by next spring or early next summer as part of the Fiscal 2015 budget build in order to meet the drawdown timeline.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Former White House Aides: New Nuclear Guidance to Have Lasting Effect Oct. 19, 2012 By Lee Michael Katz Special to Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- Whether it is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, the U.S. president in coming months and years will face a series of stark decisions on strategic issues, including one that will decide the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.
Setting the government’s “nuclear guidance” will be a critical upcoming decision no matter who is president, according to Jon Wolfsthal, a former White House official now at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “It is the key to all the nuclear decision-making for the next 20 years,” he said. “The guidance is the basis for all of the plans and the plans are the basis for all of the weapons and the platforms,” agreed retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert Smolen, who directed strategic policy and arms control at the National Security Council between 2004 and 2006. “It is the first commandment in setting all other nuclear decisions,” said Wolfsthal. Until earlier this year he was special adviser for nuclear security to Vice President Joseph Biden. “It explains [against] what targets our nuclear weapons will be directed, under what circumstances should the military be prepared to use them … and [what constitute] acceptable targets for nuclear strikes,” he said. The number of nuclear warheads required typically has flowed from this type of guidance, and the Obama administration reportedly is in the process of finalizing just such a directive. Under the Defense Department-led 2010 Nuclear Posture Review “Implementation Study,” the president’s national security team has drafted new atomic-weapons policy. However, reports are that Obama has not yet approved it and its details have not been publicly released.
Whatever guidance is issued by the next president, it could determine whether and how deep further nuclear weapon reductions are taken beyond those negotiated by the United States and Russia in the New START accord, said Smolen, who after military retirement served as a Bush administration deputy for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. The agency is a semi-autonomous arm of the Energy Department that oversees the atomic weapons complex. During the next administration, “there’s going to have to be some sort of decisions on how much we do and how fast we do it,” he said. Under New START, which entered into force last year, each side agreed to cap its deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550. The pact allows Washington and Moscow to each field 700 nuclear delivery platforms -- such as bomber aircraft, ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles -- with another 100 permitted in reserve. Leading up to the negotiations that resulted in New START, the Pentagon determined that the existing nuclear guidance and military plan inherited from the Bush administration could form the basis for modest, additional nuclear weapons cuts. A prior accord, the Moscow Treaty, limited each side to 2,200 deployed warheads. Inside the Obama administration, “we considered both low numbers and high numbers, but this is one decision which is, by definition, presidential,” said Wolfsthal, who now advises the re-election campaign. “Whoever is president on Jan. 20, 2012, is going to have to make this set of decisions.”
A Government Accountability Office report released this summer described an executive branch “process for developing nuclear targeting and employment guidance” that it said had “remained virtually unchanged since 1991.” Under the typical process, “the president develops guidance that defines the fundamental role of nuclear weapons, deterrence strategy, and basic employment strategy,” according to the GAO assessment. The White House document normally “includes a list of potential adversaries and target categories to hold at risk,” the report states. The guidance in place today, issued in 2002 as National Security Presidential Directive-14, “identifies potential adversaries, target categories, and scenarios requiring preplanned nuclear options; emphasizes the need for survivable and flexible nuclear forces; describes the type of nuclear options available to the president; outlines a plan structure designed to avoid an 'all-or-nothing' response to a nuclear attack; and directs nuclear forces to hold at risk those critical assets and capabilities which a potential enemy leadership values most,” according to the congressional watchdog agency.
Going forward, a complicating factor is the costly scope of maintaining a reliable U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal well into the future, Smolen said. “The difficulty is on the strategic side we've got to recapitalize all our platforms and virtually all of our weapons,” he said. The challenge, Smolen said, is “building new weapons that have all the characteristics that we want them to have that will enable us to have smaller numbers, [without explosive] testing, and that will last a lot longer.”
=========================================
Maybe back in 1991 we shouldn't have cancelled all new systems and all modernization plans. With trillion dollar deficits I can hear the yelling now if a new president wants to spend money on nuclear weapons, "But the children are starving!"
WASHINGTON -- Whether it is Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, the U.S. president in coming months and years will face a series of stark decisions on strategic issues, including one that will decide the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.
Setting the government’s “nuclear guidance” will be a critical upcoming decision no matter who is president, according to Jon Wolfsthal, a former White House official now at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “It is the key to all the nuclear decision-making for the next 20 years,” he said. “The guidance is the basis for all of the plans and the plans are the basis for all of the weapons and the platforms,” agreed retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert Smolen, who directed strategic policy and arms control at the National Security Council between 2004 and 2006. “It is the first commandment in setting all other nuclear decisions,” said Wolfsthal. Until earlier this year he was special adviser for nuclear security to Vice President Joseph Biden. “It explains [against] what targets our nuclear weapons will be directed, under what circumstances should the military be prepared to use them … and [what constitute] acceptable targets for nuclear strikes,” he said. The number of nuclear warheads required typically has flowed from this type of guidance, and the Obama administration reportedly is in the process of finalizing just such a directive. Under the Defense Department-led 2010 Nuclear Posture Review “Implementation Study,” the president’s national security team has drafted new atomic-weapons policy. However, reports are that Obama has not yet approved it and its details have not been publicly released.
Whatever guidance is issued by the next president, it could determine whether and how deep further nuclear weapon reductions are taken beyond those negotiated by the United States and Russia in the New START accord, said Smolen, who after military retirement served as a Bush administration deputy for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. The agency is a semi-autonomous arm of the Energy Department that oversees the atomic weapons complex. During the next administration, “there’s going to have to be some sort of decisions on how much we do and how fast we do it,” he said. Under New START, which entered into force last year, each side agreed to cap its deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550. The pact allows Washington and Moscow to each field 700 nuclear delivery platforms -- such as bomber aircraft, ICBMs and submarine-based ballistic missiles -- with another 100 permitted in reserve. Leading up to the negotiations that resulted in New START, the Pentagon determined that the existing nuclear guidance and military plan inherited from the Bush administration could form the basis for modest, additional nuclear weapons cuts. A prior accord, the Moscow Treaty, limited each side to 2,200 deployed warheads. Inside the Obama administration, “we considered both low numbers and high numbers, but this is one decision which is, by definition, presidential,” said Wolfsthal, who now advises the re-election campaign. “Whoever is president on Jan. 20, 2012, is going to have to make this set of decisions.”
A Government Accountability Office report released this summer described an executive branch “process for developing nuclear targeting and employment guidance” that it said had “remained virtually unchanged since 1991.” Under the typical process, “the president develops guidance that defines the fundamental role of nuclear weapons, deterrence strategy, and basic employment strategy,” according to the GAO assessment. The White House document normally “includes a list of potential adversaries and target categories to hold at risk,” the report states. The guidance in place today, issued in 2002 as National Security Presidential Directive-14, “identifies potential adversaries, target categories, and scenarios requiring preplanned nuclear options; emphasizes the need for survivable and flexible nuclear forces; describes the type of nuclear options available to the president; outlines a plan structure designed to avoid an 'all-or-nothing' response to a nuclear attack; and directs nuclear forces to hold at risk those critical assets and capabilities which a potential enemy leadership values most,” according to the congressional watchdog agency.
Going forward, a complicating factor is the costly scope of maintaining a reliable U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal well into the future, Smolen said. “The difficulty is on the strategic side we've got to recapitalize all our platforms and virtually all of our weapons,” he said. The challenge, Smolen said, is “building new weapons that have all the characteristics that we want them to have that will enable us to have smaller numbers, [without explosive] testing, and that will last a lot longer.”
=========================================
Maybe back in 1991 we shouldn't have cancelled all new systems and all modernization plans. With trillion dollar deficits I can hear the yelling now if a new president wants to spend money on nuclear weapons, "But the children are starving!"
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Russia Reportedly Approves Production of New Liquid-Fueled ICBM
Oct. 22, 2012
The Russian Defense Ministry has given the go-ahead to plans to begin manufacturing a new liquid-fueled ICBM before 2012 is over, according to a Monday article by the Vzglyad newspaper. The next-generation 100-ton strategic missile is reportedly to be more capable than the Voyevoda, with the ability to carry as many as 10 heavy atomic warheads or 15 medium bombs at a range greater than 6,200 miles. "At the beginning of October, the Defense Ministry approved the draft project of the new missile as a whole and designers were ordered to improve some things," said former Col. Gen. Victor Yesin, who is presently serving as a consultant to the head of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. "Production of the missile will begin by the end of the year." The ex-general w ould not disclose what particular problems the Russian military found in the draft designs of the new missile. Separately, Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval revealed to Interfax on Friday that the designing and creation of a new missile that would be transported via railcars has begun. Final approval of the missile has yet to come, he said. Elsewhere, a liquid-propellant R-29R submarine-launched ballistic missile was successfully test-fired by the Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets submarine on Friday, according to a different Interfax report.
"The missile was launched from a submerged position to the Chizha military testing ground in Arkhangelsk region," a Russian navy spokesman said. "The warhead reached the military ground at the set time." The SLBM traveled more than 3,700 miles before exactly striking its appointed destination, Agence France-Presse reported, citing official information. At the same time, the Strategic Missile Forces and Aerospace Defense Forces carried out a successful test launch of a Topol ICBM. The Defense Ministry also announced a successful of test-launch on northern Komy Peninsula of two nuclear-capable cruise missiles by Tu-95 and Tu-1160 bomber aircraft.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin announced that President Vladimir Putin personally oversaw what it described as the biggest command- and-control drill in recent years of Russia's strategic forces, the New York Times reported. Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov in a short release said the nuclear command drill involving test-firings of ballistic and cruise missiles equipped with dummy warheads from all three legs of the Russian nuclear triad occurred "under Putin's personal control." "The supreme commander in chief made a high assessment" of the execution of Russian nuclear forces personnel," Peskov said to Russian news agencies. "It was the first time in recent history of Russia that the strategic nuclear forces have held a command exercise on such a scale."
===============================================
Oct. 22, 2012
The Russian Defense Ministry has given the go-ahead to plans to begin manufacturing a new liquid-fueled ICBM before 2012 is over, according to a Monday article by the Vzglyad newspaper. The next-generation 100-ton strategic missile is reportedly to be more capable than the Voyevoda, with the ability to carry as many as 10 heavy atomic warheads or 15 medium bombs at a range greater than 6,200 miles. "At the beginning of October, the Defense Ministry approved the draft project of the new missile as a whole and designers were ordered to improve some things," said former Col. Gen. Victor Yesin, who is presently serving as a consultant to the head of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. "Production of the missile will begin by the end of the year." The ex-general w ould not disclose what particular problems the Russian military found in the draft designs of the new missile. Separately, Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval revealed to Interfax on Friday that the designing and creation of a new missile that would be transported via railcars has begun. Final approval of the missile has yet to come, he said. Elsewhere, a liquid-propellant R-29R submarine-launched ballistic missile was successfully test-fired by the Svyatoi Georgy Pobedonosets submarine on Friday, according to a different Interfax report.
"The missile was launched from a submerged position to the Chizha military testing ground in Arkhangelsk region," a Russian navy spokesman said. "The warhead reached the military ground at the set time." The SLBM traveled more than 3,700 miles before exactly striking its appointed destination, Agence France-Presse reported, citing official information. At the same time, the Strategic Missile Forces and Aerospace Defense Forces carried out a successful test launch of a Topol ICBM. The Defense Ministry also announced a successful of test-launch on northern Komy Peninsula of two nuclear-capable cruise missiles by Tu-95 and Tu-1160 bomber aircraft.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin announced that President Vladimir Putin personally oversaw what it described as the biggest command- and-control drill in recent years of Russia's strategic forces, the New York Times reported. Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov in a short release said the nuclear command drill involving test-firings of ballistic and cruise missiles equipped with dummy warheads from all three legs of the Russian nuclear triad occurred "under Putin's personal control." "The supreme commander in chief made a high assessment" of the execution of Russian nuclear forces personnel," Peskov said to Russian news agencies. "It was the first time in recent history of Russia that the strategic nuclear forces have held a command exercise on such a scale."
===============================================
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Russia Test-Fires Prototype of New ICBM Created to Evade Missile Defenses
Oct. 25, 2012
Russia on Wednesday announced a successful trial-firing of a prototype mobile ICBM that is being developed to evade missile defenses, according to an ITAR-Tass report. Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said the experimental extended-range missile was launched from a movable launch platform from the Kapustin Yar testing facility in Astrakhan. "The missile's model warhead hit the hypothetical target at the Sary-Shagan Testing pad in Kazakhstan." The principal focus of the trial was to check if technological fixes to the weapon had been successful. The test was also aimed at affirming the working order of all missile systems and warhead components. "The missile is being created based on maximum use of new technological solutions of the fifth-generation missile systems," the spokesman said. "These solutions considerably reduce production time and cost."
------------------------------------------------------------
US response - We might try, maybe, someday in 2030 or so, if we're lucky to build a replacement for our 40 years old design MMIII.
Oct. 25, 2012
Russia on Wednesday announced a successful trial-firing of a prototype mobile ICBM that is being developed to evade missile defenses, according to an ITAR-Tass report. Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said the experimental extended-range missile was launched from a movable launch platform from the Kapustin Yar testing facility in Astrakhan. "The missile's model warhead hit the hypothetical target at the Sary-Shagan Testing pad in Kazakhstan." The principal focus of the trial was to check if technological fixes to the weapon had been successful. The test was also aimed at affirming the working order of all missile systems and warhead components. "The missile is being created based on maximum use of new technological solutions of the fifth-generation missile systems," the spokesman said. "These solutions considerably reduce production time and cost."
------------------------------------------------------------
US response - We might try, maybe, someday in 2030 or so, if we're lucky to build a replacement for our 40 years old design MMIII.
TaiidanTomcat
"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
- Joined
- 19 July 2011
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 67
Thats a great question
Probably because in order to have sufficient payload/velocity in order to defeat "easy to defeat" missile defense and still carry a useful payload, solids ain't gonna cut it...
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
60 Years ago today the US detonates the first H-bomb, fast forward to my opinion news, "60 Years Later US, Inventor of the H-Bomb Can No Longer Produce One"
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/hiroshima-h-bomb-10-earth-shaking-moments-atomic-science
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/hiroshima-h-bomb-10-earth-shaking-moments-atomic-science
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
bobbymike said:60 Years ago today the US detonates the first H-bomb, fast forward to my opinion news, "60 Years Later US, Inventor of the H-Bomb Can No Longer Produce One"
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/hiroshima-h-bomb-10-earth-shaking-moments-atomic-science
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
New ICBM Payload Transporter in the Works: The Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a four-year, $39.7 million contract to design, develop, test, and qualify a replacement payload transporter system for the Minuteman III ICBM fleet, announced the company on Nov. 1. The existing payload transporter is nearing the end of its design life, states the company's release. "The replacement transporter will provide an immediate improvement in security and prevent potential supportability impacts from the aging system currently in use," said Mark Bishop, Northrop Grumman's program manager for the payload transporter replacement. The company is the prime contractor for sustaining the Minuteman III fleet, which the Air Force expects to operate out to 2030. (See also Getting to 2030.)
--------------------------------------------
Waiting for headline, "New ICBM in the works"
--------------------------------------------
Waiting for headline, "New ICBM in the works"
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Kinda what I asked for:
MDD scheduled for March 2013 Air Force, Seeking Future ICBM Direction, To Hold Industry Day This Month Posted: Nov. 01, 2012
Air Force officials will be meeting with industry later this month to help mature potential concepts for the service's future intercontinental ballistic missile posture -- an enterprise known as Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent the Air Force is working to better define. The Minuteman III, the Defense Department's current ICBM fleet, is scheduled to remain operational until 2030, but service officials have already begun to consider how to meet ground-based nuclear requirements after that period. The Air Force held an industry day in February to discuss capability gaps with potential contractors, and this month's event -- to be held Nov. 14-15 at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM -- will be geared toward informing the service's study guidance for an analysis of alternatives (AOA), which is planned for completion in fiscal year 2014. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) industry day was announced on the Federal Business Opportunities website on Oct. 26. In an Oct. 31 email provided by a Kirtland AFB spokesman, GBSD Provisional Program Manager Antonio Rendon said the Air Force has completed a number of activities since February, including reviewing more than 250 studies in an effort to properly leverage previous GBSD-related findings. Between that effort and a series of meetings with industry, Rendon said his team has progressed in narrowing and understanding the trade space the Air Force should consider in the near future.
Much of that work, as well as the industry input that should come out of the November meeting, is meant to facilitate the upcoming AOA, Rendon said. Rendon's position as the lead on GBSD concept development is located within the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center's intelligence, program development and integration directorate, but Air Force Global Strike Command's plans, programs and requirements is the overall lead for future ICBM activities. "[At the upcoming industry day], the GBSD team will present a summary of the GBSD Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and threat environment," Rendon said. "We will also discuss the high-level concepts developed to date and ask industry to explore alternatives to refine our concepts to support AOA activities." The gathering is timed to generate a wealth of information ahead of an important milestone in March 2013, a Materiel Development Decision led by Office of the Secretary of Defense acquisition officials. A successful decision marks a program's official entrance into the acquisition process, and the GBSD AOA is scheduled to begin immediately after that decision is passed down, Rendon said. Over the last eight months, the Air Force has begun compiling concept characterization and technical description documents, called CCTDs, that will present the framework for that study. "These high-level documents capture the preliminary analysis for each concept that will be considered during the AOA to help determine technical feasibility," he said. "CCTDs form the foundation for future acquisition documentation as the program matures."
In his email, Rendon noted -- as other Air Force officials have in the past -- that the service has not determined that developing a replacement for the Minuteman III is the best strategy going forward. Continuing to modernize the current ICBM fleet to meet future needs "is one of the courses of action being considered for GBSD," he said. Minuteman III operations are coordinated by Air Force Global Strike Command through its missile wings at Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY, and Minot Air Force Base, ND. -- Gabe Starosta
MDD scheduled for March 2013 Air Force, Seeking Future ICBM Direction, To Hold Industry Day This Month Posted: Nov. 01, 2012
Air Force officials will be meeting with industry later this month to help mature potential concepts for the service's future intercontinental ballistic missile posture -- an enterprise known as Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent the Air Force is working to better define. The Minuteman III, the Defense Department's current ICBM fleet, is scheduled to remain operational until 2030, but service officials have already begun to consider how to meet ground-based nuclear requirements after that period. The Air Force held an industry day in February to discuss capability gaps with potential contractors, and this month's event -- to be held Nov. 14-15 at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM -- will be geared toward informing the service's study guidance for an analysis of alternatives (AOA), which is planned for completion in fiscal year 2014. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) industry day was announced on the Federal Business Opportunities website on Oct. 26. In an Oct. 31 email provided by a Kirtland AFB spokesman, GBSD Provisional Program Manager Antonio Rendon said the Air Force has completed a number of activities since February, including reviewing more than 250 studies in an effort to properly leverage previous GBSD-related findings. Between that effort and a series of meetings with industry, Rendon said his team has progressed in narrowing and understanding the trade space the Air Force should consider in the near future.
Much of that work, as well as the industry input that should come out of the November meeting, is meant to facilitate the upcoming AOA, Rendon said. Rendon's position as the lead on GBSD concept development is located within the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center's intelligence, program development and integration directorate, but Air Force Global Strike Command's plans, programs and requirements is the overall lead for future ICBM activities. "[At the upcoming industry day], the GBSD team will present a summary of the GBSD Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and threat environment," Rendon said. "We will also discuss the high-level concepts developed to date and ask industry to explore alternatives to refine our concepts to support AOA activities." The gathering is timed to generate a wealth of information ahead of an important milestone in March 2013, a Materiel Development Decision led by Office of the Secretary of Defense acquisition officials. A successful decision marks a program's official entrance into the acquisition process, and the GBSD AOA is scheduled to begin immediately after that decision is passed down, Rendon said. Over the last eight months, the Air Force has begun compiling concept characterization and technical description documents, called CCTDs, that will present the framework for that study. "These high-level documents capture the preliminary analysis for each concept that will be considered during the AOA to help determine technical feasibility," he said. "CCTDs form the foundation for future acquisition documentation as the program matures."
In his email, Rendon noted -- as other Air Force officials have in the past -- that the service has not determined that developing a replacement for the Minuteman III is the best strategy going forward. Continuing to modernize the current ICBM fleet to meet future needs "is one of the courses of action being considered for GBSD," he said. Minuteman III operations are coordinated by Air Force Global Strike Command through its missile wings at Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY, and Minot Air Force Base, ND. -- Gabe Starosta
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Russia Preps ICBM for 2014 Fielding Nov. 21, 2012
A new Russian ICBM is due to be placed on active duty in 2014, RIA Novosti quoted an armed forces insider as saying on Wednesday. The head of the Russian strategic missile forces, Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, had earlier stated the midweight, solid-fuel weapon would be fielded in 2015. "According to the latest information, it will be accepted into service in 2014; the new weapon is part of a response program to the United States ballistic missile defense program," according to the source, who did not provide identifying information for the ICBM. Moscow has for years challenged U.S. plans to deploy land- and sea-based missile interceptors and associated technology around Europe. While Washington says the joint U.S.-NATO project for European missile defense is aimed at Iran, Russia says the system could be used to counter its own nuclear deterrent.
Karakayev's command last month conducted a trial launch of the missile from the Kapustin Yar site, the insider said. "This was a test launch as part of combined state trials," he noted, continuing that the testing would be completed before the missile went into service. The missile is largely intended to be installed on movable firing platforms. "So far there has been no decision on whether to base them in silos," the source said.
Russia Ramps up Deployment of Modern ICBMs Nov. 20, 2012
Russia is increasing the pace of updating its deployed long-range nuclear arsenal, the head of the military's strategic missile forces told reporters on Tuesday. Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said for the "first time in two decades we are going to exceed the limits of only two missile divisions rearmament," the Xinhua News Agency reported. "In 2013, we will rearm missile regiments in three divisions and prepare for rearmament of two more missile divisions." Sophisticated fifth-generation Yars and Topol-M ICBMs are fielded in Russia's center with four regiments of the Teikovo missile division, the commander said. Deployment of new ICBM units to missile divisions in Kaluga, South Siberia, Novosibirsk, and Saratov also began this year. "Thus, the rearmament program of the strategic missile forces with Topol-M system will be completed," Karakayev proclaimed. The Yars missile can travel in excess of 6,800 miles while the heavier Topol-M ICBM can hit targets approximately 6,200 miles away. Russia has approved spending in excess of $600 billion to 2020 for modernizing its military. The Russian government has also authorized creation of a next-generation long-range nuclear missile to supplant the RS-20V Voyevoda, which is anticipated to be fully retired by 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------
USA - We'll maybe get around to doing something with our 40 year old ICBM in 2030 or so and even then we might just refurbish the MMIII becasue of a tight budget because by 2030 the $10 billion we spend on nuclear programs is such a HUGE part of the expected $6.2 TRILLION federal budget (today's plus 3% compounded growth)
And in other news total federal welfare spending in the next 4 years will increase from ~ $1 Trillion/annum to $1.3 Trillion
A new Russian ICBM is due to be placed on active duty in 2014, RIA Novosti quoted an armed forces insider as saying on Wednesday. The head of the Russian strategic missile forces, Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, had earlier stated the midweight, solid-fuel weapon would be fielded in 2015. "According to the latest information, it will be accepted into service in 2014; the new weapon is part of a response program to the United States ballistic missile defense program," according to the source, who did not provide identifying information for the ICBM. Moscow has for years challenged U.S. plans to deploy land- and sea-based missile interceptors and associated technology around Europe. While Washington says the joint U.S.-NATO project for European missile defense is aimed at Iran, Russia says the system could be used to counter its own nuclear deterrent.
Karakayev's command last month conducted a trial launch of the missile from the Kapustin Yar site, the insider said. "This was a test launch as part of combined state trials," he noted, continuing that the testing would be completed before the missile went into service. The missile is largely intended to be installed on movable firing platforms. "So far there has been no decision on whether to base them in silos," the source said.
Russia Ramps up Deployment of Modern ICBMs Nov. 20, 2012
Russia is increasing the pace of updating its deployed long-range nuclear arsenal, the head of the military's strategic missile forces told reporters on Tuesday. Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said for the "first time in two decades we are going to exceed the limits of only two missile divisions rearmament," the Xinhua News Agency reported. "In 2013, we will rearm missile regiments in three divisions and prepare for rearmament of two more missile divisions." Sophisticated fifth-generation Yars and Topol-M ICBMs are fielded in Russia's center with four regiments of the Teikovo missile division, the commander said. Deployment of new ICBM units to missile divisions in Kaluga, South Siberia, Novosibirsk, and Saratov also began this year. "Thus, the rearmament program of the strategic missile forces with Topol-M system will be completed," Karakayev proclaimed. The Yars missile can travel in excess of 6,800 miles while the heavier Topol-M ICBM can hit targets approximately 6,200 miles away. Russia has approved spending in excess of $600 billion to 2020 for modernizing its military. The Russian government has also authorized creation of a next-generation long-range nuclear missile to supplant the RS-20V Voyevoda, which is anticipated to be fully retired by 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------
USA - We'll maybe get around to doing something with our 40 year old ICBM in 2030 or so and even then we might just refurbish the MMIII becasue of a tight budget because by 2030 the $10 billion we spend on nuclear programs is such a HUGE part of the expected $6.2 TRILLION federal budget (today's plus 3% compounded growth)
And in other news total federal welfare spending in the next 4 years will increase from ~ $1 Trillion/annum to $1.3 Trillion
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
General Dynamics Earns Contract to Continue Common Missile Compartment Development
GROTON, Conn. - The U.S. Navy has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $61.7 million contract modification for the continued development of the Common Missile Compartment for the United Kingdom’s Successor ballistic-missile submarine and the U.S. Ohio replacement submarine. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics.
Under the modification, Electric Boat will procure, manufacture and test prototype material and equipment to be used in the production of the Common Missile Compartment.
The award modifies a contract announced in December 2008 for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design of a Common Missile Compartment for the next-generation ballistic missile submarines being developed for the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy. If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract would have a value of more than $776 million.
GROTON, Conn. - The U.S. Navy has awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat a $61.7 million contract modification for the continued development of the Common Missile Compartment for the United Kingdom’s Successor ballistic-missile submarine and the U.S. Ohio replacement submarine. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics.
Under the modification, Electric Boat will procure, manufacture and test prototype material and equipment to be used in the production of the Common Missile Compartment.
The award modifies a contract announced in December 2008 for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design of a Common Missile Compartment for the next-generation ballistic missile submarines being developed for the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy. If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract would have a value of more than $776 million.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
U.S. Disassembled More Nukes Than Planned in Fiscal 2012 Dec. 3, 2012
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration on Monday said it had disassembled 12 percent more nuclear weapons than anticipated in fiscal 2012. The program for the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 covered B-61 and B-83 bombs as well as W-76, W-80, W-84 and W-78 warheads. An exact number of disassembled weapons was not provided in a press release from the semiautonomous Energy Department branch that oversees the U.S. nuclear arms complex. “NNSA delivered on President Obama’s commitment to reduce the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons declared excess to the stockpile and awaiting dismantlement. We exceeded our dismantlement goals for FY 2012 by a significant margin,” NNSA Deputy Administrator Don Cook said in provided comments. “Our stockpile today is smaller, but the deterrent remains just as safe, secure and effective as it was. Dismantlements of legacy weapons are a key part of the Nuclear Posture Review, going hand-in-hand with the safety and security improvements in our life extension programs and critical to our long-term national security."
Weapons disassembly involves a number of NNSA sites, including the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, which takes apart weapons' uranium parts, and the Pantex Plant in Texas, where duties include extracting plutonium triggers from warheads and securely storing the material.
The work ensures that nuclear materials cannot be diverted to illicit purposes, according to the agency release. It also enables material to be repurposed to weapons undergoing service life-extension updates or in nuclear reactors on naval vessels. A certain amount of weapon-grade uranium is converted to a more proliferation-resistant form usable in civilian nuclear reactors.
---------------------------------------------------
Way to go (snark) we can take 'em apart but can't build them
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration on Monday said it had disassembled 12 percent more nuclear weapons than anticipated in fiscal 2012. The program for the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 covered B-61 and B-83 bombs as well as W-76, W-80, W-84 and W-78 warheads. An exact number of disassembled weapons was not provided in a press release from the semiautonomous Energy Department branch that oversees the U.S. nuclear arms complex. “NNSA delivered on President Obama’s commitment to reduce the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons declared excess to the stockpile and awaiting dismantlement. We exceeded our dismantlement goals for FY 2012 by a significant margin,” NNSA Deputy Administrator Don Cook said in provided comments. “Our stockpile today is smaller, but the deterrent remains just as safe, secure and effective as it was. Dismantlements of legacy weapons are a key part of the Nuclear Posture Review, going hand-in-hand with the safety and security improvements in our life extension programs and critical to our long-term national security."
Weapons disassembly involves a number of NNSA sites, including the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, which takes apart weapons' uranium parts, and the Pantex Plant in Texas, where duties include extracting plutonium triggers from warheads and securely storing the material.
The work ensures that nuclear materials cannot be diverted to illicit purposes, according to the agency release. It also enables material to be repurposed to weapons undergoing service life-extension updates or in nuclear reactors on naval vessels. A certain amount of weapon-grade uranium is converted to a more proliferation-resistant form usable in civilian nuclear reactors.
---------------------------------------------------
Way to go (snark) we can take 'em apart but can't build them
Similar threads
-
-
New Plan for Sub Launched Conventional Ballistic Missile for PGS Mission?- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 0
-
British alternative to NATO INF (Cruise and Polaris)
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 10
-
-
