Current Nuclear Weapons Development

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4x5KKEJeJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW18-2-QrIg
 
bobbymike said:
The U.S. Navy is betting the future of its submarine force on a secret and revolutionary nuclear drive system
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's nothing revolutionary about the system described. It's been done before... at least three times that I can recall (SSN-597, SSN-685, and NR-1).
 
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
The U.S. Navy is betting the future of its submarine force on a secret and revolutionary nuclear drive system
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's nothing revolutionary about the system described. It's been done before... at least three times that I can recall (SSN-597, SSN-685, and NR-1).
Click to expand...

And I recall they were poor performers compared to the standard systems.
 
sferrin said:
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
The U.S. Navy is betting the future of its submarine force on a secret and revolutionary nuclear drive system
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's nothing revolutionary about the system described. It's been done before... at least three times that I can recall (SSN-597, SSN-685, and NR-1).
Click to expand...
And I recall they were poor performers compared to the standard systems.
Click to expand...
Then again, SSBNs don't have to be speed-demons, and there may have been a few advances over the past few decades. It's hard to say. Back in ye olden' days, something like this would be tested years ahead of time in a production seaframe (elements of SSN-671's propulsion system ended up in the Ohio-class). Now, with so little money available, I doubt the USN is going to risk building one of its Virginia subs as an experimental-testbed boat.
 
The Nation’s ICBM Force: Increasingly Creaky Broken Missiles By Matthew Vanderschuere Jan. 23, 2013

As the Air Force begins to dust off plans for the Minuteman III ICBM replacement, a stark choice faces the service. On one hand, the time has come to replace them. On the other, the Air Force is strapped for cash, victim to a perfect storm of bureaucratic bloat, several rounds of defense cuts, and a fighter fleet exhausted by war and age.
The purpose of our strategic deterrent is simple: prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used. And the current Minuteman III inter-continental ballistic missile system, long in the tooth at 40 years old, is the foundation of that strategy.
The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile was first deployed during the Nixon Administration. Though the missiles have been swapped out with a new skin and innards, the Air Force still uses the same ancient command and control infrastructure.
That technology, which the USAF uses to control and monitor the missiles, is crumbling:
<blockquote> – There’s more computing power in a first-generation iPhone than our ICBM force.
– Some replacement parts were built by companies that went out of business decades ago.
– Simple day-to-day tasks, routine during the peak of the Cold War, now take hours of wrench-turning, just to keep the deterrent on its feet.</blockquote> The question staring down a cash-crunched Air Force is one of priorities.
With budgetary and political pressures closing in, some elected officials (and no doubt some military leaders) may be singing the siren’s song of abandoning the nuclear triad for a diad. Drop the missiles (some say), and leave deterrence for the submarines and bombers.
If the triad stays, as it should, the Air Force faces another tough choice.

The Minuteman fleet is on its last legs. A new system presents challenges that were foreign during the Cold War. Digging new, survivable underground bunkers could run afoot of a mountain of environmental regulations written after the Minuteman IIIs first went on alert. If the ICBMs went mobile, on roads or railways like the Russians or Chinese are wont to do, people near travel routes could create challenging political pressures. ************ If Time is writing about this IT'S BAD as I could imagine. It is Manhattan Project time to rebuild our nuclear weapons infrastructure and strategic delivery systems NOW (and yes I am yelling at the computer with each capitalized word)

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/01/23/the-nations-icbm-force-increasingly-creaky-broken-missiles/#ixzz2IuX1KBHA
 
Meanwhile;

China is building strategic long-range missile trains as part of its major nuclear forces buildup, according to new information from China and U.S. strategic specialists.
Chinese state-run television recently broadcast a program monitored in Taiwan that disclosed new details of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rail basing system for ICBMs, including the possibility of a rail-mobile launcher. The program was uncovered and translated by Georgetown University’s Asian Arms Control Project.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force recently sought proposals from the U.S. defense industry for a future U.S. rail-mobile ICBM that would be hidden in tunnels.
According to an analysis of the Chinese television program, China already has deployed strategic missile trains as part of a nuclear forces tunnel and basing system that until recently was a closely guarded secret.
Video released by the Chinese shows the strategic missile train disguised as a military passenger train with windows, but hollowed out for holding China’s new long-range missiles, known as DF-31 and DF-31A systems. Those systems are currently deployed on road-mobile launchers.
The program revealed that the Chinese are building between 620 miles and 1,240 miles of special rail tracks capable of handling the heavy ballistic missile trains.

http://freebeacon.com/riding-the-nuclear-rails/

Gee it is almost like the Russians and Chinese are deveoping nuclear arsenals independently of what the US does - disarm - wow the arms control at any cost crowd 'appears' to be wrong..............again and for the last 50 years.

China building thousands of miles of track and in the Time article I posted one analyst commented, to paraphrase, "It would be doubtful that with all the enviromental laws we have now the US could even build underground silos anymore."

Why am I alive to witness this, so depressing :'(
 
bobbymike said:
China building thousands of miles of track and in the Time article I posted one analyst commented, to paraphrase, "It would be doubtful that with all the enviromental laws we have now the US could even build underground silos anymore."
Click to expand...
What do they mean by "anymore"? That's one of the issues that pretty much killed MX back in the 1980s... local opposition to the MPS system.
 
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
China building thousands of miles of track and in the Time article I posted one analyst commented, to paraphrase, "It would be doubtful that with all the enviromental laws we have now the US could even build underground silos anymore."
Click to expand...
What do they mean by "anymore"? That's one of the issues that pretty much killed MX back in the 1980s... local opposition to the MPS system.
Click to expand...
Well the difference between hundreds of miles of shelters and not even digging a simple hole in the ground is huge. Second it was local opposition of people and politicians i believe the inference is that even if everyone agreed the environmentalists could swoop in from anywhere and bring the project to a halt, like CONUS residents being able to stop Alaskan oil and gas drilling.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
bobbymike said:
Hagel support cuts to the nuclear arsenal even unilaterally. Going Galt to my cabin in the mountains

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HAGEL_NUCLEAR_ZERO?SITE=NDBIS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-29-12-44-04
Click to expand...

On the bright side these guys are only around for a few years, and even if we decided to dismantle our entire arsenal tomorrow it would take about 30 years.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but by neglecting the nuclear weapons industrial base and depressing the entire technological sector - who now is going to get their PhD in high energy physics or weapons engineering or whatever knowing there will be no jobs or laboratories to work at. I believe we are already half way to de facto total disarmament right now. I am basically counting since 1992 when Bush 41 canceled all modernization programs so in my mind we have less than 10 years to turn this around by funding new warheads for MMIII replacement, D5 replacement and the new cruise missile under study.
 
bobbymike said:
I know what you mean but by neglecting the nuclear weapons industrial base and depressing the entire technological sector - who now is going to get their PhD in high energy physics or weapons engineering or whatever knowing there will be no jobs or laboratories to work at. I believe we are already half way to de facto total disarmament right now. I am basically counting since 1992 when Bush 41 canceled all modernization programs so in my mind we have less than 10 years to turn this around by funding new warheads for MMIII replacement, D5 replacement and the new cruise missile under study.
Click to expand...
Somewhat disagree:

I can see replacing Tomahawk and AGM-86, but MMIII and D5 are about as good as it gets without terminally guided MARVs; in which case, it's new warheads that are needed more than new missiles. I wouldn't mind seeing Midgetman brought back though; hell, I might even be able to live with some unilateral cuts in the land-based force if it were made mobile.
 
Not really Nuclear News but just adding to the gloom of my mood:

Government Outlays Government outlays dropped at a 6.6 percent annual pace from October through December, subtracting 1.3 percentage points from GDP. The decrease was led by a 22.2 percent fall in defense that was the biggest since 1972, following the Vietnam War.
 
Hagel's Backing for Nuclear Curbs Unprecedented for DOD Top Office Jan. 30, 2013

President Obama's nominee to lead the Defense Department would be the first to take office with a record of openly advocating significant and potentially unilateral reductions to the nation's atomic arsenal, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday. U.S. Secretary of Defense-designate Chuck Hagel's nuclear positions and his support for the disarmament advocacy group Global Zero place him at odds with many other GOP politicians, according to AP. Still, Obama and a growing number of experts also agree that nuclear armaments are becoming increasingly burdensome in relation to their utility in combating modern dangers such as extremism, the news agency said. "Hagel certainly would bring to office a more ambitious view on nuclear reductions than his predecessors,” said Steven Pifer, who directs the Brookings Institution’s Arms Control Initiative.
The complete abolition of nuclear weapons should be a long-term goal, but not one the United States should pursue alone, according to the 66-year-old prospective Pentagon chief. A 2012 Global Zero report endorsed by Hagel calls for reducing deployed U.S. nuclear forces by roughly 75 percent, eliminating about four-fifths of the overall arsenal and fully dropping the country's ICBM fleet.


Skeptics contend that nuclear abolition would increase U.S. vulnerability and an overwhelming force will remain crucial for the foreseeable future to handle the atomic aspirations of hostile governments in Pyongyang, Tehran and elsewhere.
Hagel's link to Global Zero is "very concerning" and he is apparently "very different than previous defense leaders" due to his positions, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said in a hearing last week. Four other prominent backers of last year's Global Zero analysis on Monday said they support pursuing its recommendations in cooperation with Russia and eventually other nations.
"This is and has always been the centerpiece of the approach advocated by Global Zero, by the four of us, and by Hagel," according to joint remarks issued by former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman James Cartwright, one-time U.S. Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, former NATO military officer John Sheehan and Richard Burt, President George H.W. Bush's top strategic weapons negotiator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we ever get a Secretary of HHS that says 'I'm going to dismantle Medicare?" Oh how I long for the days of Cap Weinberger :'(
 
Nuke Plutonium Could be Transported Between U.S. Labs The U.S. Energy Department is considering transporting some plutonium nuclear warhead triggers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Envrironment News Service reported on Tuesday. The New Mexico facility is the sole U.S. site for production of the plutonium "pits." However, Livermore houses space for conducting diagnostic examinations of the cores. Livermore as of last September does not possess the security status needed to manage, employ or hold the pits or other warhead-capable amounts of plutonium, according to the report.
The Energy Department “has failed to adequately plan for the permanent reduction of Livermore Lab’s security forces from a Category I/II level to the lesser Category III, which does not permit nuclear bomb usable quantities of plutonium to be on the site," Marylia Kelley, head of the watchdog group Tri-Valley CAREs, was expected to say at a Wednesday meeting of issue specialists on the environment, law and atomic issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One lab left for Pit production WHAT IS WRONG with this picture. Is it any wonder the Chinese and Russians are modernizing the US cannot respond anyway.
 
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/30/biden_and_donilon_preparing_for_new_nuclear_discussions_with_russia

So for the Senate to approve New Start we were to get a robust nuclear modernization program, didn't happen. Further talks on nuclear weapons reduction were to include the other nuclear powers, especially China, not happening. This administration cannot be trusted to secure this nation.

We have gone from close to 13,000 deployed strategic warheads to 1550 this is far enough, unless your goal is to continue to diminish the US's role in the world then things are proceeding as planned.
 
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130201-roll-forward-the-doomsday-train

The US is mulling over radical ideas for how to operate and deploy its aging cache of nuclear missiles – including a vast subway network.

By the middle of this century, a large chunk of the United States’ nuclear arsenal could be located on a doomsday subway system, where unmanned cars move back and forth on a single track, prepared to launch at a moment’s notice.

Or a least that’s one of several ideas that the Air Force is potentially mulling over as it prepares to replace its decades’ old intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). To jumpstart those preparations, the Air Force earlier this month released an open call for proposals that would help the Air Force decide what the future land-based nuclear force would look like for the 50-year period starting in 2025.

At stake is a part of the nation’s rapidly aging nuclear arsenal, which consists of the "triad" of land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, and bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

Supporters of this deterrent argue that, despite the end of the Cold War, it is still needed to deter a potential enemy from threatening the United States with nuclear weapons, or even other weapons of mass destruction. “The official reason is still one of flexibility, and survivability in the event of a nuclear attack,” says Ivan Oelrich, a long-time defense analyst and expert on nuclear issues. “The real unspoken argument is bureaucratic inertia.”

In recent years, some US Pentagon officials have questioned whether keeping all three elements of this costly triad is really needed, though no changes have yet been made. In the meantime, parts of the system are rapidly approaching their use by date. The current ICBM, the Minuteman III, is expected to reach the end of its life by 2030.

Of the five different ideas the Air Force is currently exploring, the underground tunnel concept would be one of the more dramatic changes from the current system, which has missiles located in fixed, underground silos spread out across three bases. The tunnels would in theory allow the missile to survive direct nuclear attacks, since an enemy wouldn’t know precisely where the missile is located at any given time.

“The tunnel concept mode operates similar to a subway system but with only a single transporter/launcher and missile dedicated to a given tunnel,” the Air Force says. “The vehicle moves at random down the length of the tunnel.”

That, however, is not the only possible new system. Another concept involves putting the missiles above ground, perhaps on specialised vehicles called “transporter erector launchers.” Those vehicles may have to venture on to public roads or lands, according to the Air Force, or even travel off road.
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130201-roll-forward-the-doomsday-train

The US is mulling over radical ideas for how to operate and deploy its aging cache of nuclear missiles – including a vast subway network.

By the middle of this century, a large chunk of the United States’ nuclear arsenal could be located on a doomsday subway system, where unmanned cars move back and forth on a single track, prepared to launch at a moment’s notice.

Or a least that’s one of several ideas that the Air Force is potentially mulling over as it prepares to replace its decades’ old intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). To jumpstart those preparations, the Air Force earlier this month released an open call for proposals that would help the Air Force decide what the future land-based nuclear force would look like for the 50-year period starting in 2025.

At stake is a part of the nation’s rapidly aging nuclear arsenal, which consists of the "triad" of land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, and bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

Supporters of this deterrent argue that, despite the end of the Cold War, it is still needed to deter a potential enemy from threatening the United States with nuclear weapons, or even other weapons of mass destruction. “The official reason is still one of flexibility, and survivability in the event of a nuclear attack,” says Ivan Oelrich, a long-time defense analyst and expert on nuclear issues. “The real unspoken argument is bureaucratic inertia.”

In recent years, some US Pentagon officials have questioned whether keeping all three elements of this costly triad is really needed, though no changes have yet been made. In the meantime, parts of the system are rapidly approaching their use by date. The current ICBM, the Minuteman III, is expected to reach the end of its life by 2030.

Of the five different ideas the Air Force is currently exploring, the underground tunnel concept would be one of the more dramatic changes from the current system, which has missiles located in fixed, underground silos spread out across three bases. The tunnels would in theory allow the missile to survive direct nuclear attacks, since an enemy wouldn’t know precisely where the missile is located at any given time.

“The tunnel concept mode operates similar to a subway system but with only a single transporter/launcher and missile dedicated to a given tunnel,” the Air Force says. “The vehicle moves at random down the length of the tunnel.”

That, however, is not the only possible new system. Another concept involves putting the missiles above ground, perhaps on specialised vehicles called “transporter erector launchers.” Those vehicles may have to venture on to public roads or lands, according to the Air Force, or even travel off road.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Almost positive this was considered for Peacekeeper.
 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130201-roll-forward-the-doomsday-train

The US is mulling over radical ideas for how to operate and deploy its aging cache of nuclear missiles – including a vast subway network.

By the middle of this century, a large chunk of the United States’ nuclear arsenal could be located on a doomsday subway system, where unmanned cars move back and forth on a single track, prepared to launch at a moment’s notice.

Or a least that’s one of several ideas that the Air Force is potentially mulling over as it prepares to replace its decades’ old intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). To jumpstart those preparations, the Air Force earlier this month released an open call for proposals that would help the Air Force decide what the future land-based nuclear force would look like for the 50-year period starting in 2025.

At stake is a part of the nation’s rapidly aging nuclear arsenal, which consists of the "triad" of land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, and bombers armed with nuclear weapons.

Supporters of this deterrent argue that, despite the end of the Cold War, it is still needed to deter a potential enemy from threatening the United States with nuclear weapons, or even other weapons of mass destruction. “The official reason is still one of flexibility, and survivability in the event of a nuclear attack,” says Ivan Oelrich, a long-time defense analyst and expert on nuclear issues. “The real unspoken argument is bureaucratic inertia.”

In recent years, some US Pentagon officials have questioned whether keeping all three elements of this costly triad is really needed, though no changes have yet been made. In the meantime, parts of the system are rapidly approaching their use by date. The current ICBM, the Minuteman III, is expected to reach the end of its life by 2030.

Of the five different ideas the Air Force is currently exploring, the underground tunnel concept would be one of the more dramatic changes from the current system, which has missiles located in fixed, underground silos spread out across three bases. The tunnels would in theory allow the missile to survive direct nuclear attacks, since an enemy wouldn’t know precisely where the missile is located at any given time.

“The tunnel concept mode operates similar to a subway system but with only a single transporter/launcher and missile dedicated to a given tunnel,” the Air Force says. “The vehicle moves at random down the length of the tunnel.”

That, however, is not the only possible new system. Another concept involves putting the missiles above ground, perhaps on specialised vehicles called “transporter erector launchers.” Those vehicles may have to venture on to public roads or lands, according to the Air Force, or even travel off road.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Almost positive this was considered for Peacekeeper.
Click to expand...

What? Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and Hans Kristensen of the Federation of Amercian Scientists ARE AGAINST THIS!!! Oh wait they are against any US modernization efforts. I'm still waiting for their commentary and 'alarm' at the recent report of thousands of miles of railroad track for new Chinese mobile ICBMs. ::)

I think we need a new missile in new superhard silos. If you give the enemy 420 aimpoints requiring roughly 840 warheads then you maintain a cost effective deterrent when combined with SSBNs at sea. Plus I strongly feel we need a missile at double the throwweight of MMIII for uploading possibilities or range extension with less warheads doubling as a PGS missile.
 
Deterrence Will Suffer: It's "pretty clear there's going to be some degradation" in readiness across Air Force Global Strike Command if the Air Force must accommodate to either another budget continuing resolution or the budget sequester, said AFGSC chief Lt. Gen. James Kowalski. During a meeting with defense reporters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, a reporter asked Kowalski if Global Strike Command would receive any priority for funds, given that it has the nuclear mission. "Those discussions are ongoing,” he replied. He hoped not to touch flying hours for the command's UH-1 helicopters that provide support for missile field security. But his operations people are sitting down with the budgeteers and have "developed a number of options in terms of how we meet the Strategic Command requirements in case we're called on," said Kowalski. Asked if readiness rates have been affected by the budget uncertainty, Kowalski answered "not yet," but said it's highly likely that flying hours for the bomber force would take a 20-percent reduction this year. He hoped to preserve the number of sorties and simply have shorter missions—in order to be able to practice the whole enterprise of fueling, loading, launching, and flying the bombers. It's "not just" pilot proficiency that has to be exercised, he said during the Feb. 6 meeting.

New Strategic Stuff: There's an operational requirements document for the new Long-Range Strike Bomber program, according to Air Force Global Strike Command boss Lt. Gen. James Kowalski.He told defense reporters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 6 that both Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage and he are satisfied with the ORD, but that ACC has the lead on requirements and Global Strike Command is providing the nuclear expertise, to "ensure that bomber, when it comes off the line, is nuclear-capable." Kowalski said the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office is managing the bomber project. He also reported that the Long Range Standoff vehicle, or LRSO—the planned replacement for the AGM-86 cruise missile—is for now a strictly nuclear program. However, "if there is a requirement, you could certainly spiral off a conventional variant," he said. There's a significant gap in capability between the JASSM Extended Range conventional stealth cruise missile and the LRSO, noted Kowalski. A reporter also asked him if, given the shrinking size of the B-52 fleet and its planned retention to the 2040s, re-engining the bombers would make sense. Kowalski said while he'd "love" to have a new B-52 engine, there are "plenty" of TF-30 engines available—the bombers' current powerplants—and plenty of parts for them. A re-engining wouldn't pay for itself within the period that the Defense Department requires, so "there's no business case," he said.

Warm Silos to Cool Overenthusiasm: The United States shouldn't hastily cut deployed nuclear forces ahead of the schedule agreed to under the New START deal with Russia, said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) on Wednesday. Reductions to reach the treaty's caps on warhead and launcher levels by February 2018 "should be made in ways that preserve the balance and not hamstring any one leg of the triad," stated Hoeven during a Capitol Hill address sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association. Hoeven expressed concern that the Obama Administration is overeager to implement nuclear cuts and is even "wavering" on its commitment to sustain and modernize the deterrent force. With the ICBM force, for example, Hoeven said the United States "should retain all existing silos in a warm status that would allow us to rotate active missiles from one silo to the next." He suggested this "would create ambiguity about the precise location of all of our missiles and allow major silo maintenance to occur without taking missiles offline." Since nuclear deterrence has proven one of the most effective defenses available, and defending the nation is one of the government's most basic Constitutional duties, "funding the nuclear enterprise is the definition of a top priority," he said during his Feb. 6 talk.

New START: Don't Salt Before Tasting: The Obama Administration is likely to try circumventing Congress to cut the US nuclear arsenal below the levels stipulated by the New START agreement with Russia, said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) on Wednesday. "There are a number of reasons to be concerned about the future of our strategic deterrent," stressed Hoeven, speaking at a congressional seminar in Washington, D.C. AFA sponsored the Feb. 6 event, along with the National Defense Industrial Association and Reserve Officers Association. President Obama is "purportedly reviewing proposals that could unilaterally reduce our strategic weapons by several hundred warheads" below the 1,550 warhead limit of New START, he noted. The Administration also "appears poised to negotiate new arms control agreements" with Russia that would bypass the Constitutional requirement for Senate ratification of formal treaties, he added. New START implementation will not be completed until February 2018 and its "strategic effects remain unclear, so there's no strategic case for making additional nuclear reductions," asserted Hoeven. As a result, "The Obama Administration should not reengage Russia on nuclear issues while New START is being implemented," he concluded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - Bush 43 had to go to Congress to JUST STUDY programs like RNEP, RRW and Advanced Concept Initiatives which Congress said "Nope no money can't do that" and that's just funding to study these programs. But apprently now a President can completely circumvent the Constitution if they want, what is wrong with this picture? So what's the word for someone who works with your adversaries to intentional weaken the military?

It also seems clear this administration does not care one whit what China is doing. Makes you wonder what SecState Clinton meant when she said "This administration welcomes the rise of China" I guess you speed up a country's rise when you intentional fall to meet them :'(
 
bobbymike said:
New START: Don't Salt Before Tasting: The Obama Administration is likely to try circumventing Congress to cut the US nuclear arsenal below the levels stipulated by the New START agreement with Russia, said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) on Wednesday. "There are a number of reasons to be concerned about the future of our strategic deterrent," stressed Hoeven, speaking at a congressional seminar in Washington, D.C. AFA sponsored the Feb. 6 event, along with the National Defense Industrial Association and Reserve Officers Association. President Obama is "purportedly reviewing proposals that could unilaterally reduce our strategic weapons by several hundred warheads" below the 1,550 warhead limit of New START, he noted. The Administration also "appears poised to negotiate new arms control agreements" with Russia that would bypass the Constitutional requirement for Senate ratification of formal treaties, he added. New START implementation will not be completed until February 2018 and its "strategic effects remain unclear, so there's no strategic case for making additional nuclear reductions," asserted Hoeven. As a result, "The Obama Administration should not reengage Russia on nuclear issues while New START is being implemented," he concluded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - Bush 43 had to go to Congress to JUST STUDY programs like RNEP, RRW and Advanced Concept Initiatives which Congress said "Nope no money can't do that" and that's just funding to study these programs. But apprently now a President can completely circumvent the Constitution if they want, what is wrong with this picture? So what's the word for someone who works with your adversaries to intentional weaken the military?

It also seems clear this administration does not care one whit what China is doing. Makes you wonder what SecState Clinton meant when she said "This administration welcomes the rise of China" I guess you speed up a country's rise when you intentional fall to meet them :'(
Click to expand...

Pardon my French but Zero needs a hard b**ch slap on this from both Congress and the US military.
 
Here is an good article on the necessity of modernizing the country nuclear forces so they are more robust and reliable ESPECIALLY during a period when you plan to lower the number of weapons and warheads. Oh wait this article was printed 25 YEARS ago and still pretty much nothing has been done.

I might of already written this but I sometimes go through my collection of 80's magazines with articles on Trident, MX, SICBM, new warheads, nuclear tests, nuclear pumped X-ray lasers, Neutron Bombs, etc. Is there an old folks homes for Cold Warriors :)
 

Attachments

  • 0288strategic.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 6
bobbymike said:
Is there an old folks homes for Cold Warriors :)
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I wonder if the government takes special precautions for someone with sensitive information if... you know (I don't want to be disrespectful).
 
Congress Hopes To See Air Force And Navy Modernization Collaboration

Posted: Feb. 07, 2013

Members of Congress want to see the Air Force and Navy further collaborate on modernizing elements of the nuclear triad, such as the Minuteman III munition, while lawmakers struggle to preserve the nation's strategic deterrent forces in the face of stiff budget cuts. The Minuteman III is a silo-launched intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The Air Force has 450 of the missiles, which are under the care of Air Force Global Strike Command. Some of the missiles are located in missile fields near Minot Air Force Base, ND, which is represented by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND). During a Feb. 6 interview, Hoeven discussed with Inside the Air Force the importance of maintaining Minuteman III. "We have to modernize, update. That's why it's so important that we sustain the nuclear laboratories. But whether it's an update or a new system, really, is a function of the recommendations, I think, that the experts come back with. At this point, it's modernization." Hoeven, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, toldITAF that he has been pleased with the effort that the Air Force and Navy have taken toward collaborating on other projects and anticipates a future that the two services will further commit their time and resources on integration projects. "I think the integration effort, the jointness of our branches of the military, has been nothing short of remarkable. I've been to Iraq, Afghanistan multiple times, both as governor and as a senator, and the way that the different branches of the services have come together to operate jointly has been tremendous -- and utilizing together the respective weapons systems of each branch. So I expect to continue to see jointness . . . between the Air Force and Navy just as we've seen with all the services," he said. Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), chairman of the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee, also told ITAF in a Feb. 4 interview that he saw potential for future nuclear triad collaboration between the Air Force and the Navy. "I think there's certainly a great opportunity for that and we'll have to see as the year unfolds," he said. Turner said the nuclear triad will likely be at the forefront of congressional discussions in 2013, especially since President Obama appears to have "abandoned his commitment" to Congress by cutting funding for nuclear programs that he promised to support. "I think there's going to be a significant amount of debate as the year unfolds on preserving the triad and the elements that are essential for a robust triad," Turner said. "There are those who want to walk away from the triad, and the president seems to be entertaining a review of what we believe is the central capability to prevent a nuclear strike." Hoeven also took a public swipe at Obama during a speech at an Air Force Association breakfast on Capitol Hill, noting that the president was putting at risk "the bedrock of U.S. national security." The Senate ratified the New START treaty, an agreement between the United States and Russia to limit the number of strategic weapons in their possession, on the condition that the president would carry out a nuclear modernization program.

In addition, Hoeven said, Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary, former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R), has shown indications that he does not support the country's current strategic defense plan. "President Obama is reportedly reviewing proposals that could unilaterally reduce our strategic weapons by several hundred warheads," Hoeven said. "His nominee for Secretary for Defense, Senator Chuck Hagel, helped author the Global Zero report, which charts a course for eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons beginning with the immediate abolition of our ICBMs and nuclear B-52s, and reducing the number of ballistic missile submarines. Also, the Obama administration wants to negotiate new arms control agreements, potentially without securing Senate ratifications."

Hoeven said the nuclear triad "remains the most economical insurance policy against future nuclear escalation." "What we need is the political will to invest in deterrence for the dangerous world that we confront today. Therefore, the president should reject unilateral reductions to the size of our nuclear forces below the New START limits and Congress should confront the administration if it attempts to implement such reductions," he said. "The world is no safer now than when the New START was ratified, and it is arguably more dangerous." Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also voiced concern about the health of the nuclear triad during Hagel's Jan. 31 nomination hearing. Inhofe said his concern was based on "a number of new and growing threats elsewhere in the world, such as the ongoing threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and the increasingly destructive civil war in Syria with the risk that conflict could result in the loss of control over that country's substantial stockpile of chemical weapons." Inhofe also named Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and "the continued unpredictable behavior" of North Korea as potential nuclear threats. -- Maggie Ybarra
 
Par for the course: http://nation.time.com/2013/02/08/nuclear-countdown-2/

[mutter]pikes[mutter]
 
Grey Havoc said:
Par for the course: http://nation.time.com/2013/02/08/nuclear-countdown-2/

[mutter]pikes[mutter]
Click to expand...
It is now disarmament for disarmament's sake there is no strategic analysis of what the size of our arsenal should be, it is supposedly to save money, what a joke, a couple billion a year with deficits of $1 trillion. The Sandy hurricane relief bill had $20 billion of unrelated pork spending yet we need to hurt national security to 'save money' :'(
 
Obama To Propose Deep Cuts to Nuclear Arsenal (Defense News)

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama will use his State of the Union address Feb. 12 to call for dramatic cuts in nuclear arsenals around the world, The New York Times reported late Feb. 10. Quoting unnamed administration officials, the newspaper said that in recent months Obama had secured agreement with the U.S. military that its nuclear force can be cut by roughly a third. In his speech, Obama is unlikely to discuss specific numbers, but White House officials are looking at a cut that would take the arsenal of deployed weapons to just more than 1,000, the report said. Currently, the Unites States has about 1,700 nuclear weapons, and the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia that passed the Senate at the end of 2009 calls for a limit of roughly 1,550 by 2018. But Obama “believes that we can make pretty radical reductions — and save a lot of money — without compromising American security in the second term. And the Joint Chiefs have signed off on that concept,” the Times quoted one official as saying. However, the White House is loath to negotiate an entirely new treaty with Russia, which would lead to Russian demands for restrictions on U.S. and NATO missile-defense systems in Europe and would revive a major fight with Republicans in the Senate over ratification, the paper said. Instead, Obama is weighing how to reach an informal agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin for mutual cuts within the framework of the new START treaty, but without the need for ratification, the Times said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't we implement New Start FIRST before making any more changes. Another Obama bait and switch the deficit is out of control due mostly to entitlements, unemployment is still 8% or 14% including those who have stopped looking and last quarter GDP was NEGATIVE, solution NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!! For the first time in US history we have a president that has just decided to ignore the Constitution.

President Bush could not modernize our nukes with RRW, RNEP and ACI because the Democrats and some Republicans did not 'budget' any money for it. Disarmament takes money how can Obama do this without the money to do it? Politicians who care about the defense of this nation better get serious about protecting our strategic deterrent.

And on a related topic this will save what $2 or $3 billion/year out of a $3.6 Trillion federal budget with $1.2 Trillion deficits? This would be like looking at your family budget where you are spending $12,000/year more than you take in and your spouse says, "I have solved the problem I have cut $20 dollars from my budget"

The other interesting quote is that the Joint Chiefs have signed off on it, Ya right after Obama fired a 4 star general over disagreements on Iranian policy BY EMAIL APPARENTLY I am sure the generals in Washington who got to where they are through there own form of politics would ever disagree with this President and hope to keep their job.

Next on the agenda, with 1000 warheads you won't need ICBMs so no modernization of MMIII, and we can now cut the SSBN(X) program to about 6 subs or so.

I never thought I would live through the American version of the "Decline and Fall of Rome"
 
bobbymike said:
And on a related topic this will save what $2 or $3 billion/year out of a $3.6 Trillion federal budget with $1.2 Trillion deficits? This would be like looking at your family budget where you are spending $12,000/year more than you take in and your spouse says, "I have solved the problem I have cut $20 dollars from my budget"
Click to expand...

"And the $20 I'm going to cut is the water bill."
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
And on a related topic this will save what $2 or $3 billion/year out of a $3.6 Trillion federal budget with $1.2 Trillion deficits? This would be like looking at your family budget where you are spending $12,000/year more than you take in and your spouse says, "I have solved the problem I have cut $20 dollars from my budget"
Click to expand...

"And the $20 I'm going to cut is the water bill."
Click to expand...

Now we hear Obama will propose hundred of billions in new spending in the State of the Union address. So its even worse, your spouse says they are saving $20/year but then they propose to spend another $1,000 to $2,000/year. Dear God how did we get here :'(
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
And on a related topic this will save what $2 or $3 billion/year out of a $3.6 Trillion federal budget with $1.2 Trillion deficits? This would be like looking at your family budget where you are spending $12,000/year more than you take in and your spouse says, "I have solved the problem I have cut $20 dollars from my budget"
Click to expand...

"And the $20 I'm going to cut is the water bill."
Click to expand...

Now we hear Obama will propose hundred of billions in new spending in the State of the Union address. So its even worse, your spouse says they are saving $20/year but then they propose to spend another $1,000 to $2,000/year. Dear God how did we get here :'(
Click to expand...

It's called, "dumb people get to vote too". Unfortunately.
 
Obama Set to Affirm Nuclear Goals
WASHINGTON – President Obama in a matter of hours is expected to reaffirm his hopes for cutting the world’s atomic weapons, even as North Korea continues to take steps toward developing its own nuclear arsenal. In the wake of the North’s latest nuclear test on Tuesday, Obama is likely to face continued Republican skepticism that further U.S. nuclear drawdowns can occur without undermining national security.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is a line from the movie "Spies Like Us" - "naive wishing for peace is the surest path to war." Interesting when a comedy movie has more foreign policy wisdom than the current POTUS!!
 
DOD Aims to Shield Nuke Operations From Budget Cuts By Diane Barnes Global Security Newswire


WASHINGTON -- Citing Tuesday's nuclear test by North Korea, a senior Defense Department official called U.S. nuclear weapons operations "a national priority" that the Obama administration would seek to shield from across-the-board federal spending cuts set to take effect on March 1. It appears that "a safe, secure nuclear deterrent" will remain necessary "far into the future," Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on sequestration's anticipated implications for Pentagon programs. "That does require that we have the scientists and engineering base, the facilities, and the life-extension programs and other things we do to keep the nuclear arsenal going." Congress failed to approve a defense appropriations bill for the current budget cycle, and instead enacted a short-term measure holding most federal spending at fiscal 2012 levels through March 27. The potential March 1 sequester, though, would cut roughly $46 billion in defense spending through Sept. 30, Carter said in his testimony. Republican lawmakers last week rejected a call by President Obama to delay spending reductions mandated under the 2011 Budget Control Act by implementing budget cuts and tax increases. An alternative proposal by Republicans -- defeated previously on multiple occasions -- would delay sequestration cuts for one fiscal year by tightly restricting recruitment of new federal employees. Ashton said the nation's nuclear deterrent "is the last thing that you want to do serious damage to," and suggested the Defense and Energy departments "will try to protect our nuclear capabilities to the maximum extent possible."


Still, "there may be some effects on some parts of it," he said. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley in January said sequestration could threaten preparation of a new strategic bomber, and the head of the Air Force nuclear command last week said spending cuts could force a 10 percent cut in B-52 bomber flight hours. If sequestration curbs extend over a full decade, "I can't imagine that we won't have to also look at the nuclear part of our force structure in order to accommodate some of those savings," Carter added. The Obama administration committed in 2010 to invest $85 billion over a decade in modernizing the nation's nuclear arsenal and associated infrastructure. The deputy Pentagon chief said the United States would ensure Pyongyang is reprimanded for conducting its third nuclear trial detonation. "There's nothing more provocative than what the North Koreans did," he said. "I'm particularly looking to China, of course, to join in that condemnation, and ... they have a pivotal role" in helping to determine North Korea's future course. Separately, Naval Operations Vice Chief Adm. Mark Ferguson said the announced removal of one of two aircraft carrier deployments from the Persian Gulf would leave open the option to deploy a second carrier group in the region at a later date. The Obama administration has not ruled out military force as an option for addressing a perceived threat from the nuclear program in Iran, which has failed to convince


Washington and other capitals that its atomic activities are not aimed at development of a bomb capability. "If we deploy it now, we would not have the capacity to have a carrier deployed there in the future," he said. Spending limitations forced the second carrier group's removal, the Pentagon indicated last week. Carter said the carrier redeployment took place because "we're going to run out of operations and maintenance funds in the Navy later in the year." Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted Iran's recent dismissal of potential direct talks with the United States, and he voiced concern over "the signal we're sending to the Iranians" by withdrawing an aircraft carrier from its vicinity. Asked if the anticipated cuts would harm Air Force capabilities to potentially strike Iranian atomic sites, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said the service's "kick-in-the-door capability would be affected." Air Force Space Command last week warned sequestration would prompt a number of missile radar stations to cut their operations from 24 to eight hours each day, but Welsh told lawmakers the move would only affect "redundant" systems. "Missile warning is not impacted," and any "threat to the nation will be detected," he said.
Carter said sequestration would produce "a true crisis in military readiness" within months and force alterations to the national defense strategy unveiled last year by the Obama administration.


"The cloud of uncertainty hanging over our nation's defense affairs is already having lasting and irreversible effects. And ultimately the cloud of sequestration needs to be dispelled and not just moved to the horizon," Carter said. "Perhaps most important, allies, partners, friends and potential foes the world over need to know that we have the political will to implement the defense strategy we've put forward."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some sanity....maybe. Hey anyone remember the movie "Seven Days in May' only its succesful this time ;D
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_print.html
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom