Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[Rickshaw]

I would suggest that if those other forms of war were possible, they'd have already occurred. The world and it's leaders fear the dangers of massive nuclear exchange. The problem is that once one warhead is launched, the assumption on the receiving state must be that others will follow and so there is always an impetus to retaliate massively to prevent the loss of all your warheads in the (supposed) incoming first strike of which your first warhead is but the precursor. Fail to launch your warheads means they will be caught on the ground and will be vulnerable if restraint is shown. This is nuclear strategy 101. No one really believes that limited nuclear war is possible except those who wish to live in never-never land IMHO.

Both the US Military and the Soviet Military and politicians lived in never never land then. As both sides understood concepts like 2nd and 3rd strikes, hostage cities, timed submarine attacks, levels of escalation, and both sides had direct lines to each other in order to communicate with words rather than massive world ending strikes- that of course both countries knew weren't feasible as an actual response.

What you are trying to tell me is that the US and the USSR who both embraced this strategy, were not actually embracing it. That President Carter actually didn't sign presidential directive 59. interesting position.

One should not always believe what politicians say. Afterall, they may embrace the rhetoric of a particular strategy but that doesn't mean they will necessarily actually put it into action. One only has to look at the history of the Cold War where the leadership of the fUSSR "blinked" and did not follow through with their threats of attack, despite having embraced the rhetoric of massive retaliation. The same could be said for President Reagan. He didn't realise that his rhetoric was extremely alarming to the Soviet leadership and led to the Able Archer affair in 1983. Indeed, I was always somewhat surprised that he had, in his own words, never really considered the reality of nuclear war until he had watched the movie "The Day After".

One has to remember that in the Cold War, it was perceptions that matter, not reality and that because of domestic political pressures, "talking tough" to the "other side" was always much more popular and often required to ensure that one either gained or stayed in power. The perception was that your nation will be destroyed if you do not "go toe-to-toe with the Russkis". Yet in reality, your nuclear arsenal prevented that but the feeling was that unless both the Russians and perhaps even more importantly your own domestic population saw it being continually mentioned, it's potency would in some way become lessened.

As I have pointed out now, several times but it appears you cannot grasp, deterrence is not about using your missiles, its about possessing them and threatening to use them. Your objective is to DETER your enemy from attacking you. You can achieve that with considerably smaller numbers of warheads than what some here seem to feel comfortable with. India and Pakistan achieve that with only tens of warheads, not hundreds, not thousands, not even more. Do you see a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent?

And you don't seem to comprehend that deterrence extends post attack as well, to deter follow on attacks. Further more, pointing to the indian subcontinent is an interesting cherry picked example seeing as the super power accumulated over 50,000 warheads during the cold war arms race. Lets ignore the whale to look at the minnow


India and Pakistan have sufficient warheads to deter the other from attacking. Since both have acquired their nuclear arsenal, the incessant warfare and the rhetoric surrounding has decreased considerably. Suddenly both have realised that with nuclear weapons involved, neither can afford for the other to miscalculate, so neither can push the other as hard as they have over the last sixty years.

It is not a "cherry picked example". In fact it is an excellent example of the point I've been trying to make - both have miniscule arsenals by your standards but both are effectively deterred from attacking the other directly and remember, we are discussing DETERRENCE and all examples are relevant. Widen your vision, I'd suggest and don't keep it narrowly focused on your own nation and try and learn from others.

The next issue with deterrence, and I think others will agree here. is deterrence is not just about keeping the peace with a bored enemy, its also about keeping the peace with a highly determined enemy always probing for weakness. Its meant to survive a determined foe too.

The Soviet Union was determined to protect itself from aggression. Nuclear weapons ensured that. The US also probed aggressively Soviet defences at every turn. From the Soviet perspective you don't think they had a right to be worried about US intentions?

We do indeed. Nuclear strategists will also point out that while they talk about "limited nuclear war" what they know in the back of their minds is that reality will be more like Kahn's "wargasm" than the end of WWII.

This is awesome, we can use expert opinion that goes unsaid? So for example in the backs of the minds of Russian Nuclear missile designers they all know the nukes are duds. Thus all Russian nukes are duds. This is going to make arguing things a lot easier now since we can claim the opposite of what someone actually said.

Who suggested that all Soviet nuclear warheads and missiles were duds? I am sure what track you're now haring off down but it doesn't seem related to the point I've just made and the differences between belief, perpection and reality.

So, how many nuclear warheads does the DPRK possess? Is that sufficient to deter the US from attempting "regime change"? If so, don't you think that is sufficient, despite the massive numbers of nuclear warheads the USA has compared to North Korea? North Korea doesn't have to attack, it merely needs to possess to deter American attack.

of course the US didn't attack when DPRK had zero nukes. On that note, the US has a lot of enemies, and we rarely invade... and they don't have nukes either. The US never invaded libya, or Serbia, or Iran. None of whom have nukes. How did they deter us?

They didn't. They relied upon US restraint. However, the DPRK and perhaps Iran in the future are going to make sure that they don't have to...

lastly, thanks to the US not being stupid, if war broke out with North Korea, the Nukes would be top priority. If the US couldn't get them conventionally and feared their use, they would get them with nuclear warheads. incredibly this wouldn't end in world ending mutually assured destruction, but would end in a limited nuclear engagement. Something you say is impossible.

What always surprises me when right-wing Americans talk about nuclear capable or near-capable states, they invariably paint their use of nuclear weapons as if they are going to be used as their weapons of first resort. Pyongyang wants nuclear weapons as does Tehran so that they are not the next victims of Washington's "regime change" efforts, as Baghdad and Kabul were. Therefore their nuclear weapons will be weapons of last resort, if deterrence fails. Just as the United States would use them.

As to finding and targeting the DPRK's nuclear warheads it might be a bit harder than you think. Rather as finding the Iraqi WMDs were... :

 

[Rickshaw]

Bobbymike, did you actually read the articles I listed? The point is that as few as a hundred nukes will, over a few years, kill round about a billion people spread around the world, not counting those fried in the initial blasts.

So how do you explain the detonation of over ten times that many nukes in the 50s/60s not wiping out humanity?

It did measurably increase the level of background radiation though. To the point where the world's population became sufficiently alarmed that they were able to force their warlike and aggressive leaders on all sides to agree to the Partial Test Ban Treaty which eventually lead to the Total Test Ban Treaty.

Also, the nuclear tests were conducted sporadically and invariably in either arid or maritime areas where there was little combustible material. If all the weapons tested had been let off at the same time, over cities and forests, the effects may well have been considerably different.

 

[Rickshaw]

One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

That's naive fantasy. The other guy will always see the advantage of more.

Just as you seem to.

However, if limited by agreement, then there is no advantage in more because you will always know the numbers the other side actually has.

 

[Rickshaw]

A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.

Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.

Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.

 

[Hanse]

One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

That's naive fantasy. The other guy will always see the advantage of more.

Just as you seem to.

However, if limited by agreement, then there is no advantage in more because you will always know the numbers the other side actually has.

Which is why you will never see such an agreement.

 

[Avimimus]

A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.

Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.

Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.

On the other hand - a much larger invasion, which was willing to run a higher deficit initially, could have had enough feet on the group to prevent an insurgency...

That said - conventional armed forces are expensive. They also take casualties in training and there is always a greater risk that they'll interfere in internal politics of their own country (compared to a small armed force).

A smaller, better equipped force can still project force into smaller countries - so it would probably would make sense for the major power (Russia, China, India, the United States etc.) to jointly reduce the size of their conventional armed forces...

 

[SOC]

Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.

Untrue. We can always get people to do it for us! Bay of Pigs?

Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.

Yeah, had we not bothered Afghanistan, then they'd be sitting there letting AQ continue to throw out propaganda saying how awesome they were that they pulled it off, emboldening others, and causing them to try and cause problems due to our lack of response, which they'd likely trump up as the US being scared or unable to do anything in response. Some things will not actually go away if they are ignored.

Also, the only argument against Iraq that works is against regime change. Nobody wants to deal with the fact that military action was already justified under existing UNSCRs because that'd remove their option for whining about it.

Besides, notice that places like Iraq (1990) did not play by the rules of modern society, deciding to repeal Kuwait's sovereignty. Lacking the ability to go over there and beat back the Iraqi Army, what should we have done? Asked nicely? Decided that Kuwait was now Iraq as they couldn't hold out for themselves? Or nuked Baghdad, which would've been one of the only real options available.

 

[Rickshaw]

Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.

Untrue. We can always get people to do it for us! Bay of Pigs?

Remind me, how well did that attempt at "regime change" work out again? :

Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.

Yeah, had we not bothered Afghanistan, then they'd be sitting there letting AQ continue to throw out propaganda saying how awesome they were that they pulled it off, emboldening others, and causing them to try and cause problems due to our lack of response, which they'd likely trump up as the US being scared or unable to do anything in response. Some things will not actually go away if they are ignored.

Well, it appears you've been rather a willing imbiber of the propaganda efforts of the US Government.

How many Afghan lives have been lost because of the unwillingness of the US Government to compromise?

Also, the only argument against Iraq that works is against regime change. Nobody wants to deal with the fact that military action was already justified under existing UNSCRs because that'd remove their option for whining about it.

Yet still the US Government had to invent lies about Weapons of Massed Distraction to justify it's invasion. Makes one wonder if it was as cut and dried as you make out.

I was actually in favour of deposing Saddam Hussein but not because of a fantasy casis belli invented for the occasion but then I also recognise the he was largely a creation of the US Government as well, which had used him against the Iranian Revolutionary Government.

Besides, notice that places like Iraq (1990) did not play by the rules of modern society, deciding to repeal Kuwait's sovereignty. Lacking the ability to go over there and beat back the Iraqi Army, what should we have done? Asked nicely? Decided that Kuwait was now Iraq as they couldn't hold out for themselves? Or nuked Baghdad, which would've been one of the only real options available.

Done exactly what you did, which was create a coalition. Not that you acted quite from the altruistic reasons that were claimed. Who paid for the US effort in the 1990-91 Gulf War again? Nice little mercenary operation IIRC. :

 

[Rickshaw]

A few nukes here and there, to quiet the crazies, could be a good thing. The trick is to keep it to a few. One way to do that is to make sure our Great Leaders only have a few.

By that logic we could prevent war by drastically reducing conventional forces.

Yes, that actually works. If you don't have the forces to conduct unnecessary wars, then you won't attempt them.

Imagine if your nation hadn't had the means to invade Afghanistan or Iraq how many lives would have been saved.

On the other hand - a much larger invasion, which was willing to run a higher deficit initially, could have had enough feet on the group to prevent an insurgency...

A lack of personnel was only one of the causes of the insurgency in Iraq. The main one was the incompetence of the US high command which had not planned for what happened after the Baathist regime had been deposed. Deciding to demobilise the Iraqi Army without disarming them or paying them was perhaps one of the worse decisions they could have made...

That said - conventional armed forces are expensive. They also take casualties in training and there is always a greater risk that they'll interfere in internal politics of their own country (compared to a small armed force).

A smaller, better equipped force can still project force into smaller countries - so it would probably would make sense for the major power (Russia, China, India, the United States etc.) to jointly reduce the size of their conventional armed forces...

Yes. that would be sensible.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

One should not always believe what politicians say. Afterall, they may embrace the rhetoric of a particular strategy but that doesn't mean they will necessarily actually put it into action.

Did you miss the part where I said that it wasn't talk, and new directives signed and new strategies adopted and embraced by the military?

Widen your vision, I'd suggest and don't keep it narrowly focused on your own nation and try and learn from others.

yeah its not the same thing. nice try though. very funny of you to say such a thing while declaring anyone who disagrees with you a "Right wing American"

The Soviet Union was determined to protect itself from aggression. Nuclear weapons ensured that. The US also probed aggressively Soviet defences at every turn. From the Soviet perspective you don't think they had a right to be worried about US intentions?

Why are you trying to tell us that they didn't need so many then? You said that numbers don't matter, and yet they produced an equal number to the US, why?

Who suggested that all Soviet nuclear warheads and missiles were duds? I am sure what track you're now haring off down but it doesn't seem related to the point I've just made and the differences between belief, perpection and reality.

clearly you lost something in translation.

hey didn't. They relied upon US restraint.

Thank you for agreeing.

However, the DPRK and perhaps Iran in the future are going to make sure that they don't have to...

Well seeing as we can put thousands of warheads on them and they have zero delivery means capable of reaching the US, I would say they have a long way to go. Not to mention the population differences, Iran and NK have fewer nukes to use, and fewer people to lose.

What always surprises me when right-wing Americans talk about nuclear capable or near-capable states, they invariably paint their use of nuclear weapons as if they are going to be used as their weapons of first resort. Pyongyang wants nuclear weapons as does Tehran so that they are not the next victims of Washington's "regime change" efforts, as Baghdad and Kabul were. Therefore their nuclear weapons will be weapons of last resort, if deterrence fails. Just as the United States would use them.

I had no idea South Koreans and Japanese and Israeli's and Saudi's were "right wing Americans" I'm learning so much today! I wonder why those countries are so nervous about the "weapons of last resort" anyway? They must not read your posts.

Remind me, how well did that attempt at "regime change" work out again? :

Saddam Hussien is dead and there is a new regime? What do I win?

 

[bobbymike]

http://project2049.net/documents/china_nuke_inventory_stokes.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Updating US deterrent policy;

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

 

[Jemiba]

.... If the moderators want it moved, I'm sure they'll do so.

I think we should take title of this thread more literally, perhaps in the same sense, as in the
"Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY" topic .
This means, no discussions about regime change and other things here, not directly related to nuclear
weapons NEWS ! For other themes about nuclear armament, a new thread should be starfed then, either
in the Bar, or in the military section and if it's spacing out into political controversy, it's much easier then
to lock that thread .
Just read point 1 of the forum rules !

 

[Rickshaw]

.... If the moderators want it moved, I'm sure they'll do so.

I think we should take title of this thread more literally, perhaps in the same sense, as in the
"Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY" topic .
This means, no discussions about regime change and other things here, not directly related to nuclear
weapons NEWS ! For other themes about nuclear armament, a new thread should be starfed then, either
in the Bar, or in the military section and if it's spacing out into political controversy, it's much easier then
to lock that thread .
Just read point 1 of the forum rules !

Thats fine by me. Of course can I expect others to not post non-news and opinion pieces here either?

 

[Jemiba]

Thats fine by me. Of course can I expect others to not post non-news and opinion pieces here either?

I'll try my very best ! I've already modified the title and I'm on alert to delete all not appropriate
posts here ... or maybe to move them to other, more appropriatetopics, let's see.
The situation in the F-35 NEWS ONLY thread has become more relaxed in the meantime,I think,
so I'm confident, that it will work quite well here, too !

 

[bobbymike]

Thats fine by me. Of course can I expect others to not post non-news and opinion pieces here either?

I'll try my very best ! I've already modified the title and I'm on alert to delete all not appropriate
posts here ... or maybe to move them to other, more appropriatetopics, let's see.
The situation in the F-35 NEWS ONLY thread has become more relaxed in the meantime,I think,
so I'm confident, that it will work quite well here, too !

Starting this thread I thought there would be some discussions of deterrence, strategy and disarmament, good , bad or indifferent and as long as the discussion is civil I don't know why you would have to have a separate thread.

 

[Jemiba]

... as long as the discussion is civil I don't know why you would have to have a separate thread.

That's the keyword, I think. If you look at quite a lot of the latest posts, the discussion had started to
be not really civil anymore, and it actually had not much to do with nuclear weapons.
To have a thread about nuclear weapons news is absolutely ok in the military section, but it would be a pity,
if such a thread, which could be a compilation of related events, would have to be locked, due to discussion running
out of control. And as such discussions are only rarely started by just technical questions about nuclear weapons,
but mainly about poltical ones, that's often the result, as experience shows. You know, political discussions aren't
encouraged here, but maybe tactical or strategical points can be discussed and if it ends in political controversy again,
this thread remains unhurt.

 

[bobbymike]

... as long as the discussion is civil I don't know why you would have to have a separate thread.

That's the keyword, I think. If you look at quite a lot of the latest posts, the discussion had started to
be not really civil anymore, and it actually had not much to do with nuclear weapons.
To have a thread about nuclear weapons news is absolutely ok in the military section, but it would be a pity,
if such a thread, which could be a compilation of related events, would have to be locked, due to discussion running
out of control. And as such discussions are only rarely started by just technical questions about nuclear weapons,
but mainly about poltical ones, that's often the result, as experience shows. You know, political discussions aren't
encouraged here, but maybe tactical or strategical points can be discussed and if it ends in political controversy again,
this thread remains unhurt.

Agree completely that commentary can be limited to tactical or strategic considerations of course strategic deterrence and deterrent policy will always run right to the edge of 'political' thought as they are 'cousins' to the weapons themselves. How about "Nuclear Weapons News; Weapons, Tactics & Deterrence Theory'? I add the last two points because a lot of relevant studies that I have provided links to are about the numbers and types of weapons relating directly to the authors theory of deterrence, tactical and/or strategic employment of those weapons. Just a thought.

 

[bobbymike]

Navy Asks Congress To Set Up $60B Supplemental Fund For SSBN(X)

The Navy is asking Congress to create an annual $4 billion supplemental fund, covering 15 years starting in 2019 and totaling $60 billion, that would be apart from the service's budget, to pay for the Navy's newest ballistic missile submarine program, arguing that if the money is taken out of the service's shipbuilding budget, it would wreak havoc on surface ship programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is partway to my 'Nuclear Deterrence Agency' to be the offensive equivalent of the Missile Defense Agency separate funding and cover all things nuclear from warheads to guidance to RVs to solid rocket energetics to missiles to delivery systems like bombers and submarines.

 

[bobbymike]

It is, then in my opinion, unavoidable to discuss them without also touching on the politics behind them.

And this is why I wanted it moved. This isn't a politics thread. Show some self-control.

Well I would rather keep it to news which can include reports on deterrence and deterrence theory, arms control, etc. (hence my post on minimum deterrence) AND not get into the back and forth of politics.

This has been a popular thread in the 'Military' section here at SP and I would hate to have it locked over that.

 

[Jemiba]

... I personally cannot see how they can be divorced from politics, after all, they are but "politics by another means" ...

True, but that not the kind of politics, that would lead to a thread to be closed. If someone's wants to discuss, say,
changes in nuclear targeting options due to arms reduction, or maybe nuclear targeting strategies against rogue
states, there's probably no problem. Shooting down a foreign military jet in a miltary action, using a good old sidewinder,
is kind of politics, too, there's no need for nuclear weapons. "Political controversy" that sooner or later WOULD lead to
a thread being closed, rather is to let out one's frustration about a government and assuming, that all supporters of just
that government must be 24-carat idiots. Not to be misunderstood, this works in both ways !

...How about "Nuclear Weapons News; Weapons, Tactics & Deterrence Theory'? I add the last two points because a lot of relevant studies that I have provided links to are about the numbers and types of weapons relating directly to the authors theory of deterrence, tactical and/or strategic employment of those weapons. Just a thought.

Principally not a bad idea, I think. I just want to add for consideration, that this thread already has more than 560 posts.
And sometimes it's good, to be able to look up an earlier post and in such a large thread, this may become difficult. That's
why I prefer smaller, more specific threads, not only, because it's easier to lock them !

 

[bobbymike]

Israeli Stockpile

Israel holds a nuclear arsenal of 80 weapons that were manufactured no later than 2004, according to a new analysis by noted Federation of American Scientists experts Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris. Though widely assumed to possess the Middle East's only nuclear stockpile, Israel maintains a posture of strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying possessing such a deterrent. As the Jewish state is not part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, there is little publicly available information about its nuclear capabilities.

Kristensen and Norris base their estimate, published in the September/October edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, on a 1999 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency study. Israel is believed to have generated enough nuclear-weapons material to fuel between 115 and 190 warheads, according to the authors. The report does not provide a reason for why Israel apparently stopped warhead production at 80 weapons, but notes the Defense Intelligence Agency does not predict any sharp stockpile increases before 2020.
-------------------------------------------------

 

[bobbymike]

Nuclear Weapons and Strategy

​As the United States reassesses its national military strategy and spending priorities during the Quadrennial Defense Review, it must take into account how nuclear weapons change the behavior and calculations of key allies and potential foes, said Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments president, on Tuesday. Much like happened with the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War, the introduction of nuclear weapons can change a country’s behavior with proxies, he told attendees at AFA’s 2013 Air and Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. The problem with Iran and nuclear weapons is not so much the Iranians’ use of them, but rather how these weapons would affect their assertiveness through proxies such as Hezbollah, he said. “The Iranians especially have proven they are very good at fighting with proxies,” said Krepinevich. How do you preserve stability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf if you are facing a nuclear arms race, with warning times of missile launches in the single digits and a lack of developed missile warning infrastructure? he asked rhetorically.

 

[Rickshaw]

Atom bomb dropped on North Carolina by B-52 in 1961 almost exploded, documents show

 

[bobbymike]

GAO ICBM Modernization Report;

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658044.pdf

Not the Rand Corp. report I am still waiting for that should be far more comprehensive, but good information on the 'process'

 

[seruriermarshal]

VAFB tests Minuteman missile in early morning launch

Sunday, Sept. 22

An unarmed Minuteman 3 missile popped out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base early Sunday morning, the first of two test launches planned for this week.

The three-stage weapon blasted out of Launch Facility-10 on North Base at 3:01 a.m. Sunday, the opening of a six-hour window.

Upon liftoff, the Air Force tracked the weapon and its lone re-entry vehicle as it traveled some 4,200 miles southwest of Vandenberg to a predetermined target in the Kwajalein Atoll.

A successful launch Sunday clears the way for this week’s second Minuteman 3 test from Vandenberg. That test launch is planned for 3:01 a.m. Thursday with the team having until 9:01 a.m. for the launch to occur.

Each test costs about $21 million, Air Force officials have said.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/vafb-tests-minuteman-missile-in-early-morning-launch/article_5ae09568-23be-11e3-aff3-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

Clock is ticking on aging B61 bomb, StratCom chief says

... congressional opponents on the right and left are lining up against the program, citing cost estimates that have doubled in just two years to more than $28 million per bomb.

“Some of the components are so old, they can't be replaced..."

... it would retrofit the bomb so it could be used with the new F-35 fighter jet.

Significantly, it would add a guided tail kit that would turn the B61 from a gravity-dependent “dumb” bomb into a “smart” one that could be aimed more precisely at a target.

 

[bobbymike]

Think Tank Recommends Cuts to Nuclear Arsenal


Sept. 24, 2013By Rachel Oswald

Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON -- A think-tank warned on Tuesday that if the Pentagon does not make moderate reductions to its nuclear-weapons programs and related missions, it could be forced to accept undesired changes to its atomic assets because of “sequestration” budget cuts. The Stimson Center’s Defense Advisory Committee updated its proposal for a modified U.S. defense strategy -- a document it calls “Strategic Agility.” This plan is intended to help the Defense Department cut tens of billions of dollars in spending from its nuclear mission, weapons programs and other spending areas, and serve as an alternative to the $500 billion in decade-long sequestration reductions that started in March. The Stimson Center in its new “Strategic Agility” report suggests changes to the U.S. nuclear stockpile -- including reductions to ICBMs, tactical nuclear weapons and planned purchases of ballistic-missile submarines -- that largely mirror recommendations the Washington-based nonpartisan organization offered last November. Barry Blechman, chairman of the committee, told reporters that the center decided to update its 2012 recommendations after it “became apparent” this spring that the fiscal 2014 defense budget introduced by the White House and the responding legislation under consideration in the Senate and the House were not going to reverse the automatic, across-the-board sequestration cuts set in motion by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The new defense strategy “says rather than permit sequester to happen again, it’s imperative to operate realistically at the budget level required by the legislation,” Blechman said on a Tuesday conference call. By making $50 billion in strategic cuts to defense spending, sequestration can be avoided “without harming our ability to defend vital U.S. national interests,” he continued. Similar to the 2012 study, the updated spending strategy recommends retiring one-third of the country’s ICBM force for a reduction of 150 Minuteman 3 missiles and an estimated yearly savings of $300 million. Tuesday’s study also reiterates the suggestion that the Navy order two fewer than the currently planned 12 new Virginia-class ballistic missile submarines, for a projected savings of $1 billion annually in the near-term and another $10 billion in the coming decade. The report authors on Tuesday said President Obama’s administration should reconsider its plans to modernize the nation’s B-61 nuclear warhead and instead slash to unspecified numbers the stockpile of approximately 500 tactical weapons. Roughly 200 of the B-61 gravity bombs are deployed at the bases of European NATO allies.

“Defense savings from this measure would be roughly $100 million in 2015, but would grow substantially later in the decades,” the study asserts. The Stimson Center continues to urge the development of theater missile defense over U.S. homeland missile protection. Specifically, the report advises freezing a March 2013 order to purchase 14 additional long-range missile interceptors for fielding in Alaska that would be part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. “Regrettably, the GMD does not work very well. It was successful in only eight of 15 highly-scripted intercept tests and could easily be defeated by a variety of countermeasures that an enemy could place on its ICBMs,” the report states. The $1 billion planned for the purchase of the 14 new interceptors should be re-allocated to efforts to improve the effectiveness of the GMD system, the study said.

The authors called for increasing spending -- to the tune of close to $2 billion yearly -- on the purchase of new Aegis-equipped missile destroyers in order “to field robust theater missile defenses more quickly.” The new recommendations have the backing of senior retired military officials including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright, prior Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, all of whom serve on the Defense Advisory Committee.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Navy Launches Four Missiles in Tests

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Sept. 24, 2013 – The U.S. Navy has conducted four successful test flights of the Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles built by Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]. The U.S. Navy launched the unarmed missiles Sept. 10 and 12 in the Atlantic Ocean from a submerged Ohio-class submarine home-ported at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia.

This event marked the 145th, 146th, 147th and 148th successful test flights of the D5 missile since design completion in 1989 – a reliability record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile.

“This ultra-capable system serves a critical role in deterring aggression,” said Doug White, vice president of Fleet Ballistic Missile programs, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, the Navy’s Trident missile prime contractor. “We are dedicated to supporting Navy Strategic Systems Programs in assuring the system’s continued readiness, reliability, performance and affordability.”

The Navy launched the missiles as part of Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests. The missiles had been converted into test configurations using kits produced by Lockheed Martin that contain range safety devices and flight telemetry instrumentation. As required by the Department of Defense’s National Command Authority, the U.S. Navy conducts a continuing series of operational system evaluation tests of the Trident Strategic Weapon System under the testing guidelines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

First deployed in 1990, the D5 missile is currently aboard U.S. Navy Ohio-class and U.K. Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines. The three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile can travel a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carries multiple independently targeted reentry bodies. The Fleet Ballistic Missile team has produced six generations, each more capable than its predecessor: the Polaris A1, Polaris A2, Polaris A3, Poseidon C3, Trident I C4 and Trident II D5 missiles.

Lockheed Martin has been the Navy’s strategic missile prime contractor since the program’s inception in 1955. The United States and the United Kingdom signed the Polaris Sales Agreement in 1963, which was modified in 1982 to provide for the Trident II D5 missile system. Since 1968, Lockheed Martin has provided program management and engineering services to the Royal Navy under the terms of the agreement.

Lockheed Martin employees, principally in California, Georgia, Florida, Washington, Utah, Virginia, Scotland and England, support the design, development, production, test, operation and sustainment of the Trident Strategic Weapon System.

Lockheed Martin leads the industry in performance and domain expertise in strategic missile and missile defense systems, designing and producing ballistic missiles, interceptors, target missiles and reentry systems with unmatched reliability and a focus on affordable high-quality systems and services.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 116,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products, and services. The corporation’s net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/september/924-ss-FBM.html

 

[bobbymike]

Changes in ICBM Infrastructure Sustainment

The Air Force is planning to shift the sustainment of its Minuteman III launch facilities and launch control centers to a depot-maintenance model by 2017, said Maj. Gen. Sandra Finan, commander of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland AFB, N.M. This is one of the efficiency and cost-saving initiatives that the service is adopting across its nuclear enterprise to squeeze "every bit of value out of every dollar," said Finan on Sept. 17 during the nuclear panel at AFA's Air and Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. She said the new model will be like the preprogrammed depot maintenance construct that the Air Force uses for its aircraft. "An aircraft goes in for PDM maintenance. It gets overhauled. It comes back out; it is almost like a new aircraft," she said.

The Ultimate Guarantee of National Sovereignty

The world isn't moving to zero nuclear weapons anytime soon, making it imperative for the United States to proceed with modernizing and recapitalizing the nation's nuclear deterrent force, said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, Air Force Global Strike Command boss. Not doing so is "a risk we cannot take," he said on Sept. 17 during the nuclear panel discussion at AFA's Air and Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. "We must continue to be able to deter any adversary and assure any ally," he said. Kowalski said he finds it "incredulous when people tell me we can't afford to recapitalize the ultimate guarantee of our national sovereignty." He noted that the Fiscal 2012 budget for AFGSC, which oversees the Air Force's ICBM force and nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers, amounted to $4.7 billion. That was "less than 5 percent" of the Air Force's total budget and "less than one percent" of the Defense Department's total budget. Meanwhile, the US Postal Service operated at a loss of $15.9 billion in Fiscal 2012, he said, offering some context. "This is not a slam on the Post Office," said Kowalski.

----------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - WOW!! Kind of puts into persepctive how cheap our deterrent force is in the grand scheme of things. I say privatize the Post Office add $15 Billion to nukes and rebuild to START I levels
----------------------------------------------

Unconventional Thinking

The Air Force aims to have the Long Range Strike Bomber available for the nuclear mission shortly after it enters the fleet for conventional roles, said Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, head of Air Force Global Strike Command. The Air Force is developing LRS-B "primarily" for conventional duties, but it will eventually take on a dual nuclear role as well, said Kowalski on Sept. 17 at AFA's Air and Space Conference. "Our expectation is that it will—within two years of becoming [initially operationally capable] conventionally—be a nuclear-capable and nuclear-certified aircraft," he said during the conference's nuclear panel. The Air Force intends to field between 80 and 100 LRS-B platforms starting in the mid-2020s. (See also Conventional First.)

 

[seruriermarshal]

ICBM test-launched from California

September 27, 2013 Last Updated at 03:35 IST

The US Air Force has test-launched an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile from California.

The missile lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 3:33 a.M. PDT (1033 GMT) yesterday.

It was the second Minuteman launch from Vandenberg this week. The first was launched early Sunday.

The Air Force Global Strike Command said the test was a success. No other details were released because it was a classified mission. Such tests typically involve a flight over the Pacific Ocean to a target in the Kwajalein Atoll.

Col. Scott Fox, vice commander of the 20th Air Force, said in a statement that the test was a visible demonstration of the nation's nuclear deterrent.

Private rocket maker SpaceX will attempt to launch a Canadian satellite from Vandenberg on Sunday.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/icbm-test-launched-from-california-113092700064_1.html

 

[Rickshaw]

Finland and American Intelligence - an extremely interesting article which contains considerable information about mainly American and NATO but also to a minor extent, Soviet targeting plans against Finland during the Cold War.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Nuclear Enterprise Document;

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/news/FlightPlanfortheAirForceNuclearEnterprise.pdf


Also update on the RAND future ICBM report. I talked to the publishing director and she stated that it looks like a December release date maybe as early as November. The Air Force wanted some changes that the authors are doing now.

 

[bobbymike]

Updated New START Data Showing Larger U.S. Stockpile Not Alarming: Experts
Oct. 3, 2013
By Rachel Oswald

WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-weapons experts responded to new data showing that in recent months the U.S. strategic stockpile increased -- despite plans for it to decrease under the 2011 New START agreement -- with a collective shrug. Since the beginning of March, the United States has marginally increased the number of deployed nuclear weapons and launcher vehicles it holds, according to updated New START figures released by the U.S. State Department on Tuesday. The new compliance data shows that as of Sept. 1, Russia continued to outpace the United States in reducing the number of strategic arms it holds under the treaty. “To me it’s no big deal, numbers, up numbers down,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, which advocates for reducing U.S. nuclear weapons. “Everyone certainly is in compliance with the treaty.” Still, he told Global Security Newswire in an interview that the new data is “evidence … that we’re being pretty lackadaisical on reducing nuclear weapons.” Elbridge Colby, a former U.S negotiator of the New START accord, also said the warhead increase did not alarm him.

“I certainly wouldn’t read too much into that,” Elbridge, a principal analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, said in a phone interview. “I would imagine it would have more to do with the particularities of the maintenance schedules and deployments.” Colby, though, was more interested in the increase in the number of U.S. strategic-delivery vehicles. The month-old information -- for the time period March 1 to Aug. 31 -- shows Russia has 1,400 fielded strategic nuclear weapons while the United States possesses 1,688 such arms. The data release shows the U.S. military upped its deployed warhead numbers by 34 and its long-range delivery vehicles by 17 since the last time a required arsenal count was taken.

Hans Kristensen, who heads the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, noted in a Wednesday FAS blog post that the six-month increase in U.S. nuclear weapons and launchers is likely an anomaly and not the result of a deliberate U.S. policy plan to build-up its arsenal. "It probably reflects fluctuations mainly in the number of missiles onboard ballistic missile submarines at the time of the count," he wrote. What the warhead increase does show is how slowly the Obama administration has been moving to implement the New START accord since the treaty entered into force two-and-a-half years ago, Kristensen said. Washington "has worked on reducing so-called phantom weapons that have been retired from the nuclear mission but are still counted under the treaty." Russia continues to deploy considerably fewer strategic delivery vehicles than the United States. Under the new figures, there are 473 intercontinental-ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers held by Moscow compared to the 809 delivery vehicles kept by Washington. The numbers released by the State Department this week were in aggregate form. A breakdown of specific ICBM, SLBM and strategic bomber quantities could be issued in the coming months. The New START arms control accord requires the former Cold War enemies to each reduce their respective arsenals of fielded long-range nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018 and to lower the number of deployed missiles and bombers to 700, with an additional 100 delivery vehicles permitted in reserve. The U.S. Air Force is expected to lower to at least 420 the number of Minuteman 3 ICBMs it maintains on active status. As of March, the service still had 449 deployed strategic missiles. It is not clear when those reductions will take place or how they will be spread out among the three bases in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming that host the weapons. The service also does not know which of its B-52 strategic bombers will have their nuclear mission taken away, according to Kristensen. The U.S. Navy is slated to begin removing some SLBMs from its fleet of Ohio-class submarines around 2015-2016.​

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/10/01/cuts-in-nuclear-weapons-leave-the-u-s-vulnerable/

Ten minute interview with Peter Huessy expert on deterrence and nukes. He also holds breakfast lectures in DC on all things nuclear, I posted a link up the thread that connects to the many transcripts from the experts on the subject.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense-update.com/20131006_r26_rubezh_icbm.html

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-may-test-fire-new-icbm-2013-over/

http://defense-update.com/20131006_russian-strategic-missile-force-rvsn-modernizing.html

http://defense-update.com/20131006_return-of-the-russian-missile-trains.html

Interesting the new ICBM they talk about comes with a new warhead all while the US nuclear enterprise withers on the vine.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/why-fielding-fewer-than-twelve-ballistic-missile-subs-could-be-disastrous-for-america?a=1&c=1171

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24470259

 

[Grey Havoc]

Going a bit OT for a moment, here's an editorial from The Japan News/Yomiuri Shimbun: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000708129

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Pushing For PDM-Style Sustainment Of Critical Missile Facilities

In a departure from its current method of maintaining 50-year-old ballistic missile launch and alert facilities, the Air Force is working to develop a type of programmed depot maintenance effort for those sites that would improve sustainment of the entire Minuteman III weapon system, according to a senior nuclear enterprise official
---------------------------------------------
Is this good or are some of these facilities in such dire circumstances that this is desperately needed?