LGM-35A Sentinel - Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program

bobbymike said:
www.politico.com

Air Force prepares for budget battle over nuclear weapons

Progressive lawmakers and disarmament advocates are lobbying allies in the Biden administration for a pause in the program.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...

But progressive lawmakers and disarmament advocates are lobbying allies in the Biden administration for a pause in the program, arguing that holding off could save billions, considering that future arms control agreements might require fewer intercontinental ballistic missiles, if any at all.


The fate of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent contract, which was awarded to Northrop Grumman last year — along with new and refurbished warheads that will go with it — will prove to be an early test of whether the newly empowered progressive wing of the Democratic party can make significant inroads toward shrinking the nuclear weapons budget.
“It is the most contentious part of the modernization program and one most likely to take the most heat in the first phase of the attack,” said Franklin Miller, who oversaw the arms control portfolio on the National Security Council for President George W. Bush and advised the Trump administration on nuclear issues. “It will be the one that will probably be pressed hardest by the progressives because it’s got a big dollar target associated with it.”
Click to expand...
 
tech.slashdot.org

Why Is America Getting a New $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon? - Slashdot

"America is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane," writes the contributing editor for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (in an article shared by Slashdot reader DanDrollette): It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead...
tech.slashdot.org
 
bobbymike said:
Grey Havoc said:
tech.slashdot.org

Why Is America Getting a New $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon? - Slashdot

"America is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane," writes the contributing editor for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (in an article shared by Slashdot reader DanDrollette): It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead...
tech.slashdot.org
Click to expand...
The comment section is beyond cringe
Click to expand...
To be expected, sadly.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Grey Havoc said:
tech.slashdot.org

Why Is America Getting a New $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon? - Slashdot

"America is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane," writes the contributing editor for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (in an article shared by Slashdot reader DanDrollette): It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead...
tech.slashdot.org
Click to expand...
The comment section is beyond cringe
Click to expand...
To be expected, sadly.
Click to expand...
A number of those reading you comments may be having similar reactions..,,
 
warontherocks.com

Setting a Course Away from the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile - War on the Rocks

As the new administration reassesses U.S. nuclear policy, it will be forced to make decisions about the future of the country’s ground-based,
warontherocks.com
—————
My favourite part of this largely incoherent article is when the author questions an Air Force generals veracity about the increasing difficulty in upgrading MMIII (he’s biased you see) while countering his argument with Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association.
 

Tester sees ICBMs as 'ace in the hole' as he takes Senate defense appropriations chair​

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he wants to see full modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including the intercontinental ballistic missile leg of the triad, which is partly based in his home state
——————————-
Seems to be growing bipartisanship support for the GBSD happy to see it.
 
Centrist dems were never about removing ICBMs and the left wing isn't remotely strong enough to control the agenda. It will happen, so long as the program doesn't hit major technological stumbling blocks. I'm hoping that they took the same attitude towards this program as the B-21 and are using off the shelf technology that minimizes development time and R&D cost. There really isn't a reason for this missile to be much more than an MX tech refresh. Just give it enough volume for any future exotic/hypersonic warheads that might be necessary later in its service life.
 
Josh_TN said:
Centrist dems were never about removing ICBMs and the left wing isn't remotely strong enough to control the agenda. It will happen, so long as the program doesn't hit major technological stumbling blocks. I'm hoping that they took the same attitude towards this program as the B-21 and are using off the shelf technology that minimizes development time and R&D cost. There really isn't a reason for this missile to be much more than an MX tech refresh. Just give it enough volume for any future exotic/hypersonic warheads that might be necessary later in its service life.
Click to expand...
@Josh_TN it isn't so much that Tester is a centrist as he is a senator from Montana where a major ICBM field is located, he wants to see that field stick around and get all of the money that comes along with the upgrade spent in his state...
 
mkellytx said:
Josh_TN said:
Centrist dems were never about removing ICBMs and the left wing isn't remotely strong enough to control the agenda. It will happen, so long as the program doesn't hit major technological stumbling blocks. I'm hoping that they took the same attitude towards this program as the B-21 and are using off the shelf technology that minimizes development time and R&D cost. There really isn't a reason for this missile to be much more than an MX tech refresh. Just give it enough volume for any future exotic/hypersonic warheads that might be necessary later in its service life.
Click to expand...
@Josh_TN it isn't so much that Tester is a centrist as he is a senator from Montana where a major ICBM field is located, he wants to see that field stick around and get all of the money that comes along with the upgrade spent in his state...
Click to expand...
Those of a markedly extreme position may have a skewed perception of what a centrist actually is. And similarly may attribute specific policy agreements/ overlap with someone they consider an “enemy” with that person having to be somehow entirely cynical/ corrupt and/ or self-interested (which they, those of the “pure” markedly extreme position, could never be).
Is the serious contention being made that there isn’t a very substantial proportion of congressional and senate Democrats who genuinely support the modernization of US nuclear forces because they think it’s the right thing to do? And if so what precarious at best connection to actual reality would such a contention actually have?
 
kaiserd said:
Those of a markedly extreme position may have a skewed perception of what a centrist actually is. And similarly may attribute specific policy agreements/ overlap with someone they consider an “enemy” with that person having to be somehow entirely cynical/ corrupt and/ or self-interested (which they, those of the “pure” markedly extreme position, could never be).
Is the serious contention being made that there isn’t a very substantial proportion of congressional and senate Democrats who genuinely support the modernization of US nuclear forces because they think it’s the right thing to do? And if so what precarious at best connection to actual reality would such a contention actually have?
Click to expand...
Who's being cynical here? All of the other states with ICBM fields are represented by the other party. Pretty much every other state wide office in the Honorable Mr. Tester's state are held by the other party. The stance of his caucus tends to be contrary to his on this issue, when this occurs amongst senators it's typically less about ideology and more about protecting local issues. Given that Montana is a lightly populated state (my metro area has seven times the population), the just under 5,000 jobs at Malmstrom AFB make it one of the states largest employers. Replacing the Minuteman III's would bring a lot of new construction jobs and money to Malmstrom, no cynicism needed to point that out.
 
Please put up (actual evidence) or shut up if you are claiming some kind of unethical, underhand or nefarious funding in this case.
Alluding to something dark and terrible while zero proof is produced and demonstrating the lack of sufficient “bravery” to even be remotely specific is itself unethical, underhand and nefarious.
 
I notice that it doesn't mention its relationship with entities such as the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, which is a defacto arm of the Chinese government.

Technically speaking, since it is receiving money from the German Foreign Federal Office among others, it should be formally registered with the DOJ as an agent of a foreign power(s) as per the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Which it is not. An oversight most likely dating back to the time of its formation back in the early 1970s. And I assume that this loophole was preserved during the Reagan era thanks to the ACA's supporters in Congress, despite the fact that the Association had by then been long getting support from the Eastern Bloc, including from the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not to mention suffering alleged infiltration by both KGB and Stasi agents. I should note in passing that a few of the names on the Foundation Support list have similarly embarrassing Cold War era skeletons in their past.

The best of intentions can be undermined by poor choices.
 
Last edited:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

The downsides of downsizing: Why the United States needs four hundred ICBMs

The United States is at a nuclear modernization crossroads. Critics of the land leg of the nuclear triad believe that an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force of 300 missiles will be cheaper and more stable than a force of 400. This issue brief shows that 400 ICBMs support the goals of...
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org
 
www.defenseone.com

New ICBM Costs Can, Must Come Down, Hyten Says

The Joint Chiefs vice chairman says he’s been meeting with Northrop Grumman and believes he’s found a way.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Really hope this isn’t the pretend “concerned about” game that ends delaying the weapon, then oops delays made costs go up again, let’s study why, we need five years, costs up even more???

Darn too expensive have to cancel the program now.......
 
www.defensenews.com

Lawmakers, defense officials joust over next-gen ICBM plans

The war over a next-gen ICBM flared up at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
In the lead up to the Biden administration’s far-reaching nuclear posture review, left-leaning lawmakers say the Pentagon’s $1.2 trillion nuclear modernization plans are a money pit and question whether the United States could deter its rivals for less with only its bombers and submarines. Conservative lawmakers worried GBSD needs protection from cancellation are opposing further analysis by the Pentagon
———————————
Why would a defense publication either intentionally, ignorantly or deceptively use the “$1.2 trillion modernization plan”? Firstly they always fail to mention that this cost is over the next 30 years and that the modernizing the Triad portion is around $350 billion the rest is maintaining the existing Triad as it is being modernized.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom