New START Treaty

[Abraham Gubler]

Uploading is a real capability and the US has huge potential with existing Minuteman III and Trident II missiles. The US has a potential to upload to ~4,250 warheads on ICBM/SLBM whereas Russia only has an upload potential of ~2,200 under New START. This also doesn't take into account USAF's superior strategic bomber force. So I don't know where you get an argument to build a new ICBM from a strategic forces balance perspective.

 

[bobbymike]

I am not necessarily making a MMIII replacement argument within the context of this treaty more of a general desire to modernize the ICBM leg of the Triad by getting a system in development today for deployment in 2020 or so.

 

[Vpanoptes]

From Ares Defense Technology Blog - Some pretty interesting people agree with my interpretation of the treaty.

The thing about bomber weapons is they can easily draw upon the non-deployed stockpile of active nuclear weapons (the responsive force). The 1,550 limit only applies to operationally deployed nuclear weapons. As in the SORT treaty a compliant USAF would only have 240 nuclear gravity bombs on issue but there are hundreds if not thousands more held ready to go in the stockpile. All they need is a truck to drive them to a nearby US bomber air base and Wing Attack Plan R is back on the table. It’s a lot harder to utilise quickly the nuclear warheads packaged in re-entry vehicles in the stockpile because there is not a matching stockpile of ballistic missiles.

Silly question perhaps, but: In the (hopefully very unlikely) event that push-comes-to-shove "toe-to-toe Nooklar combat with the Rooshkies" (of Major Kong fame) would there be a "stockpile" left to draw from? And at that point, would it make much of a difference?

 

[bobbymike]

From Ares Defense Technology Blog - Some pretty interesting people agree with my interpretation of the treaty.

The thing about bomber weapons is they can easily draw upon the non-deployed stockpile of active nuclear weapons (the responsive force). The 1,550 limit only applies to operationally deployed nuclear weapons. As in the SORT treaty a compliant USAF would only have 240 nuclear gravity bombs on issue but there are hundreds if not thousands more held ready to go in the stockpile. All they need is a truck to drive them to a nearby US bomber air base and Wing Attack Plan R is back on the table. It’s a lot harder to utilise quickly the nuclear warheads packaged in re-entry vehicles in the stockpile because there is not a matching stockpile of ballistic missiles.

Silly question perhaps, but: In the (hopefully very unlikely) event that push-comes-to-shove "toe-to-toe Nooklar combat with the Rooshkies" (of Major Kong fame) would there be a "stockpile" left to draw from? And at that point, would it make much of a difference?

In a Bolt out of the Blue scenario or very rapid escalation that led to nuclear war, yes, stockpiled weapons would not matter too much if we are all glowing in the dark by the time you take them out of storage. However, most strategists believe you would see a slow and long term escalation when weapons taken out of storage and placed on missiles, re-MIRVing - so to speak might give one side a large deployed warhead advantage. Which might be considered worrisome as, if one side, has the ability to greatly increase its deployed weapons the other side might strike first before the re-MIRVing could occur. It all too Herman Kahn for me ???

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Destroying the active and inactive stockpile as part of a first strike plan is not going to stop those deployed and hard to reach weapons (SLBMs, mobile ICBMs) from megadeathing your population. Russia is certainly a long way from having the capability for a near successful first strike and the USA has had it for over 10 years now and still hasn't used it... So things are pretty secure in this regard.

 

[bobbymike]

Here is some recent information the US provided for the UN outlining America's steep disarmament trajectory since the end of the Cold War. While arsenals had to shrink I weep at what I see as a tremendous loss of capability never to be seen again. Curtis LeMay is spinning in his grave. An excerpt :'(

the United States has made extraordinary progress in reducing its stockpile of nuclear weapons, strategic delivery systems, fissile materials for weapons and the associated infrastructure. Reductions are continuing on all fronts. . . .

Since 1988, the United States has dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear warheads. The United States reduced its total stockpile by one half between 2004 and 2007 and has committed to continued reductions. . . . In 1991, the United States operationally deployed approximately 10,000 warheads. As of 2002, that number had dropped to approximately 6,000, and, as at 31 December 2008, the total was 2,246 . . . The United States has dismantled more than 3,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons and reduced non-strategic weapons deployed in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe by more than 90 per cent from cold war totals. In addition, the United States has removed all non-strategic nuclear weapons from surface ships and naval aircraft. It has withdrawn from Europe and dismantled all nuclear artillery shells, Lance missile warheads and naval nuclear depth bombs. . .

The United States continues to reduce its nuclear weapon types. The United States cancelled a number of its warhead development programmes at the end of the cold war, including the W-89 and W-91 nuclear missile warheads and the B-90 nuclear bomb. Overall, the United States has retired and eliminated all but eight nuclear weapon types from more than 100 designs that existed at the height of the cold war. Since 1992, 13 different nuclear weapon types have been retired and eliminated, including the last nuclear artillery shell design in the stockpile, the W-79, in 2003, and the W-56 warhead for the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile, in June 2006.

. . . To date, the United States has retired more than 1,000 strategic missiles, 350 heavy bombers, 28 ballistic submarines and 450 intercontinental ballistic missile silos. The United States recently removed four modern Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines from strategic service, carrying a total of 96 Trident C-4 ballistic missiles, and is eliminating an entire nuclear weapon delivery system known as the Advanced Cruise Missile.

The United States ceased uranium enrichment for weapons purposes in 1964 and plutonium production in 1988, and has no plans to resume either. . . . The United States has declared more than 374 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 61.5 tons of plutonium excess to defence needs and removed the material from defence stocks. . . . To date, the United States has down-blended nearly 110 tons of excess HEU into low-enriched uranium (LEU) and has prepared approximately 12 more tons for down-blending.

 

[bobbymike]

Some more treaty speculation from Defense News

New Treaty Could Trim U.S. Bombers' Nuclear Role
By william matthews
Published: 1 Apr 2010 16:06

The new START treaty that would cut the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons could also prompt the United States to trim the bomber leg of its nuclear force.

Limits that reduce the number of deployed "launchers" to 700 could encourage U.S. nuclear policy makers to rely more on land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles and less on B-2 and B-52 bombers, said Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association.

"The bomber leg of the triad is not what you think about when you think about survivability and quick response," he said.

At present, the United States has 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles based on land and 336 based on submarines. It also has 44 nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and 16 nuclear-capable B-2 bombers.

That gives the United States a total of 846 launchers. The treaty permits 800 launchers, but says only 700 may be "deployed."

If the number of deployed launchers must be reduced to 700, the U.S. military is likely to want most of them to be its most responsive and survivable, Collina said. That suggests keeping the maximum number of land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles.

"The treaty is forcing us to decide where to put our warheads," he said. And bombers are likely to be the losers. "We could be moving to 20 or fewer bombers."

The full story - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4564748&c=HOM&s=TOP

 

[GTX]

With respect to those arguing against this treaty and in fact that the USA should go the opposite way and start developing new nuclear weapons, do you see such a position (should it be adopted) as being seriously detrimental to attempts to reduce the proliferation of such weapons around the world (e.g. Iran)?

Regards,

Greg

 

[bobbymike]

GTX - If you look at the post that outlines how the US has dramatically disarmed since the end of the Cold War and Iranian actions over that same time frame can you you please explain how our obvious attempt to "lead the way" has changed Iranian nuclear ambitions.

So what should the US do, go to 500 warheads? What if the Iranians say "If you go to 250 then we will talk" and when you get to 250 they say "well 100 warheads would be better". Do you think Iran and North Korea have the security of the US in mind?

 

[GTX]

GTX - If you look at the post that outlines how the US has dramatically disarmed since the end of the Cold War and Iranian actions over that same time frame can you you please explain how our obvious attempt to "lead the way" has changed Iranian nuclear ambitions.

So what should the US do, go to 500 warheads? What if the Iranians say "If you go to 250 then we will talk" and when you get to 250 they say "well 100 warheads would be better". Do you think Iran and North Korea have the security of the US in mind?

You totally missed the point of my post!

The issue I tried to raise is that if the USA was to start developing new nukes it would loose what little authority it has to force others to not develop their own.

Greg

 

[bobbymike]

And you totally missed my point. US actions and behavior have NOT influenced Iranian behavior. Now the real issue is whether the Iranians would cry and moan about the US "if we started building new nukes" well of course but who cares because as I said I don't think they have our best interest at heart.

By the way I did not "miss your point" as by inferring we may influence Iranian actions by building new weapons then by logic we should influence them in the opposite direction by disarming, no? The point of my post was to maybe have people consider that Iran is building nuclear weapons for reasons that have nothing to do with the US like maybe being a Middle east superpower and forever be able to threaten Israel (and by proxy America) and dominate other nations in the region.

 

[sferrin]

With respect to those arguing against this treaty and in fact that the USA should go the opposite way and start developing new nuclear weapons, do you see such a position (should it be adopted) as being seriously detrimental to attempts to reduce the proliferation of such weapons around the world (e.g. Iran)?

Regards,

Greg

If we scraped every warhead we have TODAY it wouldn't stop Iran or NK from trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nor would it cause Russia and China to throw down theirs. Rather, we'd simply being laying our heads on the block while they stood back and laughed at our naivete.

 

[GTX]

Forget it - it is obvious that even mentioning Iran (which was an EXAMPLE!!! not the point of my post - I could have easily said Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa or even New Zealand for that point!!!) is too much of a red flag here.

And yes you did miss my point (or perhaps that was deliberate?) - I was saying nothing about reducing weapons as an inducement to others to do so, though it appears as though people read and hear what they want!

What I was trying to raise was that going the opposite way (i.e. developing new nukes - as is seemingly the reaction to many here to this proposed treaty) would most likely also have detrimental effects from a geopolitical pov. If the USA starts developing new nukes it will, and arguably should, loose any moral right to try and force other countries not to. If that is fine by you, than not an issue.

Greg

 

[bobbymike]

Forget it - it is obvious that even mentioning Iran (which was an EXAMPLE!!! not the point of my post - I could have easily said Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa or even New Zealand for that point!!!) is too much of a red flag here.

And yes you did miss my point (or perhaps that was deliberate?) - I was saying nothing about reducing weapons as an inducement to others to do so, though it appears as though people read and hear what they want!

What I was trying to raise was that going the opposite way (i.e. developing new nukes - as is seemingly the reaction to many here to this proposed treaty) would most likely also have detrimental effects from a geopolitical pov. If the USA starts developing new nukes it will, and arguably should, loose any moral right to try and force other countries not to. If that is fine by you, than not an issue.

Greg

You mentioned Iran as an example and I responded to your example, gee sorry. I guess I should have considered New Zealand in my response

But at the heart of your argument is a moral equivalence, mainly nuclear weapons in the hands of any nation are equally dangerous so if the US has them or specifically begins a modernization program it is the same as Iran or Pakistan or North Korea having them or wanting them or deploying them. That the US would have no right (no moral standing) to say to some imaginary nation, "nuclear weapons in the hands of a maniacal theocratic fascist dictatorship is dangerous to the world and won't be allowed." That's what the whole debate about Iran is about. It also leaves open the premise that as long as the US has even one nuclear weapon or even the capacity to build them, "what right does the US have to stop or deny the right of any nation to build one?"

Let's hypothesize that the US has zero nukes. Could not any nation, given the history of nuclear weapons, say to the US "you built nukes to deter your enemies and so we have the right to do the same ?" (think Pak/India for example) Doesn't every nation have the right to build any weapon for use in its own self defense?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to the UN to obtain a new round of sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program and yet the US is silent on the continued modernization efforts of France and Britain, how is that fair? Why does the US have the "moral" standing to do this to Iran and not those other countries?

 

[Bailey]

Lets keep things cool please.

Regards Bailey.

 

[sferrin]

Forget it - it is obvious that even mentioning Iran (which was an EXAMPLE!!! not the point of my post - I could have easily said Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa or even New Zealand for that point!!!) is too much of a red flag here.

And yes you did miss my point (or perhaps that was deliberate?) - I was saying nothing about reducing weapons as an inducement to others to do so, though it appears as though people read and hear what they want!

What I was trying to raise was that going the opposite way (i.e. developing new nukes - as is seemingly the reaction to many here to this proposed treaty) would most likely also have detrimental effects from a geopolitical pov. If the USA starts developing new nukes it will, and arguably should, loose any moral right to try and force other countries not to. If that is fine by you, than not an issue.

Greg

I didn't miss anything. You said (essentially) that if we develop new nukes it will cause others to want to do the same. My point is that they will do so REGARDLESS of what we do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The nuances of nuclear politics are not as simplistic and as black and white as Bob Mike and Sef. make out.

Obviously rouge states like Iran and North Korea are going to do their nasty thing. But the USA is providing leadership for the rest of the world to do something about stopping this nuclear proliferation through embargoos and the like. If the USA was still building nuclear bombs – which it clearly doesn’t have to do for anything other than industrial capability retention reasons – then it would be harder for them to say to the rest of the world that they shouldn’t let other countries build nuclear bombs.

I haven’t seen a single coherent argument in this thread as to why the USA should be developing new nuclear weapons and not reducing the deployed weapons to the extremely mild reduction required in New START. All these arguments are just posturing based and completely taken out of strategic context.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic locked. Will deal with this once I'm not on holiday with limited net access.