Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[sferrin]

Smith Supports Triad, But Wants Fewer ICBMs

—Otto Kreisher7/7/2016

​The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agrees there is a need for a nuclear deterrent force and believes the strategic triad “still makes sense,” though he said the nation cannot afford the $1 trillion estimated cost for modernizing all three legs of the triad. “If we save some money there, we could address some of the other threats,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Wednesday. He listed ISIS terrorists as “the biggest threat.” Speaking to defense reporters in Washington, D.C., Smith said the strategic missile submarines are “the easiest to hide and the safest,” and he supports building the new B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber because the current force is aging and bombers have been useful in conventional conflicts, such as Iraq. “I think we can do with less ICBMs,” which are “the least survivable,” he said. The Navy has begun developing a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic submarines. The Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to build at least 100 long-range stealthy B-21s, and is planning a replacement for the 450 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs. Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned up the thread some will focus on LRSO elimination, others on reducing or getting rid of the GBSD and mark my words when the time comes SSBN(X) numbers will be "re-evaluated" in light of "budgetary" issues.

They keep saying $1 trillion for Triad modernization and leave out the "over the next 30 years". Over that same time total government spending will approach $200 trillion with entitlement spending comprising anywhere from $120 trillion to $130 trillion of the total. When the last time a politician said "The $120 trillion we are spending on entitlements over the next 30 years is unaffordable you know 120 TIMES what the Triad will cost"

A Democrat- of course. And using the whole "ISIS" boogie man is disingenuous (to put it politely). ISIS presents approximately 0.0% of a threat to the continued existence of the US. The same cannot be said of foreign nuclear forces which must be deterred, and destroyed if necessary.

"Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking."

Ye Gods.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Ye Gods.

Indeed.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nti.org/newsroom/news/nato-summit-alliance-must-avoid-escalating-tensions-russia-says-new-nti-report/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.

It's nice to see how well versed this "lawmaker" is in the particulars of nuclear deterence. Why don't we need a new nuclear cruise missle (to replace the by then half-century old AGM-86)? Why because he says so of course.

 

[kaiserd]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.

I am not familiar with this representative and I would disagree with with the suggestion that the new nuclear armed cruise missile isn't needed.

However I would note that the specific comments in this article are not hyperbolic and did not feature scare tactics or name calling. In this the contrast with the tone & content versus many of your & Sfferins posts on this topic are very notable. Your criticisms above far more validly apply to yourself & Sferrin than many of the individuals you are seeking to critique.

To my mind mind the strongest argument for the new nuclear armed cruise missile is that it will strengthen (and hopefully future proof) the bomber part of the triad disproportionately versus the same money spent on X number of additional land based ICBMs (with Y number being funded and fielded).
The nuclear cruise missile will hopefully discourage an opponent from a view that they can develop effective defenses against the new US bomber because the new missile will push up its level of survivability in the nuclear role to a point that isn't cost-effective to seek to fully counter.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-un-idUSKCN0ZN2JV

 

[fredymac]

5 months from lame duck status, Obama pivots back to one final push on nuke cutbacks. How much damage can be done via executive orders? Programs can be canceled but can physical assets be destroyed without congressional approval? Given congressional fecklessness, would that matter?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/obama-plans-major-nuclear-policy-changes-in-his-final-months/2016/07/10/fef3d5ca-4521-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html

"The Obama administration is determined to use its final six months in office to take a series of executive actions to advance the nuclear agenda the president has advocated since his college days."

"President Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them in his first major foreign policy speech, in Prague in 2009."

"Now, the president is considering using the freedom afforded a departing administration to cross off several remaining items on his nuclear wish list."

"Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval."

 

[UpForce]

5 months from lame duck status, Obama pivots back to one final push on nuke cutbacks. How much damage can be done via executive orders? Programs can be canceled but can physical assets be destroyed without congressional approval? Given congressional fecklessness, would that matter?

I read the article as well, but all in all there wasn't much substance.

The Obama administration has resorted to maneuvering within executive powers quite a lot since the gridlock on the Capitol Hill. Thus I'm sure they're well aware of their constraints and possibilities. Over the last seven years they have actually done admirably in securing a lot of risky nuclear material from around the world in (understandably) little advertised operations from various countries, though their policies' total effect on actual weapons proliferation is up for debate (to put it kindly). The latter, wider perspective, is of course much complicated by problems inherited (like the continuing fallout from AQ Khan's network) and Russia's leadership effectively going rogue in causing "hybrid" mischief practically wherever they can (see the kinds of places Rosatom is exporting to). Even superpowers can't rule by decree alone and no one policy's outcome is ever entirely predictable.

All in all I wouldn't view it positively if Obama's "nuclear legacy" were to be stymied by thinking merely within presidential terms, but frankly that's what talk about taking executive action points to. Shortsighted, frustrated, symbolic and costly, probably. Nuclear policy and deterrence in particular are matters which politicians and policies have less control over than they'll generally believe based on the formal definitions of their own powers (apart from "the button" itself). I appreciate the steadfast intent on making this World a safer place, a moral compass is indispensable in navigating such uncharted matters as existential risks are. But the upheavals we're experiencing mean that the powers we wield must remain actionable and believable and any and all symbolism must be based on that.

Just by stating that nukes are useless (e.g. declaring no first use or putting much of the arsenal in "cold storage") won't make them go away neither here or there since uselessness (via MAD) is kinda the point of deterrence. Not ideal but that's what we got until we get much smarter about this than we likely currently can conceive to be.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-defence-idUSKCN0ZX10K

British Trident

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/new-cruise-missile-crucial-to-nuclear-deterrence/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html

 

[kaiserd]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html

Not having a go at the writer but perhaps not the most in depth examination of the pro v con of mobile ICBMs (one of main arguments seems to be mobile less boring for service people).
Given the necessary (& detectable) footprint and logistics re: effective security, safety & command to me mobile ICBMs may not be worth while for US circumstances versus fixed silos (and spending on improving early detection/ warning systems).

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/21/is_the_no_first_use_policy_the_right_policy_109602.html

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/07/20-nuclear-weapons-northeast-asia-pollack-bush

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-baltic-states-are-where-nuclear-war-most-likely-17044

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon pegs nuclear modernization tab at $350B to $450B over 20 years

The Defense Department estimates the cost to modernize U.S. nuclear forces will be between $350 billion and $450 billion over two decades -- a sum that does not include warhead acquisition nor operations cost -- providing a key data point in a policy debate that until now has been largely framed by cost estimates from think tanks and congressional auditors.

Air Force estimates $20 billion savings with new ICBM compared with Minuteman life extension

The Air Force calculates that modernizing the silo-based missile portion of the nuclear triad will yield as much as $20 billion in cost avoidance over five decades compared with extending the life of the current fleet of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a senior service official.

Lt. Gen. Weinstein: Insights on commonality will come with GBSD RFP release

As Congress continues to pressure the Air Force and Navy to make a decision about leveraging commonality between the Air Force's new intercontinental ballistic missile replacement and the Navy's Trident III life-extension program, the Air Force's three-star general in charge of nuclear strategy and integration said this week the benefits of commonality extend beyond partnerships among the services.

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html

Not having a go at the writer but perhaps not the most in depth examination of the pro v con of mobile ICBMs (one of main arguments seems to be mobile less boring for service people).
Given the necessary (& detectable) footprint and logistics re: effective security, safety & command to me mobile ICBMs may not be worth while for US circumstances versus fixed silos (and spending on improving early detection/ warning systems).

Or spending money on Overlay/Underlay ABM since the US is not bound by the ABM treaty. Taking a look at DEWS and EMRGs for terminal defenses should be a high priority.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/august/Pages/AirForceKicksOffProgramtoReplaceMinutemanIIIMissiles.aspx

 

[bobbymike]

Strength through Flexibility

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​The flexibility the nuclear triad provides is the key to deterrence, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Weinstein said each leg challenges other nations to account for each capability, and sustaining them is necessary to prevent future massive conflicts like those that killed tens of millions of people during the 20th century. “We need to remember our actions or inactions impact what others do,” Weinstein said. “So, do we need a strategic bomber? Do we need a submarine-based platform? Do we need a Long-Range Standoff weapon? Do we need a gravity bomb? Do we need a ground-based ICBM? And do we need command and control and infrastructure to support all legs of the triad? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes.” Weinstein said the modernization costs, which are projected to reach seven percent of the entire DOD budget in the mid 2020s, are “not historically unreasonable,” noting nuclear enterprise upgrades amounted to about 20 percent of the DOD budget in the 1960s and up to 10 percent of the budget in the 1980s. The total life-cycle cost of upgrading the nuclear enterprise is expected to be $1 trillion, he said. President Barack Obama’s budget requests have funded the modernization programs thus far, but fixes will need to be found for the 2020 bow wave, he acknowledged. As far as development goes, Weinstein said the LRSO Milestone A decision and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent request for proposal are both before Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall. In June, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told lawmakers during his nomination hearing the LRSO milestone A decision was expected within two weeks and the GBSD milestone A decision was expected in August.

A Matter of Perception

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​Equipping the Air Force’s F-35A with nuclear weapons would not lower the threshold of their use, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. “Using nuclear weapons is a decision made by the President of the United States, nobody else,” Weinstein said during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. “I don’t see a potential use of an F-35 [as being] any different than having a dual-capable aircraft now with the F-15E ... or the F-16, so I look at it as continued modernization of our force,” he noted. When asked whether the F-35’s stealth capability changes the equation, Weinstein said the aircraft doesn’t change who authorizes the use of nuclear weapons. He suggested the perception of a dual-capable F-35 will act as a stronger deterrent. Weinstein also said he traveled to Europe a few months ago and that NATO’s commitment to maintaining dual-capable aircraft “is as strong as it’s ever been.” In April, F-35 program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told lawmakers the service anticipates beginning B61 Mod 12 integration on the F-35A in 2018. The first production of B61 Mod 12, which pairs an upgraded warhead with a precision-guided tailkit, is expected by 2020.

Morale Boost

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​The service’s changes to the nuclear force have greatly improved morale, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. “Things are so much better now than they were in the past,” Weinstein said at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. Air Force Global Strike Command launched the Force Improvement Program in February 2014 to prompt a command-wide look at morale after widespread cheating on nuclear proficiency exams and and drug use at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., were uncovered. The investigation revealed low morale across the force. As part of FIP, new career opportunities were created. Since then, the command has investigated drug use at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., but the “vast majority” of the 31,000 airmen who constitute the force are meeting or exceeding Air Force standards, Global Strike Commander Gen. Robin Rand said in March. Weinstein attributed the improvements to giving the airmen more responsibility for their mission. “If you’re going to tell somebody that they have a job of national importance, and you’re going to tell someone that what they do impacts this nation every single day, you need to give them the responsibility,” he said. “To me, when I say what the morale is, it’s really high. And it’s high because we put responsibility where it belongs

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/

 

[sferrin]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/

Gotta love politicians who think the way to reduce the likelihood of being attacked is to appear weak and submissive.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/839087/dod-experts-tell-congress-nuclear-modernization-efforts-crucial

http://www.defense.gov/Video?videoid=474930

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/lrso-keeps-b-2-relevant-counterstealth-tech-improves#comment-406091

 

[marauder2048]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/lrso-keeps-b-2-relevant-counterstealth-tech-improves#comment-406091

Not sure I buy the premise of the headline; LRSO merely restores the nuclear standoff capability that B-2 was always intended to have before SRAM II was cancelled.

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/all-cards-on-the-table-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons/

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/if-boomers-get-special-account-so-should-b-21-icbms-secaf-james/

 

[bobbymike]

https://mises.org/blog/decentralize-nuclear-arsenals

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/no-first-use-dont-do-it-mr-president/

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2008/R3765.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/28/ohio-replacement-sub-class-named-d-c

USS Columbia

I'm still hoping they're called "Neptune Class"

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/28/the_true_cost_of_nuclear_deterrence_109635.html

Yup the bill comes due after 25 years of neglect.

 

[bobbymike]

Rand: US Must Modernize Nuclear Triad

—Otto Kreisher 7/29/2016

​To ensure that they remain ready to perform their critical mission as part of the strategic nuclear deterrent force, the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and the strategic bomber force must be modernized, the Air Force Global Strike Command boss said Thursday. And in addition to fielding the new B-21 bomber and replacing or modernizing the Minuteman III ICBMs, Gen. Robin Rand said he needed to update the nuclear command, control, and communications system, the airborne and land-based network of systems that give the President 24/7 assured control of the nuclear deterrent force. Addressing an AFA Mitchell Institute breakfast audience, Rand also argued for the Long-Range Standoff weapon to replace the Air Launched Cruise Missile, which was supposed to last 10 years but is now 30 years old. The LRSO is essential in the current anti-access, area-denial environment, he said. Rand said the ICMBs are nearly 50-years old and the B-52s are even older and the command is struggling to keep them ready. “We can meet our missions today, but it is time when we need to make some decisions” on how to ensure the reliability and survivability of those two legs of the strategic triad, he said. (Read also: Ground-Based Question Mark from the July issue of Air Force Magazine.)

STRATCOM Boss Stresses Need for Resiliency, Flexibility

—Otto Kreisher 7/29/2016

​​Faced with a global security environment that is “complex, dynamic, and volatile,” the commander of US Strategic Command stressed the need for resiliency and flexibility in “delivering effective deterrence and assurance.” In response to the threats from nuclear-armed and belligerent Russia, China, and North Korea, Iran’s missile and cyber capabilities, and violent extremists, Adm. Cecil Haney said the first priority was to recapitalize the nuclear deterrent enterprise. “This is critical in a global security environment where it is clear that other nuclear-capable nations are placing a high priority” on their nuclear forces, Haney told a STRATCOM-sponsored forum Wednesday. He also urged investments in cyberspace and space “resiliency,” aggressive pursuit of the Third Offset capabilities, and “asymmetric advantages that capitalize on our strengths and exploit our adversaries’ weaknesses.” And, “we must master the speed of information and the strategic narrative,” Haney said. At the end of the day, he said, “our adversaries and potential adversaries must understand that they cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict, that they will not reap the benefits they seek. … Any nation that thinks they can get away with a strategic attack on the United States or our allies, must think again.”

 

[marauder2048]

LRSO and GBSD move forward.

Air Force Kicks Off Competitions for Two Critical Nuclear Programs

Some excerpts:

For the GBSD program, the Air Force plans to award up to two 36-month technology maturation and risk reduction contracts by the end of fiscal year 2017.
After downselecting to a single bidder, it would then deploy the ballistic missile system in the late 2020s.


For the cruise missile competition, the Air Force plans on awarding up to two contract awards for LRSO technology maturation and risk reduction by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017.
By the end of this 54-month stage, contractors will have developed a preliminary design “with demonstrated reliability and manufacturability,” the service said in a news release.

After a competition, the Air Force will downselect a single vendor, with fielding scheduled to kick off by 2030.

LRSO is planned to launch from the B-21, B-2 and B-52

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Launches LRSO
—John A. Tirpak 8/1/2016

comment

​The Air Force issued a request for proposals Friday for the Long Range Standoff weapon, a nuclear-capable cruise missile meant to succeed the current AGM-86B Air launched Cruise Missile, already 20 years past its planned retirement. The new missile would enter service in 2030. According to a service announcement, USAF is starting the technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) phase of the project. It’s looking to carry one or two prime contractors through a 54-month preliminary design phase, during which the contractors would demonstrate their concepts’ reliability and “manufacturability.” After that, there would be a competition to choose a single contractor to build the weapon. The Air Force has declined to provide any details about the LRSO, and has suggested the program might be run out of the Rapid Capabilities Office, a streamlined and secret organization meant to quickly field needed technologies. It did say the project would be “synchronized” by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, headed by Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson, program executive officer for strategic systems, and by Air Force Materiel Command. USAF leaders have refused to say whether they envision the LRSO as a hypersonic weapon, building on the success of the X-51 project, but the timing may coincide with such a goal. The USAF statement said the LRSO would equip the B-2, B-52, and new B-21 bombers, and is intended to be able to penetrate densely defended targets worldwide, denying any enemy “geographic sanctuary.”

USAF said that while the ALCM remains “safe, secure and effective, it is facing increasing sustainment and operational challenges against evolving threats” and a replacement is needed. The AGM-86B was joined for a time by the stealthy AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile, but that weapon was retired in 2012 as a cost-saving measure. The Air Force said the LRSO will provide a needed element to the air-launched aspect of the nuclear triad, providing credibility and a “tailorable deterrent effect” against adversaries and “evolving threats.” USAF didn’t specify how much it’s planning to spend on the TMRR phase. (See also: Nukes Are “A Big Bill.”)

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBj8PpI8SA

LLNL - Russian Views on Strategic Deterrence.

 

[bobbymike]

A mostly propaganda video on the Sarmat ICBM (SS-18 replacement) but does disclose (for what it's worth) that Sarmat will be 170t last reported estimate was 100t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8as7bKjV7c

 

[bobbymike]

http://thebulletin.org/press-release/25-years-start9690?platform=hootsuite

Twenty-five years ago this Sunday, the world gave a heavy sigh of relief. On July 31st, 1991, Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or more commonly, START I. The treaty limited the nuclear arsenals on either side of the Iron Curtain to 6,000 warheads and 1,600 Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles (SNDVs) by 2001

We should never have gone below these levels IMHO. With the improved relations between the superpowers at the time of this treaty it should also have marked the decoupling of the arsenal, in a numeric sense, from the size of the Russian arsenal and sized ONLY to our strategic and extended deterrence needs.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

 

[kaiserd]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

Asteroid deflection role? Honestly?
I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Good luck selling that line of bullshit to Congress.....

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

This. You're not going to deflect an iron asteroid you just detected 6 months out with a solar sail.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

This. You're not going to deflect an iron asteroid you just detected 6 months out with a solar sail.

Interesting article with video on a 1/2 KM wide asteroid with only 1Mt warhead. He also talks about "late detection only a few months from impact"

http://www.space.com/21333-asteroid-nuke-spacecraft-mission.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Then you're not reading credible sources. Nukes are not only a viable solution to the issue... for near-term impactors they're the *only* solution.