Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[NeilChapman]

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.

Sure Scott - you know the only reason there is violence around the world is US hegemony. If the US wasn't so strong there wouldn't be any violence anywhere.

Remember after the Great War when no one country was substantially stronger than anyone else there was no reason for any country to go to war anymore. Oh, wait a minute. I'm forgetting WWII.

Well, we all know it's true. Just look at how dangerous it is in the Caribbean. Look at all the wars going on in South America. Look at how much Canada and Mexico have to spend on their defense. The US is a very dangerous neighbor buddy!

 

[Orionblamblam]

the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.

 

[sferrin]

the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.

Or go to Africa and see which buffalo gets pulled down, the weak and sickly one, or the one that wants a piece of that lion just because it's annoying. The concept of "weak is bad, strong is good" is so fundamental that it beggars belief that anybody couldn't be familiar with the concept.

 

[NeilChapman]

the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.

I was expanding upon Scott's point. A weak US raises the likelihood of bad actors make poor decisions. Where there is US hegemony there is a baseline peaceful coexistence where countries enjoy low defense budgets.

Canada 1.0% - Which is 1/2 their NATO commitment
Mexico 0.7%
Nicaragua 0.6%
Panama 0.0%
Belize 1.1%
Costa Rica 0.0%
El Salvador 0.9%

 

[sferrin]

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.

Not only that, how would he propose to get nukes to the asteroid if not by missile? Slingshot?

 

[kaiserd]

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.

Not only that, how would he propose to get nukes to the asteroid if not by missile? Slingshot?

Never claimed to be an expert; if any of you happen to be experts on asteroid deflection then that's a very happy coincidence.

My limited familiarity comes from articles and documentaries from reputable sources such as the BBC; for example I recall a Horizon documentary.

My recollection is that for any chance of a nuclear weapon being effective you would have to get very lucky with the type of asteroid or meteor you were facing and even then the device would need to be at the centre of the object to maximise its effect (dependent on the type of space object not likely to be achievable by just shooting a missile into it). Also the very sound argument that a large yield weapon (needing alot of fissile material) would in it self be extremely dangerous and potentialy world ending as a potential asteroid.
An argument was put forward that it was better to spend resources on earlier detection and potential early intervention "pushing"/ solar sail solutions, as mentioned above.

And that's before we get to common sense. Short of a very clear massive imminent threat who is going to be willing to pay for (and take the probable massive international implications for) developing massive yield nuclear weapons so you "might" be able to take a shot at an asteroid "if" we detect it early enough, "if" it happens to be on a collision course, and "if" it happens to have any chance of being successful against the specific asteriod/ meteor/ comet etc. That part of the equation is the most sci-fi of all.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.

There should be two. A lightweight, Midgetman type, and a heavy Peacekeeper+ missile.

 

[bobbymike]

Dr. Keith Payne of NIPP and Peter Huessy of Mitchell Institute two real patriots who understand deterrence.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/08/02/imminent-danger-of-no-first-use-policy/

 

[Orionblamblam]

Also the very sound argument that a large yield weapon (needing alot of fissile material) would in it self be extremely dangerous and potentialy world ending as a potential asteroid.

I invite you to re-read that. The largest nukes that humans are likely to whip up in the event of a threatening impactor would likely be in the range of 100 megatons, because that's the rough scale of the largest nukes we've ever made. The yield-equivalent of the sort of impactors we're likely to worry about on an existential level would be in the range of hundreds of thousands to *millions* of megatons.

We have set off fifty-megaton bombs with *no* world-ending implications. A 100 megaton bomb would be little more dangerous. But a million-megaton impact? Juuuuuust a bit more dangerous. They are not remotely comparable.

. Short of a very clear massive imminent threat who is going to be willing to pay for (and take the probable massive international implications for) developing massive yield nuclear weapons so you "might" be able to take a shot at an asteroid "if" we detect it early enough,

The Wayland-Yutani Corporation. Then they can sue the UN to recover costs. Maybe settle on transferring the geographical region and mineral rights for, say, Andorra and Dubai to corporate control.

 

[bobbymike]

So what would the cost be of converting a Ares booster (as an example) to carry 10 10Mt nukes or 10 Spacex Heavy boosters? Lets say 50 billion compared to what 10 Trillion if the east coast was wiped out by an asteroid? Plus another 10 Trillion in global wealth destroyed.

This is a cheap no brainer cost benefit wise. Plus to be honest with readers I want the labs building new nukes again before we forever lose that capability.

 

[sferrin]

Plus to be honest with readers I want the labs building new nukes again before we forever lose that capability.

I doubt Russia or China will ever lose the ability. I do doubt the likelihood of them ever shooting an asteroid down for us if it happened to be headed for the US though.

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.sky.com/story/asteroid-strike-could-cause-immense-suffering-10519054

Dante Lauretta, the NASA expert in charge of a new mission to analyse the asteroid, said;

"Don't run out and buy asteroid insurance," he said, explaining that "nukes" or a "gravity tractor" could be among the options for knocking it off course.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/03/mobile_icbms_are_a_bad_idea_109666.html

Don't agree but like to post different sides of arguments.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.

There should be two. A lightweight, Midgetman type, and a heavy Peacekeeper+ missile.

Preaching to the choir, brother.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force tweaks schedule for GBSD, LRSO contract awards

The Air Force is tweaking the acquisition schedule for two major nuclear modernization projects, slightly delaying estimated contract award dates compared to the most recently published plan for a new silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile and a new cruise missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

 

[bobbymike]

Hat Tip Mr. Havoc from Nuke Weapons News Only Thread

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/04/obama-will-bypass-congress-seek-u-n-resolution-on-nuclear-testing/

This and other issues ignoring/bypassing the Constitutional role of the Senate's treaty power sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. Mind you with the Republican Senate giving away that power for the Iran Agreement (Treaty) what difference does it make.

I always ask myself how many Romans recognized the decline and fall..............

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force official: 'GBSD is silo-based. Period.'

The Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration has attempted to close the door on the discussion of whether the Air Force will eventually pursue a mobile basing option for its replacement intercontinental ballistic missile, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent

That settles that I guess............

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Complain it is too costly, priceless :

 

[sferrin]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Discover you forgot how to do much of what you need, check.
Realize you need to recreate your knowledge base, check.
Complain it is too costly, priceless :

Fixed. :'(

 

[bobbymike]

Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

 

[kaiserd]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Discover you forgot how to do much of what you need, check.
Realize you need to recreate your knowledge base, check.
Complain it is too costly, priceless :

Fixed. :'(

What do your comments have to do with the actual article which itself?
It was relatively neutral; for good or bad there is a concentration of nuclear triad related spending coming up which (like all major defense projects) will be vulnerable to cost overruns.

Considering some of the right-wing click bait both of you regularly post without any critical comments (for example I recall an article calling for Obama to be impeached for the Iran deal) it seems at best random what articles you choose to direct your critical facilities.

 

[sferrin]

Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

Can't fix stupid. (Or in this case an intentional effort to weaken the US from the top. )

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

Can't fix stupid. (Or in this case an intentional effort to weaken the US from the top. )

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - Sir John Harington

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/nows-not-the-time-to-lower-americas-nuclear-guard-mr-president/

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdyFPJn6Eg4

Redefining the US Agenda for Nuclear Disarmament

 

[sferrin]

Sorry but I don't see how pursuing unilateral disarmament is going to HELP the US. I also don't agree that it would help with modernization. I have no doubt whatsoever that certain parties (we all know who they are) would "promise modernization as long as we cut the total numbers of warheads. We'll cut the numbers of warheads today and give you promises of modernization tomorrow - that we'll make sure never amount to anything." And that guy's voice is annoying as hell.

"Nuclear weapons would no longer be seen as essential for national security." Ye gods. Okay. So Russia and China have huge, modern strategic nuclear forces but if we just declare them not essential for us is that suppose to magically wave those opposing forces away?

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-air-force-wants-new-city-killer-nuclear-missiles%E2%80%94-prevent-17287

Hyperbole aside in the click bait title.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-wants-replace-us-s-aging-nuclear-icbms-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160809_AW-05_86&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6651&utm_medium=email&elq2=d1ee7bbb48b641afaf38739c84d1892b#slide-0-field_images-1495111

The fourth slide "Antares" booster would make a heck of a CPGS missile (for size comparison I believe that is Minotaur second from the right which is Peacekeeper size.)

 

[sferrin]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-wants-replace-us-s-aging-nuclear-icbms-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160809_AW-05_86&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6651&utm_medium=email&elq2=d1ee7bbb48b641afaf38739c84d1892b#slide-0-field_images-1495111

The fourth slide "Antares" booster would make a heck of a CPGS missile (for size comparison I believe that is Minotaur second from the right which is Peacekeeper size.)

That comment section is face-palm city. Apparently AvWeek wasn't satisfied with how far it had fallen so they decided to allow commenting on it's articles too. The least they could do is make it so only subscribers could comment so at least there are a few brain cells involved.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/10/the_us_icbm_force_money_better_spent_elsewhere_109690.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-americas-military-needs-new-nuclear-armed-cruise-missile-17314

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/allies-unite-to-block-an-obama-legacy/2016/08/14/cdb8d8e4-60b9-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html?utm_term=.33e171f1c625

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/15/nuclear_weapons_and_first_use_109704.html

 

[sferrin]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

It's all good. Feinstein said we don't need any new weapons.

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

It's all good. Feinstein said we don't need any new weapons.

Phew that's a relief thanks Senator

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-nuclear-test-moratorium-common-sense-17341

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-16/air-force-ballistic-missile-upgrade-said-to-be-stalled-over-cost

The uncertainty over costs stems from the fact that the U.S. has not built new ICBMs, which are designed to carry nuclear warheads, for decades.

The Air Force is currently weighing whether to accept the direction to fund the ICBM program at the higher estimate and where to find the extra money, the official said. The service must agree to the higher forecast or it won’t move forward -- unless the Pentagon allows the Air Force to underfund it, which is unlikely.

Unreal! Some politician with guts should declare this a national emergency and prioritize spending to completely modernize the Triad and nuke enterprise.

 

[sferrin]

x2. It's never going to get easier by doing nothing.

 

[bobbymike]

Followed by this

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/16/russian_violations_of_the_inf_and_new_start_treaties_109708.html

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IS-410-final.pdf

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IS-407.pdf

Russia’s 2016 New START data, released by the Department of State, indicate that since New START’s entry into force (EIF) in 2011, Russia has increased its deployed warheads. Russia has reached 1,735 deployed warheads, an increase of 198 warheads since New START’s EIF when Russia had 1,537 deployed warheads.

Russia is now 185 warheads above the New START Treaty limit. U.S. data for the same period indicate the U.S. cut its warheads from 1,800 to 1,481, 69 below the New START limit of 1,550.

The Russian increase is even more impressive when it is compared with their level of 1,400 warheads in October 2013. From this baseline, the increase is 325 warheads or about 24%. According to Bill Gertz, an Obama administration official told him, “The Russians are doubling their [nuclear] warhead output,” and, “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

Gertz also reported Russia had added over 150 more warheads during the past year. This appears consistent with what Russian leaders say they are doing with regard to nuclear force modernization. We are now five years into the New START Treaty’s seven-year reduction period (2011-2018) and all we have seen is increases in Russian nuclear warheads. The only reductions being made are unilaterally by the U.S. It is likely the U.S. will be down to all the New START limits in the near future.

Is this being reported anywhere?

 

[sferrin]

Doesn't fit the MSM narrative. People have legacies to worry about you know.