Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-dangerous-drive-ban-nuclear-weapons-testing-17391

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-dangerous-drive-ban-nuclear-weapons-testing-17391

Anything to tie our hands. Putin and Xi couldn't have asked for better friends.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-must-be-ready-nuke-back-fast-17439

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/south-korean-nukes-less-risky-america-extended-deterrence-17464

 

[sferrin]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html

If you told a bunch of hardened criminals that you swear, no matter what, you will never shoot first, how well do you think that would work out? About the only thing worse would be unilateral disarmament. (The equivalent of a "Guns Free Zone" sign on a national level.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-nuclear-cost-debate-gets-even-uglier-17507

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policy

And Fred Kaplan is supposed to be a real foreign policy/security 'thinker'. :

 

[Rickshaw]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html

If you told a bunch of hardened criminals that you swear, no matter what, you will never shoot first, how well do you think that would work out? About the only thing worse would be unilateral disarmament. (The equivalent of a "Guns Free Zone" sign on a national level.)

So much for the concept of provocation...

 

[sferrin]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policy

And Fred Kaplan is supposed to be a real foreign policy/security 'thinker'. :

"The arsenals of both sides had grown to such staggering levels, and the chance of a real war between the two super­powers had so diminished"

Judas. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Maybe Mr. Kaplan should have asked himself WHY the chance of real war had become so diminished. Nah, of course not. That would support the notion nuclear weapons work when it comes to deterrent.

"The case for land-based ICBMs today is extremely weak and has been since 1990, when the U.S. Navy started deploying Trident II missiles on submarines. Unlike earlier SLBMs, the Trident II is accurate enough to destroy blast-hardened missile silos. In other words, one of the ICBM’s unique properties—its ability to hit blast-hardened targets quickly—is no longer unique. Meanwhile, its other unique property—its vulner­ability to an adversary’s first strike—is all too enduring. Even by the esoteric logic of nuclear strategists, then, ICBMs make the United States less secure, with no compensating advantages."

Ye gods. Not enough face palms on the intertubes for that howler.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-getting-ready-build-the-most-stealth-submarine-17549

 

[bobbymike]

Unbreakable nuclear codes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mnm5yTwZZE

 

[bobbymike]

Nuclear Superiority and Nuclear Crisis Outcomes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsLpZ5a-Dgs

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/07/how_xi_and_putin_humiliated_obama_at_the_g-20_110025.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/nuclear-facilities-bad-conditions-photos/index.html

The road into DC should look like the final scene of Spartacus with politicians from both parties since 1991 who let this happen to the national security and the intellectual jewels of this nation.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1Bmp0_5Xo

Strategic Stability and the Second Nuclear Age

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003191193&ss=tw&rt=How+capable+are+N.+Korea%27s+subs,+missiles

Thoughts? The two experts interviewed do have a decent stab at the issue, but they overlooked/ignored things like merchantmen armed with SLBMs. On the other hand they may just be trying to avoid sparking unnecessary panic among the Japanese (and American) public there.

 

[bobbymike]

Senators Debate Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

—Wilson Brissett 9/9/2016

​Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urged the Obama Administration not to bypass the Senate and request United Nations Security Council action on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. “I just want to make sure that we are not allowing an administration on the way out the door to do something that ends up binding us through customary international law down the road,” said Corker during a Sept. 7 hearing. “I have watched through the years, and the responsibilities of the United States Senate have eroded. And I am just here today with this hearing and pushing back against the administration to try to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that is not something that continues.” The Senate voted against US ratification of the CTBT in 1999. Although 164 nations have signed on, the treaty still has not gone into force because it requires ratification by several other nations, including the US, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. SFRC Ranking member Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said, “the underlining strategy on how do we stop emerging nuclear powers from testing is an important issue that needs to be dealt [with]. And the Obama administration, I believe, is using its opportunities at the United Nations to advance that, not to advance the treaty.” (Corker release.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't disagree although Corker was the senator that mangled the Constitutional treaty provision and actually reversed the provision completely for the Iran Treaty so............

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2299

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2299

Carter has been there before with MX (and Midgetman) and cost estimates; he led the OTA assessment that determined that the MX/MPS system would cost what the Air Force estimated it would cost.

 

[bobbymike]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

 

[sferrin]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

I hope nobody got paid for that.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-09/rethink-triad

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-tests-upgrades-nuclear-armed-trident-ii-d5

Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work?

 

[sienar]

Not sure this if this is the appropriate thread, and this is hardly new news, but I think its worth posting

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-says-israel-has-200-nukes-leaked-email-499192

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-tests-upgrades-nuclear-armed-trident-ii-d5

Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work?

That article is a bit unclear; the Mk5 and Mk21 (from MX -> MMIII -> GBSD) RVs will have some fuzing and other commonality. There is a proposal for a common Navy/AF RV but it's some ways off.

I believe almost all of the MaRV work done for CTM used Mk4 derivatives.

 

[bobbymike]

Decision to proceed with construction of Ohio Replacement submarine delayed

The Navy's top modernization priority -- the Ohio Replacement Program -- missed a planned high-level Pentagon review in August, delaying a decision until this fall on whether the new strategic submarine program is ready to transition from technology development into detailed design and construction, according to government officials.

On Sept. 16, a Navy official told Inside Defense the delay of the planned milestone B review is effectively an administrative schedule slip and will not affect the start of planned ship production, slated for January 2017.

 

[GTX]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

 

[marauder2048]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

An adversary freed of the need to toss 800+ warheads at 400+ hardened aimpoints, can toss them at probable
SSBN locations or bomber approach corridors assuming the bombers (which are not on alert and don't have supersonic dash)
have survived even a conventional attack in the first place.

 

[sferrin]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

Pretty much A-Z. It's obvious by the opening paragraph what their agenda is, what arguments (such as they are) they're going to present and what fallacies they're going to propagate. And, not to disappoint, they hit them all.

Basically:

1. The Cold War is over so nukes aren't needed.
2. The nukes we have will have infinite life.
3. Building new nukes cost too much money.
4. ICBMs are worthless cuz GPS.

 

[Rickshaw]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

You are wasting your time asking the question. Your opponents will make up any excuse to ignore reality.

 

[kaiserd]

https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

Pretty much A-Z. It's obvious by the opening paragraph what their agenda is, what arguments (such as they are) they're going to present and what fallacies they're going to propagate. And, not to disappoint, they hit them all.

Basically:

1. The Cold War is over so nukes aren't needed.
2. The nukes we have will have infinite life.
3. Building new nukes cost too much money.
4. ICBMs are worthless cuz GPS.

The article itself in reality doesn't argue 1-3 at all, and arguably doesn't argue 4 either.
I don't agree with many of the arguments that the article makes (personally I think a minimum capacity/ size ICBM force has a role in a nuclear triad going forward) but should be critiqued honestly, not with phantom arguments.

 

[sferrin]

Like the sun rising in the East.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/18/the_new_b-21_bomber_under_fire_before_it_can_even_take_flight_110080.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/07/14/former-us-defense-officials-back-funding-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile/

“The launch of a conventional weapon and the launch of a nuclear weapon occur in context,” Miller said. “So the launch of [U.S.] cruise missiles against Iraq or indeed the launch of Russian cruise missile against Syria did not raise any questions of nuclear use.”

Hamre concurred.

“I do not think it’s a plausible argument that people will be confused about what we’re doing,” he said.

Making implausible arguments is what the disarmament as any cost zealots have been doing since, at least, the nuclear freeze movement why would they stop now.

 

[sferrin]

Funny how thousands of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, mixed in with thousands of conventionally-armed cruise missiles -a situation that has existed for roughly half a century- would suddenly become "destabilized" simply because the US wants to replace an already existing nuclear-armed cruise missile. No? (Miraculously though, Russia and China adding nuclear-armed cruise missiles to their forces destabilizes nothing. Weird.)

 

[bobbymike]

Funny how thousands of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, mixed in with thousands of conventionally-armed cruise missiles -a situation that has existed for roughly half a century- would suddenly become "destabilized" simply because the US wants to replace an already existing nuclear-armed cruise missile. No? (Miraculously though, Russia and China adding nuclear-armed cruise missiles to their forces destabilizes nothing. Weird.)

Disarmament crowd takes advantage of the hoi polloi's short term memory. Every single US nuke modernization program since 1960's MIRV debates has been called destabilizing while anything our adversaries do is also described as "They're just responding to US developments" funny how they always come down on the side of our opponents.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.heritage.org/events/2016/09/no-first-use-policy

 

[RyanC]

Same people same flawed logic.

I don't know, I find the logic to be *slightly* better than traditional "War is Boring" tripe.

What we really need is Nuclear SDB for the *entire* manned combat aircraft fleet, from F-22 to B-1B.

I've posted it before, but basically, smallest nuclear weapon *that we know of* fits inside a 155mm diameter shell.

SDB's diameter is about 180mm or so.

SDB can glide for about 30-40 miles on it's own, and has a pretty decent CEP, even on "GPS-denied, Inertial guidance only" mode.

I kind of like the idea of a F-22 being able to carry 16 nuclear weapons with a CEP of about 25 meters. ;D

 

[marauder2048]

Same people same flawed logic.

I don't know, I find the logic to be *slightly* better than traditional "War is Boring" tripe.

Talk about "damning with faint praise."