Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/30/making_americas_nuclear_arsenal_great_again_110563.html

Our current stockpile of nuclear warheads was developed and fielded four decades ago. It is time we remove the shackles from the weapons design labs and allow them to develop warheads that are safer, lower yield, more reliable, more effective against today’s targets, and better able to penetrate heavily defended airspace.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-upgrades-sub-launched-nuclear-weapons

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/1/donald-trumps-new-arms-race/

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/let-it-be-an-arms-race-our-nuclear-adversaries-have-already-started/

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/01/04/columbia-class-submarine-program-passes-milestone-b-decision-can-begin-detail-design

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/kendall-says-full-speed-ahead-on-navy-nuke-missile-subs-96b-columbia-class/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1693945-most-read-2016-air-force-plans-new-icbms

Really hope it has significant payload/upload MIRV/MARV capability if it is to be in silos til 2070. Peacekeeper II would satisfy me.

 

[bobbymike]

https://defense360.csis.org/nuclear-straight-talk/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-japan-southkorea-idUSKBN14Q00R

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/February%202017/Rebuilding-the-Missile-Force.aspx

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/national_neo_preparedness_strategy_final.pdf

Put this here as I have always thought that a defense is very large nukes that could also reinvigorate advanced warhead R&D and eventual construction of new warheads from our national labs.

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/129-columbia-class-ballistic-missile.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

More or less same as up the thread but wondering if anyone has seen the report where the two picture inserts come from?

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/01/the_trump_administrations_nuclear_weapons_policy_first_steps_110417.html

It's pretty clear that modernization is required for US nuclear delivery systems.

LRSO needs to move forward. I've read the warhead refurbishment program is plugging along.

There needs to be a tech dev risk reduction program for GBSD and SLBM Trident II D5 replacement. Basically same as B-21 risk reduction IMO with two missile programs being developed utilizing, as required, the new technology developed. In the mean time I believe a cut-down D5 would be adequate w/Columbia-class being stopped.

B-21 is (seemly) on track.

---

I'm more worried about the delivery systems than the warheads.

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

Agree 100%, with Columbia to operate to 2080 we simply cannot begin to fathom the undersea detection technologies available to an adversary beyond 2030, so 50 years of unknown, unknowns.

With that in mind I would want an even bigger missile than D5 that could hit any target from anywhere on earth expanding search zones for SSBNs to as large an area as possible on earth.

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/01/08/air_force_upgrades_iconic_b-52_bomber_289229.html

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

Agree 100%, with Columbia to operate to 2080 we simply cannot begin to fathom the undersea detection technologies available to an adversary beyond 2030, so 50 years of unknown, unknowns.

With that in mind I would want an even bigger missile than D5 that could hit any target from anywhere on earth expanding search zones for SSBNs to as large an area as possible on earth.

Yep. Especially since ever improving defenses are going to DEMAND our SLBMs carry things like more decoys, maneuvering RVs, boost gliders, etc. Cheaping out on national defense wouldn't be wise to put it politely.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

33' VPM VPT's

Not inferior. Smaller. More tubes spread among all future 774's starting w/Block V.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Agree 100%, with Columbia to operate to 2080 we simply cannot begin to fathom the undersea detection technologies available to an adversary beyond 2030, so 50 years of unknown, unknowns.

With that in mind I would want an even bigger missile than D5 that could hit any target from anywhere on earth expanding search zones for SSBNs to as large an area as possible on earth.

Building a 42 year limited production boat is also not optimal. It systematically excludes the ability to get innovative technology into the fleet, reduces industrial war-footing capacity, raises costs and puts the boat crews at risk. I'm starting to like the UK idea of a 20 year boat with a 5 year buffer.

I'm Ok with a larger missile than the D5. Sferrin made that case very well in this topic. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,28438.0.html

Just think the tech dev should precede the missile which should precede the boat to carry it.

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

33' VPM VPT's

Not inferior. Smaller. More tubes spread among all future 774's starting w/Block V.

Smaller payload flown to a shorter range = inferior.

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Just think the tech dev should precede the missile which should precede the boat to carry it.

Chicken / egg. Easier to use an existing missile on a new sub then flow in missile improvements than to try to stretch the lives of the Ohios. See Polaris/Poseidon/C-4 or C-4/D-5.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

If you killed the Columbia class where would you operate your "cut down" D-5s from? And why would you want anything inferior to the D-5?

33' VPM VPT's

Not inferior. Smaller. More tubes spread among all future 774's starting w/Block V.

Smaller payload flown to a shorter range = inferior.

Are you concluding the D5 is inferior to the MMIII? Should the US build Columbia w/a 60' beam and launch MMIII's?

Different ≠ inferior. The risk parameters are different. We would agree that we start w/an objective and make decisions to accommodate constraints and risk.

The politics in 2013 were different than they are today. It's was easier to consider spending USD125Billion than build a new missile. Think how difficult it is just to build a new refinery or nuclear power station in the US.

W/Trump & Mattis & the geopolitical events, that climate has changed. The US wants a new GBSD. Threat dynamics have shifted dynamically since 2013. Navy wants to move to "sea control" again. All = more boats = the need for more $$$. I'm suggesting an alternative to address some of the systemic issues caused by a very expensive, niche solution - dedicated SSBN's.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Just think the tech dev should precede the missile which should precede the boat to carry it.

Chicken / egg. Easier to use an existing missile on a new sub then flow in missile improvements than to try to stretch the lives of the Ohios. See Polaris/Poseidon/C-4 or C-4/D-5.

Definitely way more expensive. Easier ≠ better. My objectives are more strategic than just a new missile or a new boat.

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Are you concluding the D5 is inferior to the MMIII?

That's not an apples to apples comparison. MMIII can't go on a submarine. And by every metric but range MMIII is VASTLY inferior to D-5, so you wouldn't want it even if it could.

Between a developed D-5 and your mini missile, the smaller missile would have either less range, less payload (or likely both). Less ability to carry penaids. Less ability to carry larger or more RVs. Less survivable against defenses. At best it might have equal range and accuracy. How is that NOT an inferior missile?

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Just think the tech dev should precede the missile which should precede the boat to carry it.

Chicken / egg. Easier to use an existing missile on a new sub then flow in missile improvements than to try to stretch the lives of the Ohios. See Polaris/Poseidon/C-4 or C-4/D-5.

Definitely way more expensive. Easier ≠ better. My objectives are more strategic than just a new missile or a new boat.

How do you figure putting 192 new, inferior missiles on 48 boats would be cheaper than putting 192 existing, better missiles on 12?

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Just think the tech dev should precede the missile which should precede the boat to carry it.

Chicken / egg. Easier to use an existing missile on a new sub then flow in missile improvements than to try to stretch the lives of the Ohios. See Polaris/Poseidon/C-4 or C-4/D-5.

Definitely way more expensive. Easier ≠ better. My objectives are more strategic than just a new missile or a new boat.

How do you figure putting 192 new, inferior missiles on 48 boats would be cheaper than putting 192 existing, better missiles on 12?

2016 FSA calls for 66 boats. Commanders want 80 boats to meet tasking requirements. That's 264-320 tubes vs 192 tubes.

Not averse to that strategic discussion. Outside the scope of this topic. I concede that larger missiles, with deployed technology, are more capable in and of themselves. Let's leave it with the consideration that quantity does have a quality of its own.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Are you concluding the D5 is inferior to the MMIII?

That's not an apples to apples comparison. MMIII can't go on a submarine. i.) And by every metric but range MMIII is VASTLY inferior to D-5, so you wouldn't want it even if it could.

Between a developed D-5 and your mini missile, the smaller missile would have either less range, less payload (or likely both). Less ability to carry penaids. Less ability to carry larger or more RVs. Less survivable against defenses. At best it might have equal range and accuracy. ii.) How is that NOT an inferior missile?

i.) So we agree that size ≠ better.

ii.) It's an interim solution. The added risk is marginal as in this scenario the Ohio boats are still operational. They are scheduled to begin decommissioning in 2027.

 

[sferrin]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Are you concluding the D5 is inferior to the MMIII?

That's not an apples to apples comparison. MMIII can't go on a submarine. i.) And by every metric but range MMIII is VASTLY inferior to D-5, so you wouldn't want it even if it could.

Between a developed D-5 and your mini missile, the smaller missile would have either less range, less payload (or likely both). Less ability to carry penaids. Less ability to carry larger or more RVs. Less survivable against defenses. At best it might have equal range and accuracy. ii.) How is that NOT an inferior missile?

i.) So we agree that size ≠ better.

No, we don't. D-5 masses about 67% more than Minuteman III.

 

[NeilChapman]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Are you concluding the D5 is inferior to the MMIII?

That's not an apples to apples comparison. MMIII can't go on a submarine. i.) And by every metric but range MMIII is VASTLY inferior to D-5, so you wouldn't want it even if it could.

Between a developed D-5 and your mini missile, the smaller missile would have either less range, less payload (or likely both). Less ability to carry penaids. Less ability to carry larger or more RVs. Less survivable against defenses. At best it might have equal range and accuracy. ii.) How is that NOT an inferior missile?

i.) So we agree that size ≠ better.

No, we don't. D-5 masses about 67% more than Minuteman III.

Yes it is. It's also shorter.

Go on, reply. I'll let you have the last word...

;D ;D ;D

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/11/strategic_stability_and_the_critical_value_of_americas_icbms_110614.html

Hope Peter Huessy gets a nuclear policy/modernization slot in the new administration.

 

[bobbymike]

The Next Administration’s Biggest Nuclear Threat

— Brian Everstine1/12/2017

​​The next administration will face massive challenges in nuclear security, most notably North Korea’s push to become a nuclear power, and it will require bipartisanship in Congress and bold leadership to address, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday. Speaking just about one week before leaving office, Biden touted multiple steps the administration has taken to limit nuclear proliferation — the New START Treaty, the Iran deal, and investment in modernizing the US’s arsenal. Right now, the US has 4, 018 warheads in service, with 2,800 in line to be destroyed, he said during a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. The US needs to push for more strong arms control agreements and build on this momentum from the New START agreement. Next year, as more limits go into effect, the strategic arsenals of Russia and the US will be at their lowest levels in six decades, Biden said. “It’s not about trust or goodwill, it’s about strategic stability and greater transparency between the world’s two great nuclear powers,” he said. Strong sanctions on North Korea are necessary as it defies international pressure. Kim Jong Un’s administration is “maybe the most significant challenge the next administration is going to face,” Biden said, and the US needs to stand with allies in the Asia Pacific to limit North Korea’s growth.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-nuclear-triad-needs-an-upgrade-1484179459

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/mattis-enthusiastic-on-icbms-tepid-on-nuclear-cruise-missile

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/01/12/china039s_new_ssbn_could_change_its_prospects_in_nuclear_war_289372.html

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Drops to 4,018 Warheads: Biden
By Chris Schneidmiller
The Obama administration has designated close to 500 additional nuclear warheads for disassembly, dropping the size of the in-service deterrent to 4,018 warheads, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday. The unilateral decision leaves ............

Sorry for the paucity but this story is from a pay site (expensive pay site)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24739/obama-administration-unilateral-nuclear-arms-cuts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This information in isolation is one thing but add to the fact we are not producing (and question arise whether we can even produce a new warhead) any replacement systems it becomes more ominous.

 

[NeilChapman]

U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Drops to 4,018 Warheads: Biden
By Chris Schneidmiller
The Obama administration has designated close to 500 additional nuclear warheads for disassembly, dropping the size of the in-service deterrent to 4,018 warheads, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday. The unilateral decision leaves ............

Sorry for the paucity but this story is from a pay site (expensive pay site)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24739/obama-administration-unilateral-nuclear-arms-cuts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This information in isolation is one thing but add to the fact we are not producing (and question arise whether we can even produce a new warhead) any replacement systems it becomes more ominous.

My impression is that the SECDEF-D will act strategically. If new warheads are required, they will be requested.

Weapons research, and counters to them, should be on a continuous tech dev cycle - like the US has been doing w/jet engines. Let's call it the Costco model of systemic policies that = exceeding strategic objectives.

Costco’s corporate philosophy is to put its customers first, then its employees, then its vendors and finally its shareholders. By continuing tech dev the US
- puts the warfighter first (customer)
- the government ensures the common defense (employees)
- the industrial base for development is maintained at required levels (vendors)
- citizens get a better value i.e. a more lethal warfighter (shareholders)

 

[Rickshaw]

Here's a question for you all. What is the minimum number of warheads would you accept for the US Arsenal and why?

 

[Brickmuppet]

The problem with minimums is that the minimum keeps increasing.

In order to deter an attack, there has to be enough firepower, in both number of warheads, and yield to remove the attacking country from the course of history, that is destroy every military installation and every city. This is a pretty horrific thing to contemplate but we have to be able to deter people who do not share our values. A minimum unacceptable loss for us (several cities and other strategic targets flattened, millions of individuals slaughtered) probably won't deter someone who thinks Mao or Stalin were peachy keen fellows who made their countries strong by being willing to sacrifice. Where we see unfathomable, senseless loss of the potential represented by individual people, others see martyrs to rally the survivors around. Thus the minimum to deter a statist autocrat is whatever is required to totally anihalate their means to power...their state, that means all of the infrastructure.

It gets worse.

As more countries get these hideous weapons the minimum number goes up. The arsenal must not only deter an attack, there must be enough warheads to survive a first strike, destroy the offending nation AND enough left over that after such an unGodly cock-up no one will fire their arsenal at us, secure in the knowledge that since we just expended our arsenal in a fit of reciprocity they can take out a competitor on the world stage with minimal retaliation. The possibility of two states combining their arsenal against us can't be dismissed out of hand either. Again we aren't detering against people who think like us...Against, rational, and somewhat risk adverse western polities, the UK, and France have perfectly adequate arsenals. Against totalitarian autocrats, deterrence is a much higher bar. Against the 12ers of Iran deterrence has little if any utility once they get an arsenal of some as yet undetermined size (I'd guess between 30 and 100 weapons, but that's a stab in the dark).

I suspect that the New START limits (1550 warheads) are probably too low, which is understandable given that they are an agreement that does not take into account China. The SORT limits of 2200 would seem to be more realistic. Such an increase might actually appeal to the Russians who put rather more of their military into nukes that we do.

 

[bobbymike]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/311950-cost-of-modernizing-americas-nuclear-arsenal-is-less-than-the

Their designers assumed that the United States would design, develop, and test a new nuclear warhead and sometimes a corresponding delivery system every few years. The oldest nuclear bombers were developed and deployed in 1950s, the newest ones in 1980s and 1990s. Our intercontinental-range ballistic missiles have been on a continuous alert since 1970s and the first Ohio-class strategic submarine was commissioned in 1980s.

The world today is different, and it’s unlikely it will come to its senses anytime soon. Nuclear weapons went forgotten after the end of the Cold War. Modernization programs were delayed and cancelled. Nuclear theory and strategy were deemed outdated and less important than the non-state actor challenges of the brave new world. The United States embarked on policies meant to convince others to decrease the prominence of their nuclear arsenals, such as lowering the role of nuclear weapons in the U.S. national security strategy, significantly reducing funding for the nuclear enterprise, banning all yield producing experiments or new weapons designs.

These efforts had the effect of limiting U.S. nuclear modernization options and largely failed to achieve their stated objectives. New nuclear powers emerged. Nuclear arms races were started; except this time, the United States decided it did not need to compete. As a result, our nuclear force that is intended prevent the worst-case scenario from happening has become dangerously outdated.

U.S. nuclear weapons, both the warheads and delivery platforms, must be modernized.

Michaela Dodge another person I'd like to see in a nuke policy position in the new administration.

 

[kaiserd]

The problem with minimums is that the minimum keeps increasing.

In order to deter an attack, there has to be enough firepower, in both number of warheads, and yield to remove the attacking country from the course of history, that is destroy every military installation and every city. This is a pretty horrific thing to contemplate but we have to be able to deter people who do not share our values. A minimum unacceptable loss for us (several cities and other strategic targets flattened, millions of individuals slaughtered) probably won't deter someone who thinks Mao or Stalin were peachy keen fellows who made their countries strong by being willing to sacrifice. Where we see unfathomable, senseless loss of the potential represented by individual people, others see martyrs to rally the survivors around. Thus the minimum to deter a statist autocrat is whatever is required to totally anihalate their means to power...their state, that means all of the infrastructure.

It gets worse.

As more countries get these hideous weapons the minimum number goes up. The arsenal must not only deter an attack, there must be enough warheads to survive a first strike, destroy the offending nation AND enough left over that after such an unGodly cock-up no one will fire their arsenal at us, secure in the knowledge that since we just expended our arsenal in a fit of reciprocity they can take out a competitor on the world stage with minimal retaliation. The possibility of two states combining their arsenal against us can't be dismissed out of hand either. Again we aren't detering against people who think like us...Against, rational, and somewhat risk adverse western polities, the UK, and France have perfectly adequate arsenals. Against totalitarian autocrats, deterrence is a much higher bar. Against the 12ers of Iran deterrence has little if any utility once they get an arsenal of some as yet undetermined size (I'd guess between 30 and 100 weapons, but that's a stab in the dark).

I suspect that the New START limits (1550 warheads) are probably too low, which is understandable given that they are an agreement that does not take into account China. The SORT limits of 2200 would seem to be more realistic. Such an increase might actually appeal to the Russians who put rather more of their military into nukes that we do.

Not sure I agree with you re: the new START figures being potentaly too low but you have made a cogent argument.
However as follow up to your argument I do think it is important to keep in mind the limits of mutually assured destruction/ deference is limited to broadly "rational actors".
So using your examples below even a Stalin could be deterred, even though largely indifferent to human death and suffering, because it is self evident that he couldn't win a nuclear exchange and would be left ruling a mountain of irradiated ash. Stalin was a true believer in his ideology and being on the receiving end of a nuclear apocalypse didn't play into it.
However alot is riding on your opponents rationale and potentially personality and smal differences matter. So for example while even a Stalin was and probably never would be willing to press the button a Mao (or Pol Pot) with much much lower expectations of what winning looks like may be far more willing to do so.
And that's before you get into even less rationale players for whom MAD could/ would be a desirable outcome in itself. It is in this context that the new US president and his personality and behaviour is extra concerning for the entire world, friend and foe alike.
Circling back to main point I think it important to understand that deterrence has its limits and that if the guy or gal on the other side rationale is sufficiently different than yours it really doesn't matter if you have x number or 100x number of warheads to deter them with, and its potentially foolish and dangerous to think you can.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-let-arms-race-begin?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20170117_AW-19_52&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=8237&utm_medium=email&elq2=5b2930be16d940c084710715dfbeaed3