Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://warisboring.com/the-1950s-called-it-wants-its-atomic-war-plans-back-391da94f22ca#.7ct3wwkj7
 
https://warisboring.com/how-putin-might-yank-away-trumps-control-over-america-s-nuclear-weapons-40fa4e5d6638#.ykhhn54u3

https://warisboring.com/how-putin-might-yank-away-trumps-control-over-america-s-nuclear-weapons-40fa4e5d6638#.ykhhn54u3

https://medium.com/@warisboring/f2c568735fce#.ctz00b6iq
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/22/the_trouble_with_doomsday_110848.html
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/23/the_real_nuclear_news_110856.html?utm_source=RealClearDefense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=69fa2b8e1b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-69fa2b8e1b-81812733

Even if we keep to the current modernization plan, Russia will have completed its nuclear modernization effort before the United States has deployed a single new nuclear bomber, land-based missile or nuclear-armed submarine.

Not only is the US not in any arms race, but we also are not “expanding” our nuclear weapons as is now being claimed by the disarmament community.

In fact, we are ninety percent below our peak deployed level of over 13,000 strategic warheads in 1989.
Click to expand...
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-rattles-the-nuclear-saber-19536

The article suggests that the DF-41 can strike “targets anywhere around the world” and that perhaps the second brigade of DF-41s has been deployed now to Heilongjiang Province. In a bit of vitriol, the piece asserts: “The US has not paid enough respect to China's military. Senior US officials of the Asia-Pacific command frequently show their intention to flex their muscles with arrogance. The Trump team also took a flippant attitude toward China's core interests after Trump's election win.” In the rather unmistakable tone of a nuclear threat, the piece suggests, moreover, “China's nuclear capability should be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown with China under any circumstance.”
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1622IF?il=0&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN%20EBB%202.24.17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
 
OK, a few days ago it made the news that infinitesimal and biologically harmless amounts of radioactive iodine had been detected over Europe.
This was not received calmly in some quarters...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4250098/US-nuclear-sniffer-plane-flies-Norway.html?ITO=1490

News of the deployment comes amid claims Russia may be testing nuclear weapons, either to the east or in the arctic, after a spike in radioactivity was reported.

Given that no earthquakes were detected, the notion that a nuclear bomb was tested seems silly. This seems more likely to be a leak from a nuke plant, waste facility or a medical imaging device.

However, I do understand that Russia is reported to have tested their "Status 6" super-'splody-port-buster-torpedo back in December.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-tests-nuclear-capable-drone-sub/
http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Russian%20Status-6%20aka%20KANYON%20nuclear%20deterrence%20and%20Pr%2009851%20submarine.html

It is purported to have a nuclear engine, an open cycle one at that. Could this have accounted for the radioactive release? The dates the contamination was detected fall about 40 days or so after the report of the test.
 
Russian subs spend a fair amount of time under the ice, and the Putin regime has been making news about expanding the exploitation of undersea resources above the circle. Given that, Id be rather shocked if they were so careless as to start irradiating large swaths of the area.
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/02/23/us_submarine_fires_4_ballistic_missiles_in_pacific_290651.html
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/02/24/russia039s_army_rearmed_with_nuke-capable_ballistic_missile_290686.html
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/27/farewell_to_an_arms_treaty_110873.html
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-nuclear-missile-death-train-arriving-2019-19581
 
http://www.omaha.com/news/military/stratcom-chief-hyten-nuclear-arsenal-should-be-modernized-not-expanded/article_12448b9b-2a87-55c3-bea2-93d8cae94249.html

Hopefully modernization means new warheads and advanced concept R&D. Plus a 100+Mt for the asteroid deflect mission that coincidentally fits on the new GBSD. ;D
 
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/28/how-trump-can-rebuild-americas-nuclear-defense/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-fb
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/los-alamos-expert-u-s-unable-conduct-nuclear-tests/
 
SASC staffer: Bipartisan commitment to nuclear deterrent will hold
March 02, 2017

A staffer for the Senate Armed Services Committee said this week she expects lawmakers' strong
bipartisan commitment to the nuclear deterrent will hold, despite the fiscal
challenge of modernization over the next two decades.

Even with a possible $54 billion boost above Budget Control Act caps to $603 billion in
topline defense spending for fiscal year 2018, Rachel Lipsey, an assistant for
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), said Feb. 28 that as the committee looks at the cost
burden, it is looking for ways to adequately fund nuclear modernization while
supporting "smart acquisition policy."

Speaking to an audience at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington, Lipsey said the
committee is exploring "smart commonality" by looking at ways to reduce the
number of radiation-hardened, high-reliability electronic parts in the Air
Force's Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, the follow-on to the Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missiles. Fewer of those parts will lower the
system's cost and risk, she said, pointing to lessons learned from the Navy's
Trident II life extension.

Last year, an Air Force-Navy assessment of potential commonality between GBSD and the Navy's
submarine-launched ballistic missile determined that using the Trident II
life-extension program to replace the ICBM fleet is infeasible due to "unique
operating environments, nuclear surety features and mission requirements," Inside
the Air Force previously reported.

The November 2016 report stated using a common electronic parts program that relies on the Navy's
investments in radiation-hardened parts is one of the Trident II life-extension
aspects that would offer "such clear benefit that the GBSD program will require
their compliance in the RFP and incorporate them into the resultant contract."

The committee is also readying for the nuclear posture review process ordered by President Trump
in January. Lipsey said the review will consider the role of legacy and planned
conventional systems, as well as what part Third Offset technologies like hypersonic
capability will play in a future deterrent.

Lipsey also noted the "increasingly concerning gap" in the circuit board and microelectronic
industry base that could affect industry's ability to meet reliability
standards for the nuclear deterrent. Inside Defense reported last month
a Commerce Department survey of American companies that produce bare printed
circuit boards found that industry is shrinking, with 27 of 202 facilities
expecting to contract or possibly close in the next five years.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein has also said the nuclear posture review could
explore the possibility of lower-yield, tactical nuclear weapons, an idea
Rebeccah Heinrichs, a nuclear policy fellow at the Hudson Institute, dismissed
as something Trump is unlikely to pursue. Center for Strategic and
International Studies Defense Budget Analyst Todd Harrison added America's
arsenal doesn't necessarily need to mirror those of other countries in
hypersonic or tactical capabilities, despite what potential adversaries may
pursue. Harris and Heinrichs were both on the Feb. 28 panel with Lipsey.

Heinrichs believes the long-range stand-off cruise missile could become an easy target in
strategic and budgetary debates, but GBSD won't be as controversial in the Trump
administration as it was under President Obama.

"I think we have seen the last of the Prague agenda, to put it mildly," she said of Obama's 2009
speech on nonproliferation in the Czech Republic.

Budget experts pointed out the fiscal dynamics on the Hill still aren't conducive to repealing
the Budget Control Act and using non-defense accounts to offset defense
priorities. Harrison called any attempt to pay for defense budget increases by
cutting non-defense spending a "poison pill" that won't gain traction in
Congress, and he believes few Republicans would want to lift the budget caps
entirely because they like the check on non-defense spending.

"I don't think the budget politics have changed that much because of the election," Harrison said.

Although 60 votes would be needed in the Senate to overturn those limits, he noted a simple
majority vote could possibly be used to change how the caps work. Harrison also
puts the odds of seeing a full-year continuing resolution after the current
stopgap spending bill ends in April at close to 99 percent.

Melissa Burnison, director of federal programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, also said at the
conference that if a full budget justification is not released in May,
appropriations committees could mark up spending bills by using topline numbers
and filling in what lawmakers think program funding profiles should be.

Lipsey noted another hurdle to progressing on nuclear issues: confirming President Trump's
Pentagon and Energy Department nominees, many of whom have not been named.

"With the Defense Department nominees, Chairman [John] McCain has been very clear that he wants
all the paperwork done and ready, a complete package before we hold hearings,"
she said. "We are not getting that at the pace that would enable us to be
progressing through other confirmation hearings. Some of that is very visible
in the issues with the service secretaries kind of changing out as they've gone
through this process. I think it was more challenging than expected." --

Rachel S. Karas
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/simplicity-of-megatsunamis-triggered-by.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/commentary-the-looming-crisis-for-us-tritium-production

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-nuclear-officer-new-start-treaty-is-good-for-us

Pretty sure we couldn't produce a new nuke if we needed to......... :'(
 
I wish you could blame it on democrats, but the last republican didn't do anything to shore up the nuclear arsenal.
 
Airplane said:
I wish you could blame it on democrats, but the last republican didn't do anything to shore up the nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

Nor the one before that. As I recall, Bush Sr. cancelled MANY nuclear weapon systems.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
I wish you could blame it on democrats, but the last republican didn't do anything to shore up the nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

Nor the one before that. As I recall, Bush Sr. cancelled MANY nuclear weapon systems.
Click to expand...

It seems were at the crossroads on many, many fronts with the military. I have to think that Washington will recapitalize the nuclear arsenal, but to a point much smaller than what we have today.
 
sferrin said:
Airplane said:
I wish you could blame it on democrats, but the last republican didn't do anything to shore up the nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

Nor the one before that. As I recall, Bush Sr. cancelled MANY nuclear weapon systems.
Click to expand...
I've been very consistent with my criticism on these very pages and squarely start (START ;)) the blame at Bush Sr. Going back four presidents, very concisely;

1) We had a very robust modernization program that wasn't scaled back due to 'realities' of the end of the Cold War but completely halted and reversed into a massive shutdown of any modernization.
2) Clinton basically carried on the Bush policies and had cover to do so by House Republicans
3) To his credit Bush Jr. tried to fund limited modernization including the Reliable Replacement Warhead, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Advanced Concept Initiative and at the time the Land Based Strategic Deterrent that started in 2005 was to be ready for deployment NEXT year in 2018. These were voted down mostly by Democrats BUT with significant Republican help. Given Reps had the majority at the time the fault lies with them.
4) Obama wanted a world without nukes clearly enunciated in his Prague speech, entered into a totally unnecessary treaty after SORT, New Start, and while given credit in having a comprehensive modernization program it was done to get the precious treaty ratified in the Senate.

So here we sit;

Pentagon warns lawmakers that nuclear arsenal is 'nearing a crossroads'

Senior Pentagon officials told House lawmakers Wednesday that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is "nearing a crossroads" and will require expensive concurrent modernization of the all three legs of the triad and the infrastructure that enables it.
 
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1107141/selva-nuclear-deterrent-is-the-joint-force-modernization-priority#.WMGM05-ZNas.facebook
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFMC prioritizing GBSD program office while facing personnel shortage

ORLANDO, FL -- Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said last week the federal hiring freeze enacted by President Trump and competing program needs are threatening the service's ability to stand up a program office for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent.
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/08/us-general-says-russia-deployed-banned-missile.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
 
https://armedservices.house.gov/legislation/hearings/military-assessment-nuclear-deterrence-requirements

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/democrats-renew-attack-on-new-nuclear-cruise-missile
 
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/03/huge-risk-small-nuclear-weapons-000350

We should be developing a family of modern, robust next generation warheads from sub-kiloton to multi-Mt for the asteroid deflect mission. Our labs should be like a Five Guys burger place with nukes custom ready to order :D
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/10/no_more_us-russian_arms_treaties_until_moscow_stops_violating_existing_treaties_and_agreements_110946.html

Shouldn't have gone below START I levels to begin with.
 
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/08/top-generals-warn-the-us-nuclear-arsenal-is-dangerously-outdated/
 
http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/thaad-and-chinas-nuclear-second-strike-capability/
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/03/14/navy039s_quotcolumbia-classquot_ssbn_sub_passes_new_milestone_291209.html
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/12/07/commentary-align-us-strategic-forces-new-russian-realities/76604782/
 
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/while-trump-talks-tough-us-quietly-cutting-nuclear-force

Russia's warheads have surpassed the treaty limit of 1,550, and the U.S. is below the limit. But by next February, neither is expected to be above. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Moscow would honor its New START commitment. "It's important for the United States to stay on schedule," he said, arguing that such efforts "will help ensure that Russia does the same."
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence Daryl, you chat with Putin lately?
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/while-trump-talks-tough-us-quietly-cutting-nuclear-force

Russia's warheads have surpassed the treaty limit of 1,550, and the U.S. is below the limit. But by next February, neither is expected to be above. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Moscow would honor its New START commitment. "It's important for the United States to stay on schedule," he said, arguing that such efforts "will help ensure that Russia does the same."
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence Daryl, you chat with Putin lately?
Click to expand...

The power of affirmation. It always works when dealing with the likes of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. All will surely change their ways if only we got rid of all our nuclear weapons.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/while-trump-talks-tough-us-quietly-cutting-nuclear-force

Russia's warheads have surpassed the treaty limit of 1,550, and the U.S. is below the limit. But by next February, neither is expected to be above. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Moscow would honor its New START commitment. "It's important for the United States to stay on schedule," he said, arguing that such efforts "will help ensure that Russia does the same."
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence Daryl, you chat with Putin lately?
Click to expand...

The power of affirmation. It always works when dealing with the likes of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. All will surely change their ways if only we got rid of all our nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Speaking on a program almost totally opaque to us...

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/March%202017/RAND-Says-China%E2%80%99s-Nuclear-Capability-Accelerating.aspx

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1628.html#download

Wait, what? I thought we disarm they disarm? Any quotes from Daryl Kimball?
 
Unaffordable Nukes

—John A. Tirpak3/23/2017

​If the national leadership decides to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, “you can forget about readiness or modernization” of the conventional force, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday. Smith, speaking at a McAleese/Credit Suisse event in Washington, D.C., said defense funding will still be tight no matter how much the new administration promises a widescale upgrade in people and equipment, and modernizing the nuclear triad “could be a trillion dollars,” and that’s unaffordable, said Smith. The US military has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over, Smith said. “It used to be seven,” but “I still find that sufficient,” he noted. The US has four times the nuclear weapons of China, so “I don’t think we need to spend a lot of money on this.” Though the arsenal is “ample,” it would be more effective if the US puts more effort into diplomacy to assure adversaries that America won’t accept less than total use of nuclear weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin must be dissuaded from using “tactical nukes” and must be made aware that it’s “unacceptable if [he] steps across that line.”
 
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/17/americas-nuclear-weapons-infrastructure-is-crumbling-national-nuclear-security-administration-deterrence-aging-congressional-oversight/
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/23/nuclear_obsolescence_111022.html
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/americas/us-nuclear-weapons-russia.html?_r=1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom