Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
JHUAPL Report: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Their Role in Future Nuclear Forces
Dennis Evans and Jonathan Schwalbe
This report presents analyses relevant to a decision on whether to retain an ICBM force beyond about 2035 and—if ICBMs are to be retained—what characteristics would be desirable in a future ICBM force. This report also identifies relevant policy issues that need to be resolved before making large acquisition decisions or deciding on new treaties for nuclear weapons. We begin with top-level conclusions, followed by key assumptions, survivability of US forces against a preemptive attack, target coverage, comparison of force structure options on survivability and price to attack, and final observations, in that order. Other relevant metrics (discussed to some extent in the main body of the report) include sensitivity to alert posture; sensitivity to enemy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; inflight survivability; and cost.
Some highlights:
* BMD/ACMD for SSBN ports/docks and bomber bases.
* Treatment of "reverse slope" defense for ICBM silos.
* Detailed treatment of mobile ICBM survivability
Dennis Evans and Jonathan Schwalbe
This report presents analyses relevant to a decision on whether to retain an ICBM force beyond about 2035 and—if ICBMs are to be retained—what characteristics would be desirable in a future ICBM force. This report also identifies relevant policy issues that need to be resolved before making large acquisition decisions or deciding on new treaties for nuclear weapons. We begin with top-level conclusions, followed by key assumptions, survivability of US forces against a preemptive attack, target coverage, comparison of force structure options on survivability and price to attack, and final observations, in that order. Other relevant metrics (discussed to some extent in the main body of the report) include sensitivity to alert posture; sensitivity to enemy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; inflight survivability; and cost.
Some highlights:
* BMD/ACMD for SSBN ports/docks and bomber bases.
* Treatment of "reverse slope" defense for ICBM silos.
* Detailed treatment of mobile ICBM survivability
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Nuke modernization debate.
We've neglected the Triad and nuke enterprise for 25 years and that there are still those saying do less or slow down is mind boggling to me. We've waited long enough (remember first new systems won't be in place til 2030 if then) I would not only accelerate modernization but I would build and test a whole new generation of warheads and new AMaRVs/HTV type systems.
Starts at 28 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ktbBvfiFI
We've neglected the Triad and nuke enterprise for 25 years and that there are still those saying do less or slow down is mind boggling to me. We've waited long enough (remember first new systems won't be in place til 2030 if then) I would not only accelerate modernization but I would build and test a whole new generation of warheads and new AMaRVs/HTV type systems.
Starts at 28 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ktbBvfiFI
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
bobbymike said:
Yep. I hear that kind of crap sometimes and think, "you know, if we're this goddamn dumb maybe we deserve to go the way of the dodo". Just absolutely stupifying that anybody could be that blind. Almost as bad is when they think they're being aggressive by proposing schedules so strung out they'd make anybody from the 60s (or even the 80s) think they were joking.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/nuclear-weapons-agency-gets-11-percent-funding-increase-in-fy18-budget-request?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN%20DNR%205.24.17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Trump's first budget request holds line on nuclear weapons spending
May 25, 2017
President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request boosts nuclear modernization spending in some areas, but largely maintains funding levels projected by the previous administration as the Pentagon embarks on a new review of its nuclear strategy.
The FY-18 budget request continues to fund Air Force and Navy nuclear modernization programs launched under the Obama administration to recapitalize the three legs of the nuclear triad. The request makes no mention of the Nuclear Posture Review, which began in April and could change the course of the Defense Department's nuclear modernization strategy.
"All three legs of the currently fielded nuclear triad have been extended well beyond their original service lives and are nearing the end of sustainability," DOD's FY-18 budget overview states. "Replacement programs are underway to ensure there are no gaps in capability when the legacy systems age-out. There is little or no schedule margin between legacy system age-out and fielding of the replacement systems."
The request seeks $2 billion in FY-18 to fund the development of the B-21 Raider long-range strike bomber, according to Air Force budget documents. The service awarded Northrop Grumman a contract in October 2015 to develop and build the B-21 to replace its aging B-1 and B-52 bombers.
The Air Force's Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon program would receive $451 million in development funding under the FY-18 request, according to budget documents. The weapon is being developed to replace the Air Force's nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile. The LRSO request represents a $32 million increase above what was projected for FY-18 in the Air Force's budget request last year.
The Navy's Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program would receive $776 million for development and $842 million in advance procurement funds under the FY-18 request, according to Navy budget documents. The submarines are being developed to replace the Ohio-class boats currently carrying the sea-based nuclear deterrent. The procurement request represents a $55 million increase in FY-18 above what the Obama administration projected last year. The Navy begins construction of the first of 12 Columbia-class submarines in FY-21.
The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, meanwhile, would receive $215 million under the FY-18 request, according to Air Force budget documents. The request is $79 million below what FY-17 budget documents projected for FY-18 GBSD funding. The system will begin replacing the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in 2028, according to the DOD overview, which adds the Air Force is currently reviewing industry proposals for development of the new missiles.
The Joint Strike Fighter dual-capable aircraft program is seeking $35 million in FY-18, according to Air Force budget justification documents. The program is developing the ability of the F-35A variant to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb in addition to conventional weapons. The DCA capability is scheduled to achieve operational certification by FY-25, according to the DOD budget overview.
DOD is also seeking $91 million for the Air Force's B61 tailkit assembly program in FY-18, a $59 million reduction compared to what the FY-17 request projected. The B61 life extension program consolidates four legacy B61 nuclear gravity bombs into one variant. The Air Force's portion of the program involves tailkit assembly, while the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) handles the bomb assembly portion of the program.
The NNSA is seeking $13.9 billion in FY-18, an increase of nearly $1 billion above the FY-17 level, according to a DOE fact sheet. The NNSA request includes $10.2 billion for nuclear weapon activities, $1.8 billion for nonproliferation and $1.5 billion for naval reactors,
While the NNSA budget overview shows spending levels for FY-19 through FY-23 increasing 2.1 percent annually compared to the FY-18 topline, it notes "this outyear topline does not reflect a policy judgement."
"Instead, the administration will make a policy judgement on amounts for the National Nuclear Security Administration's FY 2019 -- FY 2023 topline in the FY 2019 Budget, in accordance with the National Security Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review that are currently under development," the overview continues.
The posture review was directed by President Trump to ensure the nuclear triad is "modern, robust, flexible, resilient, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies and partners," according to a Jan. 27 presidential memorandum.
The review will be led deputy defense secretary and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, "and include interagency partners. The process will culminate in a final report to the president by the end of the year," according to an April 17 Pentagon statement.
May 25, 2017
President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request boosts nuclear modernization spending in some areas, but largely maintains funding levels projected by the previous administration as the Pentagon embarks on a new review of its nuclear strategy.
The FY-18 budget request continues to fund Air Force and Navy nuclear modernization programs launched under the Obama administration to recapitalize the three legs of the nuclear triad. The request makes no mention of the Nuclear Posture Review, which began in April and could change the course of the Defense Department's nuclear modernization strategy.
"All three legs of the currently fielded nuclear triad have been extended well beyond their original service lives and are nearing the end of sustainability," DOD's FY-18 budget overview states. "Replacement programs are underway to ensure there are no gaps in capability when the legacy systems age-out. There is little or no schedule margin between legacy system age-out and fielding of the replacement systems."
The request seeks $2 billion in FY-18 to fund the development of the B-21 Raider long-range strike bomber, according to Air Force budget documents. The service awarded Northrop Grumman a contract in October 2015 to develop and build the B-21 to replace its aging B-1 and B-52 bombers.
The Air Force's Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon program would receive $451 million in development funding under the FY-18 request, according to budget documents. The weapon is being developed to replace the Air Force's nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile. The LRSO request represents a $32 million increase above what was projected for FY-18 in the Air Force's budget request last year.
The Navy's Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program would receive $776 million for development and $842 million in advance procurement funds under the FY-18 request, according to Navy budget documents. The submarines are being developed to replace the Ohio-class boats currently carrying the sea-based nuclear deterrent. The procurement request represents a $55 million increase in FY-18 above what the Obama administration projected last year. The Navy begins construction of the first of 12 Columbia-class submarines in FY-21.
The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, meanwhile, would receive $215 million under the FY-18 request, according to Air Force budget documents. The request is $79 million below what FY-17 budget documents projected for FY-18 GBSD funding. The system will begin replacing the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in 2028, according to the DOD overview, which adds the Air Force is currently reviewing industry proposals for development of the new missiles.
The Joint Strike Fighter dual-capable aircraft program is seeking $35 million in FY-18, according to Air Force budget justification documents. The program is developing the ability of the F-35A variant to carry the B61 nuclear gravity bomb in addition to conventional weapons. The DCA capability is scheduled to achieve operational certification by FY-25, according to the DOD budget overview.
DOD is also seeking $91 million for the Air Force's B61 tailkit assembly program in FY-18, a $59 million reduction compared to what the FY-17 request projected. The B61 life extension program consolidates four legacy B61 nuclear gravity bombs into one variant. The Air Force's portion of the program involves tailkit assembly, while the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) handles the bomb assembly portion of the program.
The NNSA is seeking $13.9 billion in FY-18, an increase of nearly $1 billion above the FY-17 level, according to a DOE fact sheet. The NNSA request includes $10.2 billion for nuclear weapon activities, $1.8 billion for nonproliferation and $1.5 billion for naval reactors,
While the NNSA budget overview shows spending levels for FY-19 through FY-23 increasing 2.1 percent annually compared to the FY-18 topline, it notes "this outyear topline does not reflect a policy judgement."
"Instead, the administration will make a policy judgement on amounts for the National Nuclear Security Administration's FY 2019 -- FY 2023 topline in the FY 2019 Budget, in accordance with the National Security Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review that are currently under development," the overview continues.
The posture review was directed by President Trump to ensure the nuclear triad is "modern, robust, flexible, resilient, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies and partners," according to a Jan. 27 presidential memorandum.
The review will be led deputy defense secretary and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, "and include interagency partners. The process will culminate in a final report to the president by the end of the year," according to an April 17 Pentagon statement.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Nuclear Threat on the Rise
—Wilson Brissett 5/26/2017
The threat from nuclear weapons is growing and the need for a strong US deterrent needs to keep up, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said Thursday at an AFA Mitchell event in Washington, D.C. The top threat comes from Russia, who is “our only peer” in nuclear development, and “will likely remain so in the coming decade.” Russia now has “robust programs in place” that began development “about a decade ago.” These programs include “modernizing their ICBM force, their ballistic missile submarines, their nuclear-capable bombers, their nuclear cruise missiles, their national command and control,” Wilson said. “It’s not talking about it—they’ve done it.” China is more difficult to assess because “they are being completely opaque with regard to nuclear capabilities.” Still, Wilson said, it is clear that China is investing in “both fixed and mobile ICBM systems and the technology to counter US ballistic missile defense technology.” China also reorganized its military last year to create a “strategic rocket force,” that is focused on nuclear weapons, and a “strategic support force,” to work on space, cyber, and electronic warfare, Wilson said. All of these developments, he added, underline the “importance of strategic stability” provided by a strong US deterrent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRSO is a Cost-Imposing, Cost-Saving Strategy
—Wilson Brissett 5/26/2017
The development of a new Long Range Standoff weapon (LRSO) is “a cost-imposing strategy” that doesn’t cost very much, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said Thursday. The stealthy, air-launched, nuclear-capable cruise missile would allow the Air Force to “maneuver or position my bombers wherever they have to be,” and would not require “overflight of any particular countries,” Wilson told the audience at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Washington, D.C. These capabilities, plus the reality that a bomber would be able to carry 21 LRSO missiles at a time, makes the weapon “a very daunting challenge for any adversary.” But the key, Wilson said, is that Russia already has a similar missile “in production,” and LRSO’s deterrent value is much more cost-effective than the development of a new system to defend against the Russian weapons. The LRSO won’t be fielded until 2030, however, so the current air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) will continue to undergo a service life extension, updating “telemetry, encryption, and our flight termination components”—for now, Wilson said. But getting the LRSO online is “the key to making sure we can maintain an air leg of the triad going forward.” The LRSO development program is slated to receive $451 million in President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget request.
—Wilson Brissett 5/26/2017
The threat from nuclear weapons is growing and the need for a strong US deterrent needs to keep up, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said Thursday at an AFA Mitchell event in Washington, D.C. The top threat comes from Russia, who is “our only peer” in nuclear development, and “will likely remain so in the coming decade.” Russia now has “robust programs in place” that began development “about a decade ago.” These programs include “modernizing their ICBM force, their ballistic missile submarines, their nuclear-capable bombers, their nuclear cruise missiles, their national command and control,” Wilson said. “It’s not talking about it—they’ve done it.” China is more difficult to assess because “they are being completely opaque with regard to nuclear capabilities.” Still, Wilson said, it is clear that China is investing in “both fixed and mobile ICBM systems and the technology to counter US ballistic missile defense technology.” China also reorganized its military last year to create a “strategic rocket force,” that is focused on nuclear weapons, and a “strategic support force,” to work on space, cyber, and electronic warfare, Wilson said. All of these developments, he added, underline the “importance of strategic stability” provided by a strong US deterrent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRSO is a Cost-Imposing, Cost-Saving Strategy
—Wilson Brissett 5/26/2017
The development of a new Long Range Standoff weapon (LRSO) is “a cost-imposing strategy” that doesn’t cost very much, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said Thursday. The stealthy, air-launched, nuclear-capable cruise missile would allow the Air Force to “maneuver or position my bombers wherever they have to be,” and would not require “overflight of any particular countries,” Wilson told the audience at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Washington, D.C. These capabilities, plus the reality that a bomber would be able to carry 21 LRSO missiles at a time, makes the weapon “a very daunting challenge for any adversary.” But the key, Wilson said, is that Russia already has a similar missile “in production,” and LRSO’s deterrent value is much more cost-effective than the development of a new system to defend against the Russian weapons. The LRSO won’t be fielded until 2030, however, so the current air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) will continue to undergo a service life extension, updating “telemetry, encryption, and our flight termination components”—for now, Wilson said. But getting the LRSO online is “the key to making sure we can maintain an air leg of the triad going forward.” The LRSO development program is slated to receive $451 million in President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget request.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-navy-extends-sub-launched-nuclear-weapon-2080
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/05/russian-lawmaker-we-would-use-nukes-if-us-or-nato-enters-crimea/138230/
"If we continue to de-emphasize nuclear weapons the rest of the world will follow" - every POTUS last 25 years :
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/05/russian-lawmaker-we-would-use-nukes-if-us-or-nato-enters-crimea/138230/
"If we continue to de-emphasize nuclear weapons the rest of the world will follow" - every POTUS last 25 years :
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-icbm-2017-story.html
Article does a decent job of outlining both sides arguments but I ask, read the "abolish the ICBM" side and ask is that the best they have as justification? It reads to me as "We really just want fewer nukes in the US so let's come up with some type of reason why."
Article does a decent job of outlining both sides arguments but I ask, read the "abolish the ICBM" side and ask is that the best they have as justification? It reads to me as "We really just want fewer nukes in the US so let's come up with some type of reason why."
Airplane
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 October 2015
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 55
Am I the only one who thinks $85B to replace the Minuteman is cheap? If they want donations I would gladly write a check. But I don't understand the thinking in eliminating the land based portion of the triad, because apparently it's risky to have them ready to launch at a moments notice. That risk has kept the world out of WWIII scenario for over 50 years. If 'they' want to eliminate the silo based missiles, great! Fantastic! I'm all for it! Give us 400 midgetmen type missiles dispersed throughout the nation and let's increase the SSBNs in service. But the reality is, there is a segment of the population that embraces weakness and will always argue against "nukes" in any form. $85B is cheap. The US pisses that much and more away every week.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Airplane said:
$85billion is extremely cheap as that is over 30 years and given total US Federal Government spending will be about $190 trillion over that same 30 years. So a new ICBM that will be a big factor securing our country equals 4/100ths of one percent.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
Airplane said:
Yeah, that's got to be THE most retarded excuse I've ever seen when it comes to panty-wringing terror of defending one's self. That thousands of ICBMs & SLBMs have been in such a condition for half a century is apparently beyond their comprehension. (And never mind that even if WE didn't have them that won't magically make them disappear from the arsenals of Russia, China, India, North Korea, and soon to be Iran.)
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Exactly correct when 60 minutes interviewed former SecDef Perry this appears to be his main argument and he points to a single incident 50 or so years ago of the fake training computer simulation tape that was thought to be an attack for about five minutes. He actually uses this single story as the rationale to get rid of the ICBM force.sferrin said:
The three main points and the biggest give aways that arms controllers are just trying to scare people not make a real relevant argument (look for them in these articles) are when they use 1) "Cold War arsenal" never telling you how deeply we've cut 2) hair trigger alert/accidental launch and 3) too expensive without providing perspective i.e. percentage of defence and/or percentage of federal spending.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
bobbymike said:
And even that doesn't tell the tale. What would be the total dollar cost to just Seattle getting nuked, let alone L.A. or San Francisco? Nuclear forces are CHEAP by comparison. That they are promoting unilateral disarmament is despicable. Are they so dumb that they think it would work or do they believe that it would lead to the eventual end of the US and they are hoping for it?
Airplane
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 October 2015
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 55
sferrin said:
Yes, exactly! How many hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars would be lost if LA or Seattle were nuked. In all honesty, the cost would be in the TRILLIONS of dollars after you factor in the economic depression that it would send the US into. The crash of 01 and 09 would be many times smaller that what would happen if a US city was nuked.
That's what pisses me off about people complaining about missile defense and the money we're spending on that. Look at the alternative....
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
Airplane said:
It's hard to think of any scenario where a single US city on its own would be nuked by another state actor hence your specific argument re: the cost of a nuclear strike on a single US city (which disturbingly you expressed in purely monetary terms with no mention or thought of the human cost - millions maimed or murdered) doesn't really make any sense.
As ever the far most likely scenarios is that deterrence has worked and all US cities haven't been nuked or deterrence has failed, virtually all US cities have been nuked, the US counter strike has done the same to your opponent (Russia and/or China) and the human race had gone the way of the dinosaurs. You don't need to spend much time worrying about the subsequent economic downturn and the impact on next years federal budget.
If it's a non-state player or a rouge nation with a death wish that would launch such an attack on a single US city for lack of capability to do more then deterrence has also failed or was never working in the first place; your nuclear forces didn't deter them and their actions were never impacted by the precise composition of your nuclear forces. Having land based ICBMs or not having them would not have mattered in this scenario.
For the record I am "pro" the nuclear deterrent and would see the logic for retaining land based ICBMs as part of the triad. However you are clearly missrepresenting those that would see these land based missiles as potentially the least useful and most expendable part of that triad. Your equating these individuals with proponents of unilateral disarmament is incorrect and misleading. They simply disagree with you on the size and composition of the minimal necessary nuclear force to ensure deterrence.
And the attacks above on unilateralists are similarly misleading; the continued suggestions that people who hold such views somehow want to see their nations destroyed by nuclear weapons is a twisted perversion of the truth and gives more insight into the suggesting individuals paranoid obsessions and fantasies than into what actual unilateral disarmament advocates believe.
I don't agree with such advocates and I find their arguments to be naive and simplistic but they should not be unfairly misrepresented and maligned because they hold different views than you.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/2/navy-nuclear-chief-concerned-about-rocket-motor-industry
To me the solid rocket industry is of strategic importance and we should have several 'prototype' projects and test programs constantly working on advanced propulsion technologies (from R&D to actual launches). This is a 'use it or lose it' industry.
To me the solid rocket industry is of strategic importance and we should have several 'prototype' projects and test programs constantly working on advanced propulsion technologies (from R&D to actual launches). This is a 'use it or lose it' industry.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/06/05/navys-d5-missile-most-powerful-u-s-weapon-to-provide-backbone-of-nuclear-deterrent-through-2040/#1c2fc20872e6
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/05/the_npr_new_start_and_the_russian_nuclear_buildup__111520.html
I've been saying this for years the types of strategic weapons Russia is producing does not match up to New START limits.
While we dither and dither and wither away.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/05/the_npr_new_start_and_the_russian_nuclear_buildup__111520.html
I've been saying this for years the types of strategic weapons Russia is producing does not match up to New START limits.
While we dither and dither and wither away.
bobbymike said:
What concerns me is that we are totally complacent in regard to our nuclear deterrent. We have programs to replace all three legs of the triad, but always ending up with fewer numbers of warheads deliverable, assuming none of the three legs get cut off or cut back. New cruise missile, new ICBM and adquate replacement numbers of SSBNs are being threatened with cutbacks before the first metal is bent. And these programs are looking like they are numerically just replacement weapons at present or lower numbers... like 12 new SSBNs with 16 Trident 2s replacing 14 Ohio class with 24 missiles each (downloaded to 20 soon).
The Russians are not stupid. They see this as their chance to acquire through bad treaty and withdrawal from it, the end goal of nuclear superiority. I suspect if they don't just keep lying about cheating they will withdraw from New Start sometime in August.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
stew3 said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all there.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
bobbymike said:
An article full of factual inaccuracies, for example;
- British press praising President Trump in the manner described?
- Nuclear capable German Typhoons? German F-35s?
- Range issues as described with the F-35?
Etc.
Actual official UK position of withdrawal of US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe would be horror and fear (US would be by such an act abandoning them too).
This article appears to be a classic example of pandering to specific target audience in the US and telling them what they want to hear while actualy representing a very fringe UK view.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-defense-experts-urge-revitalization-u-s-ballistic-missile-programs/
https://www.csis.org/events/new-nuclear-review-new-age
http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-New-Nuclear-Review-final.pdf
Many of these experts should be immediately hired by the present administration to oversee nuclear modernization.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1208131/modernizing-nuclear-deterrents-no-1-priority-dod-officials-tell-congress/#.WTpsxds-KdI.facebook
https://www.csis.org/events/new-nuclear-review-new-age
http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-New-Nuclear-Review-final.pdf
Many of these experts should be immediately hired by the present administration to oversee nuclear modernization.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1208131/modernizing-nuclear-deterrents-no-1-priority-dod-officials-tell-congress/#.WTpsxds-KdI.facebook
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/12/the_tlam-n_a_counterproductive_anachronism_for_europe_111568.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=ad82625c7e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-ad82625c7e-81812733
- Status
