Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
sferrin said:
So were the likes of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan (with the latter coming to support, agree and implement arms control agreements having previously been opposed to them) working for your adversaries or the "useful idiots"?
Not sure if your confusing arms control and unilateral disarmament, you know the difference right?
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
Arjen said:
That explains a lot of the historical inaccuracies and the questionable analysis in the article: if the Navy gets back
into the non-strategic nuclear weapons business the Army will be the only service that can't contribute beyond
nominating nuclear targets.
But the unwritten story, IMHO, is why did Navy leadership acquiesce to TLAM-N retirement given that
Russian INF violation was known as early as 2008?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
A quick review on how we got here, 90% strategic forces reduction START I & II, SORT, MOSCOW TREATY, New START & INF a complete elimination of a class of nukes, was achieved doing pretty much the exact opposite of what the arms control community wanted at the time.sferrin said:
No nuclear freeze
We built and deployed Pershing II and GLCM
We built and deployed Peacekeeper
We built and deployed D5
We built and deployed ALCM
We built and deployed SLCM
We built and deployed new warheads for these systems (strategic and tactical)
We aggressively R&D'd SDI
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
bobbymike said:
That NIPP report is very very worrying. Has anyone got any good sources on status-6? I'm going through the 32nd citation for a good source, but is it as practical and survivable a system as it appears?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
You were saying?sferrin said:
House Democrats Ask Trump to Reduce Nuclear Arsenal
A group of more than 40 House Democrats sent a letter to President Donald Trump on Tuesday asking him to work towards a global reduction in nuclear forces as his administration completes its Nuclear Posture Review. The letter, signed by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), argues that “nuclear weapons have little bearing on immediate threats—like fighting extremism and combating cyberwarfare,” and asks Trump to join the “tradition” started by President Ronald Reagan to “prevent the use and spread of nuclear weapons and materials.” The lawmakers ask Trump to state unequivocally that he “would not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict or against non-nuclear adversaries” and that he does “not seek to launch a new nuclear arms race.” The letter also asks Trump to extend the New START treaty and work to bring Russia back into compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty. The Democrats also take aim at US nuclear forces, asking Trump to reconsider the Department of Defense’s “$1 trillion-over-30-years” plan to modernize the nuclear triad. Instead the group urges Trump to “prioritize finite defense dollars on securing and hardening command and control systems.” —Wilson Brissett
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/feinstein-presses-mattis-on-lrso-mattis-still-thinking/
Now in a couple more days be ready for;
"Minuteman III replacement not needed and too expensive" article from another Leftist, followed by;
"Ohio replacement SSBN Columbia Class too expensive and we only need 8 of them"
It would at least be an honest debate if they all stood together and said "Look we don't want to defend the nation"
Now in a couple more days be ready for;
"Minuteman III replacement not needed and too expensive" article from another Leftist, followed by;
"Ohio replacement SSBN Columbia Class too expensive and we only need 8 of them"
It would at least be an honest debate if they all stood together and said "Look we don't want to defend the nation"
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
bobbymike said:
Your comment and the reference to an honest debate are a contradiction in terms.
Your missrepresenting a number of different positions that you are lumping together.
I may disagree with many of these positions but their proponents do want to defend the US, they just disagree with you on what is required/ best to do so.
It's not valid or constructive to demonise them or try to paint them as traitors.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Mattis: Posture Review Looking at All Legs of the Triad, Need for ALCM
Defense Secretary James Mattis on Wednesday would not commit to recapitalizing the Air Force’s air launched cruise missile inventory, and said he is reviewing all legs of the triad to determine the most effective, and cost-conscious, nuclear deterrent. He told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel that he spoke with former Defense Secretary William Perry, an advocate for scrapping the Air Force’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile fleet, and NATO deputy secretary general Rose Gottemoeller, who previously served as the under secretary of state for arms control, this week to “start from a position of knowledge” on the military’s nuclear forces. Read the full report by Brian Everstine.
Defense Secretary James Mattis on Wednesday would not commit to recapitalizing the Air Force’s air launched cruise missile inventory, and said he is reviewing all legs of the triad to determine the most effective, and cost-conscious, nuclear deterrent. He told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel that he spoke with former Defense Secretary William Perry, an advocate for scrapping the Air Force’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile fleet, and NATO deputy secretary general Rose Gottemoeller, who previously served as the under secretary of state for arms control, this week to “start from a position of knowledge” on the military’s nuclear forces. Read the full report by Brian Everstine.
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
US deploys nuclear bomber triad to Europe for the first time.
Can't help but think of 1914, with everything else going on. That's the opinion of professor Almond of the crisis research centre at least and I lean towards his analysis, made before this escalating deployment. Obviously a simple flag waving exercise for NATO, but I'm not sure now is a time for too much of that.
http://www.janes.com/article/71325/us-deploys-bomber-triad-to-europe-for-first-time?utm_content=buffer3eb03&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Can't help but think of 1914, with everything else going on. That's the opinion of professor Almond of the crisis research centre at least and I lean towards his analysis, made before this escalating deployment. Obviously a simple flag waving exercise for NATO, but I'm not sure now is a time for too much of that.
http://www.janes.com/article/71325/us-deploys-bomber-triad-to-europe-for-first-time?utm_content=buffer3eb03&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,018
bobbymike said:
"Can the U.S. Afford Modern Nukes?"
What a stupid question. It should never be, "can we afford" it should be "what do we need to give up to afford nukes". Just as food and a roof over your head comes first, national defense comes first. Doesn't matter how many snowflakes have to pay their tuition or get J-O-Bs.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Hyten Says Nuclear Modernization Cannot be Delayed
—Wilson Brissett
Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, “strongly” urged Congress “not to slow down any element of the triad,” during his speech Tuesday at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Washington, D.C.
“When I look at each element, we cannot slow them down,” he told the audience. “We actually need to accelerate them, not decelerate them.”
Replacing the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is particularly urgent.
“It’s a miracle that it can even fly,” he said, noting that maintainers and engineers work tirelessly to find ways to keep the ALCM viable, but that cannot last forever. “They do meet the mission, but it is a challenge each and every day.”
The Air Force is working to develop the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon as a replacement for ALCM. Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said last month the LRSO is a crucial, “cost-saving, cost-imposing strategy,” but Secretary of Defense James Mattis questioned its deterrent value at his confirmation hearing in January.
“We need that capability, and we can’t delay it,” Hyten insisted Tuesday.
He also said the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review would be finished in “roughly October,” and that it could have an effect on nuclear triad modernization efforts. “If the Administration makes a decision on the Nuclear Posture Review, that we’re going to go a different direction, we’ll understand what that is and we’ll adjust,” Hyten said.
But as congressional committees begin work this week to craft a National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, Hyten’s preference is clearly for more speed.
“The reliability on those weapons systems is already unacceptable, and it’s going to get worse every year as we go forward,” he admitted. “I’m worried that our nation won’t be able to go fast enough to keep up with our adversaries any more.”
The key to going faster, he said, is less caution. “We’ve got to get back to where we accept risk.” He pointed to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as an example. The world laughs at the program’s failures, he said, but Kim Jong Un is “testing and failing and testing and succeeding.” The US military used to take a similar approach, he said, and it managed to build the Minuteman I program in five years for $17 billion in today’s dollars.
But in recent years DOD has become risk-averse. Current estimates to recap the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent run around $84 billion, he said.
“We can build that capability” and we can do it “for less than $84 billion,” but not “if you don’t have a budget every year,” Hyten warned, and “you can’t do it if you have to ask ‘mother-may-I,’” at every step of the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modernization holiday for the Triad and nuke enterprise has really put our backs to the wall. Everything has to go right on major, complex replacement systems. 25+ years was far too long to wait to replace these weapons. I have advocated for a Manhattan Project II as the needed level of commitment to this endeavor.
—Wilson Brissett
Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, “strongly” urged Congress “not to slow down any element of the triad,” during his speech Tuesday at an AFA Mitchell Institute event in Washington, D.C.
“When I look at each element, we cannot slow them down,” he told the audience. “We actually need to accelerate them, not decelerate them.”
Replacing the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is particularly urgent.
“It’s a miracle that it can even fly,” he said, noting that maintainers and engineers work tirelessly to find ways to keep the ALCM viable, but that cannot last forever. “They do meet the mission, but it is a challenge each and every day.”
The Air Force is working to develop the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon as a replacement for ALCM. Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson said last month the LRSO is a crucial, “cost-saving, cost-imposing strategy,” but Secretary of Defense James Mattis questioned its deterrent value at his confirmation hearing in January.
“We need that capability, and we can’t delay it,” Hyten insisted Tuesday.
He also said the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review would be finished in “roughly October,” and that it could have an effect on nuclear triad modernization efforts. “If the Administration makes a decision on the Nuclear Posture Review, that we’re going to go a different direction, we’ll understand what that is and we’ll adjust,” Hyten said.
But as congressional committees begin work this week to craft a National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, Hyten’s preference is clearly for more speed.
“The reliability on those weapons systems is already unacceptable, and it’s going to get worse every year as we go forward,” he admitted. “I’m worried that our nation won’t be able to go fast enough to keep up with our adversaries any more.”
The key to going faster, he said, is less caution. “We’ve got to get back to where we accept risk.” He pointed to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program as an example. The world laughs at the program’s failures, he said, but Kim Jong Un is “testing and failing and testing and succeeding.” The US military used to take a similar approach, he said, and it managed to build the Minuteman I program in five years for $17 billion in today’s dollars.
But in recent years DOD has become risk-averse. Current estimates to recap the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent run around $84 billion, he said.
“We can build that capability” and we can do it “for less than $84 billion,” but not “if you don’t have a budget every year,” Hyten warned, and “you can’t do it if you have to ask ‘mother-may-I,’” at every step of the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modernization holiday for the Triad and nuke enterprise has really put our backs to the wall. Everything has to go right on major, complex replacement systems. 25+ years was far too long to wait to replace these weapons. I have advocated for a Manhattan Project II as the needed level of commitment to this endeavor.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Congress Calls for US Development of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
—Wilson Brissett
Congress may be ready to hold Russia accountable for its violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In its markup for the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the House strategic forces subcommittee includes a provision that declares Russia in material breach of the treaty.
The markup also provides a presidential notification requirement that allows the US to declare itself no longer bound by the treaty and requires the US to develop its own new missile system to match Russia’s capability.
In the markup, the strategic forces subcommittee calls for “a program of record to develop a dual-capable, road-mobile, ground-launched cruise missile system with a range of between 500 to 5,500 kilometers.” To produce or test such a system would violate Article VI of the INF Treaty, which the US and Russia signed in 1987 to prevent the use of so-called tactical nuclear weapons that could be deployed in a ground war.
But recently, US military commanders have questioned the effectiveness of the treaty.
In February, Russia reportedly deployed a cruise missile system of the type banned by Article VI. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USAF Gen. Paul Selva told HASC in March that Russia’s actions constituted a clear violation of the treaty and “a willingness to use nuclear weapons” in a tactical environment.
The following month, Adm. Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Command told Congress the US was “being taken to the cleaners” by countries like China, who “are not signatories” of the INF. Harris said that 90 percent of China’s missile stockpiles fall into categories banned by the treaty.
Now Congress appears ready to take action. In the strategic forces markup, Congress would declare Russia to be already “in material breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.”
Further, the markup establishes a notification regime that would allow the President to determine that the US would “would no longer be bound by the prohibitions set forth in Article VI of the INF Treaty” as early as 15 months from the enactment of the legislation.
The subcommittee meets Thursday to debate amendments to the markup, which will be added to the full NDAA ahead of the June 28 markup session with the entire House Armed Services Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are we waking up? Alas, I fear it is too late.
—Wilson Brissett
Congress may be ready to hold Russia accountable for its violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In its markup for the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the House strategic forces subcommittee includes a provision that declares Russia in material breach of the treaty.
The markup also provides a presidential notification requirement that allows the US to declare itself no longer bound by the treaty and requires the US to develop its own new missile system to match Russia’s capability.
In the markup, the strategic forces subcommittee calls for “a program of record to develop a dual-capable, road-mobile, ground-launched cruise missile system with a range of between 500 to 5,500 kilometers.” To produce or test such a system would violate Article VI of the INF Treaty, which the US and Russia signed in 1987 to prevent the use of so-called tactical nuclear weapons that could be deployed in a ground war.
But recently, US military commanders have questioned the effectiveness of the treaty.
In February, Russia reportedly deployed a cruise missile system of the type banned by Article VI. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USAF Gen. Paul Selva told HASC in March that Russia’s actions constituted a clear violation of the treaty and “a willingness to use nuclear weapons” in a tactical environment.
The following month, Adm. Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Command told Congress the US was “being taken to the cleaners” by countries like China, who “are not signatories” of the INF. Harris said that 90 percent of China’s missile stockpiles fall into categories banned by the treaty.
Now Congress appears ready to take action. In the strategic forces markup, Congress would declare Russia to be already “in material breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.”
Further, the markup establishes a notification regime that would allow the President to determine that the US would “would no longer be bound by the prohibitions set forth in Article VI of the INF Treaty” as early as 15 months from the enactment of the legislation.
The subcommittee meets Thursday to debate amendments to the markup, which will be added to the full NDAA ahead of the June 28 markup session with the entire House Armed Services Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are we waking up? Alas, I fear it is too late.
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
I actually wrote this in response to the discussion that's crept into the nuclear weapons news thread that's turned into a discussion, but as it's for news for the sake of keeping discussion and news Seperate I'm positing it here so please bare with me if it's a little out of place. Just trying to keep things in the right place as the news thread is and should be a useful resource for sources and links with a little commentary on them, not a discussion like my post was turning into...
It's a major fork. As far as I can tell it's a question of whether or not to retain a strong tactical force that LRSO will be a part of with continued air dropped/ launched weapons for the B-21 and possibly turning the B-61 into something useful for the F-35a and sixth Gen. Or focusing on SLBMs and ICBMS and maintaining an existential deterrent.
The question is whether they can get high end conventional PGS, super penetrators (MOP and conventional successor for B-21) and MOAB style weapons to do most of the high end lifting.
The choices are clear, but now it's down to single threats that are going to dictate a complete policy change at a time when you have to consider individual targeting needs like underground nuclear facilities in Iran and the DPRK. What they choose on any one of a single program will influence procurement and requirement/ capability of many platforms right through the sixth Gen F/A aircraft (I'm not going to list the ever changing designations, we all know them).
I don't have an actual will researched opinion on what they should actually do, but air launched weapons are being given up all over the world. But as I see it the question is about the repercussions of maintaining ALCMs and SLCMs as a tactical nuclear option and, if so, designing platforms around them or figuring on high end conventional when it's almost a perpetual COIN world.
With Russia's potential INF and MTCR violations I see the point. Will they need them to deal with ISKANDER and Topol-M in Russia, Shahab-3/4 through Ghadar-110 in Iran, Pukugsong through Hwasong in the DPRK and whatever the 2nd artillery or working on in the PRC or nuclear earth penetrators that may be needed. Things are moving so rapidly in so many different places I doubt OPLAN can keep up. You need flexibility given how many different threats they potentially face.
It's a decision that will determine the nuclear posture for the USA and, in response, the rest of the world for the next 50 years, though it seems they are on the back foot because of the hopes that Russia et Al. would stand still after 91. So I guess they are trying hard to get through the next couple years keeping all options open at a huge cost until a clear pathway forward can be found. I expect all high end conventional and tactical nuclear options (like LRSO) and B-61 upgrades and conversion will go on slowly and underfunded so that as requirements dictate they can be highly funded and pursued quickly as clear threats and requirements become clear or emerge. The Mattis review will likely not be the last, budgets will dictate priorities which will in turn create capability gaps that are being filled with the offensive missile systems of other countries I mentioned above, no doubt there are many we don't even know are coming down the line.
In years gone by the idea of tactical nuclear release by any major power was unthinkable, but I'm not sure you can say that today so complacency isn't really an option any more, but neither is having everything and overreacting and escelating what's already a barely under the radar arms race.
Does island building constitute a good enough reason on it's own to go on with LRSO? Just one scenario in at least a dozen that 10 years ago would be a main focus, but today there's too many spinning plates in too many places, but doing nothing or doing too much is impractical too. They are hamstring by the complexity of of the geostrategic situation, the blurring of strategic and tactical capabilities, domestic politics and of course budgets.
All the while they are trying hard to reduce the need for tactical nuclear spread through so many ABM/SAM systems that it's hard to justify the cost and change in the game theory equations, but you can't take out Iranian or DPRK centerfuges with THAAD or GMD...
anyone else need an aspirin? With economic and this budget uncertainty in the states (anyone watching the bond market fed divergence? Hiking into a bear market with global real estate in a bubble and major banks being credit downgraded while national debt and unfunded liabilities spiral) and even uncertainty about the next election (NSA leaks on Russian intervention last time, Comey, latest pooling data on Trump) it's all uncertainty at a time when additional complexities are possibly the bigger threat than the weapons systems they face this year at least.
Suffice to say I doubt the Trump administration's nuclear posture review will be the last. Where they go from here? I think the best they can do is keep their options open, I don't know what they'll need in 3 years time when they're talking about developing programs that will take 5-10 to develop and employ on platforms that will have to incorporate them for at least the next 30. So I guess that's a question not an answer, but you have to start with the right questions.
Maybe someone should draw a 20 page flow chart...
It's a major fork. As far as I can tell it's a question of whether or not to retain a strong tactical force that LRSO will be a part of with continued air dropped/ launched weapons for the B-21 and possibly turning the B-61 into something useful for the F-35a and sixth Gen. Or focusing on SLBMs and ICBMS and maintaining an existential deterrent.
The question is whether they can get high end conventional PGS, super penetrators (MOP and conventional successor for B-21) and MOAB style weapons to do most of the high end lifting.
The choices are clear, but now it's down to single threats that are going to dictate a complete policy change at a time when you have to consider individual targeting needs like underground nuclear facilities in Iran and the DPRK. What they choose on any one of a single program will influence procurement and requirement/ capability of many platforms right through the sixth Gen F/A aircraft (I'm not going to list the ever changing designations, we all know them).
I don't have an actual will researched opinion on what they should actually do, but air launched weapons are being given up all over the world. But as I see it the question is about the repercussions of maintaining ALCMs and SLCMs as a tactical nuclear option and, if so, designing platforms around them or figuring on high end conventional when it's almost a perpetual COIN world.
With Russia's potential INF and MTCR violations I see the point. Will they need them to deal with ISKANDER and Topol-M in Russia, Shahab-3/4 through Ghadar-110 in Iran, Pukugsong through Hwasong in the DPRK and whatever the 2nd artillery or working on in the PRC or nuclear earth penetrators that may be needed. Things are moving so rapidly in so many different places I doubt OPLAN can keep up. You need flexibility given how many different threats they potentially face.
It's a decision that will determine the nuclear posture for the USA and, in response, the rest of the world for the next 50 years, though it seems they are on the back foot because of the hopes that Russia et Al. would stand still after 91. So I guess they are trying hard to get through the next couple years keeping all options open at a huge cost until a clear pathway forward can be found. I expect all high end conventional and tactical nuclear options (like LRSO) and B-61 upgrades and conversion will go on slowly and underfunded so that as requirements dictate they can be highly funded and pursued quickly as clear threats and requirements become clear or emerge. The Mattis review will likely not be the last, budgets will dictate priorities which will in turn create capability gaps that are being filled with the offensive missile systems of other countries I mentioned above, no doubt there are many we don't even know are coming down the line.
In years gone by the idea of tactical nuclear release by any major power was unthinkable, but I'm not sure you can say that today so complacency isn't really an option any more, but neither is having everything and overreacting and escelating what's already a barely under the radar arms race.
Does island building constitute a good enough reason on it's own to go on with LRSO? Just one scenario in at least a dozen that 10 years ago would be a main focus, but today there's too many spinning plates in too many places, but doing nothing or doing too much is impractical too. They are hamstring by the complexity of of the geostrategic situation, the blurring of strategic and tactical capabilities, domestic politics and of course budgets.
All the while they are trying hard to reduce the need for tactical nuclear spread through so many ABM/SAM systems that it's hard to justify the cost and change in the game theory equations, but you can't take out Iranian or DPRK centerfuges with THAAD or GMD...
anyone else need an aspirin? With economic and this budget uncertainty in the states (anyone watching the bond market fed divergence? Hiking into a bear market with global real estate in a bubble and major banks being credit downgraded while national debt and unfunded liabilities spiral) and even uncertainty about the next election (NSA leaks on Russian intervention last time, Comey, latest pooling data on Trump) it's all uncertainty at a time when additional complexities are possibly the bigger threat than the weapons systems they face this year at least.
Suffice to say I doubt the Trump administration's nuclear posture review will be the last. Where they go from here? I think the best they can do is keep their options open, I don't know what they'll need in 3 years time when they're talking about developing programs that will take 5-10 to develop and employ on platforms that will have to incorporate them for at least the next 30. So I guess that's a question not an answer, but you have to start with the right questions.
Maybe someone should draw a 20 page flow chart...
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
Cheers for that, they usually have good speakers, know who's on the panel? Or if they will host it for a day or two, Zulu-5 is a few too many hours out there time zone wise for me...I can probably stay up for it though, just wondering if you know if they'll host it for at least 24 hours.
I know they have a YouTube channel but that not everything goes up there. They haven't put anything up for more than 3 months.
I know they have a YouTube channel but that not everything goes up there. They haven't put anything up for more than 3 months.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Dr. Keith Payne and Dr. Mark Schneider among other. They are with National Institute for Public Policy. Lots of nuke stuff at that website. They are also very thoughtful proponents of the deterrent mission.phrenzy said:
I communicate from time to time with the moderator, Ms Michaela Dodge, I will inquire if this will be posted at Heritage or on their YouTube channel after the fact.
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
They have offered it to you YouTube:
I've emailed to try and find out how I can get a copy of their new report.
Watching/listening now, certainly seems to be a good mix without too much heritage foundation politics which is nice, all level headed and factual. I'm not so big on their invitation for giving GOP politicians a platform to say in an hour what they say in 3 minutes on fix, but their with defence policy is undoubtedly up to snuff.
I've emailed to try and find out how I can get a copy of their new report.
Watching/listening now, certainly seems to be a good mix without too much heritage foundation politics which is nice, all level headed and factual. I'm not so big on their invitation for giving GOP politicians a platform to say in an hour what they say in 3 minutes on fix, but their with defence policy is undoubtedly up to snuff.
phrenzy
as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
- Joined
- 31 October 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 17
Audio cuts out in a strange East just when things get interesting at 22:53... Strange coincidence, wonder if they said something they shouldn't.
Also, their mention of Russian comments on Russian nuclear targeting of Sweden I found a talk recently from Sweden's open source intelligence agency. They have over 180 full time Russia watchers who do nothing but develop reporting on everything but troop maneuvers and strategic policy. They have an excellent Russian language unit, will have to dig up some of their work.
New 15 warhead ICBM, status-6 and boost glide gets a mention even before the audio cuts. Will contact Heritage about it.
Anyone know if the report they released will be made available online?
Also, their mention of Russian comments on Russian nuclear targeting of Sweden I found a talk recently from Sweden's open source intelligence agency. They have over 180 full time Russia watchers who do nothing but develop reporting on everything but troop maneuvers and strategic policy. They have an excellent Russian language unit, will have to dig up some of their work.
New 15 warhead ICBM, status-6 and boost glide gets a mention even before the audio cuts. Will contact Heritage about it.
Anyone know if the report they released will be made available online?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-removes-last-of-50-minuteman-iii-icbms-to-meet-nst-requirements-5860111
Much better at this than building new ones :'(
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-03/world-nuclear-powers-improve-their-bombs-while-reducing-arsenals
Much better at this than building new ones :'(
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-03/world-nuclear-powers-improve-their-bombs-while-reducing-arsenals
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
That was one of the complaints of New START Russia got to build up its forces with brand new systems while we disarmed and now dither and twiddle our thumbs. Russian ICBMs with be fully modernized by 2023 and we'll still be 5 or so years from the FIRST GBSD.sferrin said:
As I've mentioned before the first "Land Based Strategic Deterrent" missile was going to start development in 2004 be deployed next year.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/07/07/contentious_nuclear_missile_program_moving_forward_111740.html
LRSO and all air launched cruise missiles are destabilizing remember this story and the nuclear war that followed?
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20170705/world/russia-hits-islamic-state-in-syria-with-advanced-air-launched-cruise.652505
LRSO and all air launched cruise missiles are destabilizing remember this story and the nuclear war that followed?
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20170705/world/russia-hits-islamic-state-in-syria-with-advanced-air-launched-cruise.652505
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 912
Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons at an Inflection Point
Michael Frankel, James Scouras, and George Ullrich
My highlight:
Warns about Russian development of high fusion-fraction (potentially pure fusion), low yield substrategic nuclear weapons with applications:
1. Neutralizing NATO ground forces: doubles the range-to-effect for prompt lethal radiation
2. ABM: low yield warhead + large kill radius + minimal radar blackout
3. Hardened and deeply buried targets: high-energy neutrons couple more deeply into the ground than x-rays,
near surface detonation of high fusion-fraction weapons couples ~five times as much to the ground as a comparable
yield fission weapon
http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/NonstrategicNuclearWeapons.pdf
Michael Frankel, James Scouras, and George Ullrich
My highlight:
Warns about Russian development of high fusion-fraction (potentially pure fusion), low yield substrategic nuclear weapons with applications:
1. Neutralizing NATO ground forces: doubles the range-to-effect for prompt lethal radiation
2. ABM: low yield warhead + large kill radius + minimal radar blackout
3. Hardened and deeply buried targets: high-energy neutrons couple more deeply into the ground than x-rays,
near surface detonation of high fusion-fraction weapons couples ~five times as much to the ground as a comparable
yield fission weapon
http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/NonstrategicNuclearWeapons.pdf
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 7,208
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/how-will-americas-next-generation-icbm-improve-nuclear-deterrence-1091
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/columbia-class-submarine-improves-versatility-endurance-and-stealth-triad-1091
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/columbia-class-submarine-improves-versatility-endurance-and-stealth-triad-1091
- Status
