Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[bobbymike]

https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/low-yield-nuclear-weapons-worth-new-look/

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/360100-putin-is-a-very-real-nuclear-threat

Chief of the General Staff General Valery Gerasimov recently publicly conceded that Russia had broken the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987.

Specifically, Gerasimov said, "We have formed command bodies and special units to plan the use of long-range precision-guided munitions and prepare flight assignments for all types of cruise missiles. — This has enabled us to set up full-scale units of vehicles capable of delivering precision-guided missiles to targets located up to 4,000 kilometers away."

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/11/us-air-force-wants-get-new-nuclear-weapons-faster/142551/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/reports/asia-in-the-second-nuclear-age#.Wgy7GSpMYBk.twitter

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

 

[sferrin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

Well it is the Washington Post. Would be like going to HuffPo, Salaon, or Vox and asking if we should have a military.

 

[bobbymike]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/360771-pentagon-begins-research-on-missile-banned-by-arms-treaty-with-russia-report

 

[Triton]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

 

[bobbymike]

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20171117a/full/?utm_content=buffer32bd9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

W76-1 refurbishment

 

[sferrin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And? Is that suppose to make them perfect? As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And? Is that suppose to make them perfect? As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?

Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?

 

[Triton]

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And? Is that suppose to make them perfect? As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?

Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?

What I meant was that William J. Perry and General James E. Cartwright were back making the same arguments in The Washington Post opinion piece that we have already read in their letter to President Donald Trump.

 

[bobbymike]

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, and General James E. Cartwright, former Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, again.

And? Is that suppose to make them perfect? As I recall, William Perry was the one who spilled the beans on the stealth bomber (B-2) to make his boss look good, no?

Don't care who it is evaluate what they said it's not a game of 'credential poker' hey I have two former SecDefs, an undersecretary and a physicist does that beat your experts in credential poker?

What I meant was that William J. Perry and General James E. Cartwright were back making the same arguments in The Washington Post opinion piece that we have already read in their letter to President Donald Trump.

Then I apologize or my incorrect inference.

 

[kaiserd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.740a7e885ec3

Just a trite and puerile article containing three of my 'signs of deception'

1) Refers to today's 90% smaller arsenal as "Cold War"
2) Conventional cruise missiles, after thousands being fired since 1991, will cause an accidental nuclear war
3) Concern over 'cost' of maintaining/modernization of the arsenal with no comparison to total defense, total government spending nor size of GDP.

Well it is the Washington Post. Would be like going to HuffPo, Salaon, or Vox and asking if we should have a military.

I would also not agree with detail of the article or what it proposes but it is inaccurate to describe it as trite and puerile. I could not say the same for many of contributors comments above.

There appears to be a repeat of the issues that got this topic locked; propensity to accuse people (contributors or non-contributors) of differing opinions as being deceptive with repeated personal attacks, going way off topic (attacking perceived bias/ free speech?) etc. The use of the room to vent at targets of hate/ abuse rather than its permitted purpose to discuss nuclear weapons.

I am not looking to drag this discussion off-topic or start an argument, I am flagging this to other contributors so that this course can be corrected.

 

[Triton]

"China's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Could Grow Massively"
Zachary Keck

Nov 16, 11:55 AM

Source:
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Chinas-Nuclear-Weapons-Arsenal-Could-Grow-Massively-in-the-Coming-Years-110580692

One of the most consistent aspects of China’s military policy is likely to undergo a significant transformation. Since its first nuclear test in 1964, China has maintained a relatively small nuclear arsenal designed to hold adversaries’ population centers at risk. Even as it has modernized its conventional forces to “fight and win wars” against first-class militaries like that of the United States, China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to contain [3] just 264 warheads, far smaller than the 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads Russia and America will each deploy under the New START Treaty, to say nothing of the nearly thirty thousand warheads they maintained during the Cold War.

This smaller arsenal is consistent with China’s different perspective [5] about the nature of deterrence, as well as its no-first-use nuclear doctrine. At the same time, a couple of technical developments are likely to propel China to undertake a significant nuclear buildup in the coming years.

The first of these is China’s acquisition of a viable nuclear triad for the first time. For most of its history as a nuclear power, Beijing has primarily relied on single-warhead land-based ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear weapons. After decades of false starts, however, China has now deployed a sea-based deterrent in the form of the JIN-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). China has already commissioned four JIN-class SSBNs and will build at least another one of these vessels. Each Jin-class SSBN has twelve missile tubes and carries JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) [7], which have a range of 7,500 kilometers. Some reports suggest the JL-2 can be equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) that allow each missile to carry between two and eight warheads. Thus, the five Jin-class SSBNs will require somewhere between sixty and 480 nuclear warheads. Even the low end of this estimate represents nearly one-quarter of China’s estimated warheads.

Furthermore, according to the Pentagon, China will begin fielding its next-generation SSBN, the Type 096, sometime in the coming decade, and these will be armed with the JL-3 SLBM. It’s unclear how many Type 096 SSBNs China will build, and whether the JL-3 SLBM will carry multiple warheads or not, but current reports [9] suggest the Type 096 sub will have twenty-four launch tubes. Assuming China also builds five Type 096 subs and each JL-3 only carries one warhead, this will require 120 nuclear warheads, nearly half of China’s estimated arsenal. Including the low-end estimate of the number of warheads the Type 094 SSBN will consume, Beijing’s sea-based deterrent will account for at least 75 percent of its entire stockpile.

Furthermore, according to the Pentagon, China will begin fielding its next-generation SSBN, the Type 096, sometime in the coming decade, and these will be armed with the JL-3 SLBM. It’s unclear how many Type 096 SSBNs China will build, and whether the JL-3 SLBM will carry multiple warheads or not, but current reports [9] suggest the Type 096 sub will have twenty-four launch tubes. Assuming China also builds five Type 096 subs and each JL-3 only carries one warhead, this will require 120 nuclear warheads, nearly half of China’s estimated arsenal. Including the low-end estimate of the number of warheads the Type 094 SSBN will consume, Beijing’s sea-based deterrent will account for at least 75 percent of its entire stockpile.

 

[Triton]

"US Threatens Its Own Treaty-Busting Missile Development in Response to Russian Violations"
by Joseph Trevithick

November 18, 2017

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16216/us-threatens-its-own-treaty-busting-missile-development-in-response-to-russian-violations

 

[sferrin]

Something like this would do the trick:

 

[DrRansom]

Sferrin what is that and where did it come from?

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin what is that and where did it come from?

Just stuff I dreamed up (except the LRASM-B there, which I modeled).

 

[bobbymike]

Sferrin what is that and where did it come from?

Just stuff I dreamed up (except the LRASM-B there, which I modeled).

You have serious talent Scott, thanks for sharing.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/dont-kill-nuclear-cruise-missile/142668/#comment-3625715306

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/dont-kill-nuclear-cruise-missile/142668/#comment-3625715306

There's no shortage of stupid in the world.

 

[Triton]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/dont-kill-nuclear-cruise-missile/142668/#comment-3625715306

There's no shortage of stupid in the world.

Making an error isn't the same thing as being stupid.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/dont-kill-nuclear-cruise-missile/142668/#comment-3625715306

There's no shortage of stupid in the world.

Making an error isn't the same thing as being stupid.

Never said that it was.

 

[bobbymike]

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/cbos-nuclear-weapons-cost-estimate-is-way-too-high-hint-bombers/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=58646783&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_R1vH9lq6FBx5hkT2PRRFS7cnRsmosXVmMeFrpoexvbmp_n08eKSqm7m9GlUC2ETqb4rLiJ5QgYNbA8XtfYYVGgEOLtw&_hsmi=58646783

 

[sferrin]

From nearly half a century ago. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVGlLMwq2s

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-modernize-specialreport/special-report-in-modernizing-nuclear-arsenal-u-s-stokes-new-arms-race-idUSKBN1DL1AH?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

 

[sferrin]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-modernize-specialreport/special-report-in-modernizing-nuclear-arsenal-u-s-stokes-new-arms-race-idUSKBN1DL1AH?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

I don't know what's more annoying, that the author has an agenda or if they really are that stupid. They'd have to be living in a hole to not know what China and Russia are doing with their nuclear forces. (Then again I'd be surprised if they knew anymore than, "US nukes are bad, and this is why".)

 

[Triton]

"Say No to New, Smaller Nuclear Weapons"
by Jon Wolfsthal
November 22, 2017

Source:
https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/say-no-new-smaller-nuclear-weapons/

 

[Grey Havoc]

'Useful idiots' are by no means in short supply.

 

[sferrin]

'Useful idiots' are by no means in short supply.

x2 Doesn't matter what it is, when it comes to nuclear, anything the US does (aside from scrapping them) is "destabilizing" will "usher in a new arms race" are "unaffordable" (a particularly stupid argument), etc. for some people. Russia and China can do whatever they want and it doesn't get any attention whatsoever from that crowd.

 

[kaiserd]

Both articles above, while definitely coming from specific perspectives that may not match with mine or yours, are relative balanced in that they acknowledge differing opinions and don’t give straw-men versions of the counter argument for their general central thrust.

In particular I would wonder if you would have different reactions to the Reuters article if it had a different headline. Its actual content is more balanced than your reactions would suggest.

The warontherocks article is more directly a polemic-style argument from a very specific perspective. I wouldn’t agree with parts of it but it is a good version of the argument it is trying to make.

You may not agree with them but they are clearly not fools.
If you disagree with them then calling them names but not making better arguments than them doesn't come across as the wisest or most productively choice.

 

[sferrin]

If you disagree with them then calling them names but not making better arguments than them doesn't come across as the wisest or most productively choice.

What would be the point? If I actually thought it wouldn't fall on deaf ears I might bother, but where their entire position rests on the size of a weapon, what is the point? Seriously. There have been tiny nukes for half a century and it didn't start WWIII, nor did the USSR care about them in the least. Since almost the very beginning the trend in warhead size has been down. None of this is news but suddenly, "OMG small nukes BAD!". Really? There was a time when many, if not most, missiles had a nuclear version. There was nearly a nuclear version of Maverick. Little John was half the size of ATACMs, and not much heavier than an MLRS rocket. Then the other article going on about how the US is "stoking a new arms race" when the vast majority of our nuclear weapons are bordering on decrepitude while both Russia and China are sporting brand new nuclear delivery systems, almost across the board. But it's the US's fault? Yeah. Definitely working with some rational people there.

 

[kaiserd]

If you disagree with them then calling them names but not making better arguments than them doesn't come across as the wisest or most productively choice.

What would be the point? If I actually thought it wouldn't fall on deaf ears I might bother, but where their entire position rests on the size of a weapon, what is the point? Seriously. There have been tiny nukes for half a century and it didn't start WWIII, nor did the USSR care about them in the least. Since almost the very beginning the trend in warhead size has been down. None of this is news but suddenly, "OMG small nukes BAD!". Really? There was a time when many, if not most, missiles had a nuclear version. There was nearly a nuclear version of Maverick. Little John was half the size of ATACMs, and not much heavier than an MLRS rocket. Then the other article going on about how the US is "stoking a new arms race" when the vast majority of our nuclear weapons are bordering on decrepitude while both Russia and China are sporting brand new nuclear delivery systems, almost across the board. But it's the US's fault? Yeah. Definitely working with some rational people there.

I would encourage readers and contributors on this site to actually read the articles referenced above and make your own determinations.

 

[marauder2048]

Both articles above, while definitely coming from specific perspectives that may not match with mine or yours, are relative balanced in that they acknowledge differing opinions and don’t give straw-men versions of the counter argument for their general central thrust.

The warontherocks article completely misrepresents the Harvey article Russian nuclear first-use scenario and
makes many unsubstantiated claims about US and Russian conventional capabilities.

It then blithely asserts that you can somehow offset nuclear inferiority with conventional superiority.

Of course it was written by a former member of the Obama administration who is now confronted
with being completely and utterly wrong about the 2010 NPR predictions.

The Reuters article is similarly unbalanced thanks to being front-loaded with former members
of or advisors to the Obama administration who are also being confronted with
failed predictions and policies.

 

[Grey Havoc]

There's no end to the insanity, I'm afraid: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-icbm-specialreport/special-report-nuclear-strategists-call-for-bold-move-scrap-icbm-arsenal-idUSKBN1DM1D2

 

[bobbymike]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/22/defense-spending-bill-gets-right-nuclear-missile-defense/

 

[sferrin]

There's no end to the insanity, I'm afraid: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-icbm-specialreport/special-report-nuclear-strategists-call-for-bold-move-scrap-icbm-arsenal-idUSKBN1DM1D2

Yep. "Insane" is the correct term to use here. The US ought to just come right out and say, "look, we have to ability to VISUALLY confirm an attack. There is never going to be an accidental nuclear strike launched due to a damn glitch." You'll note, they don't make any arguments for Russia and China getting rid of their ICBMs. The solution to their imagined problem would be mobile ICBMs. I'm sure they'd be onboard with that.

"Skeptics of the modernization program also have cited the new U.S. president’s impulsiveness as further reason for opposing the hair-trigger ICBM fleet. The enormously consequential decision to launch, said Perry, requires a president with a cool and rational personality. “I’m particularly concerned if the person lacks experience, background, knowledge and temperament” to make the decision, he said.

This month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to discuss the president’s authority to launch a first-strike nuclear attack. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts has called for that authority to be curbed, though such a break with decades of practice doesn’t have broad support.

“Donald Trump can launch nuclear codes just as easily as he can use his Twitter account,” said Markey. “I don’t think we should be trusting the generals to be a check on the president.” "

And there it is, the attempt to scare the gullible into thinking Trump has a red button installed on his smart phone next to his Twitter icon so he can launch a nuclear strike anytime somebody makes fun of his hair. It was never about "ICBMs are risky" it was all an attempt to argue for neutering the President's authority because their guy didn't win.

 

[kaiserd]

There's no end to the insanity, I'm afraid: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-icbm-specialreport/special-report-nuclear-strategists-call-for-bold-move-scrap-icbm-arsenal-idUSKBN1DM1D2

Yep. "Insane" is the correct term to use here. The US ought to just come right out and say, "look, we have to ability to VISUALLY confirm an attack. There is never going to be an accidental nuclear strike launched due to a damn glitch." You'll note, they don't make any arguments for Russia and China getting rid of their ICBMs. The solution to their imagined problem would be mobile ICBMs. I'm sure they'd be onboard with that.

"Skeptics of the modernization program also have cited the new U.S. president’s impulsiveness as further reason for opposing the hair-trigger ICBM fleet. The enormously consequential decision to launch, said Perry, requires a president with a cool and rational personality. “I’m particularly concerned if the person lacks experience, background, knowledge and temperament” to make the decision, he said.

This month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to discuss the president’s authority to launch a first-strike nuclear attack. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts has called for that authority to be curbed, though such a break with decades of practice doesn’t have broad support.

“Donald Trump can launch nuclear codes just as easily as he can use his Twitter account,” said Markey. “I don’t think we should be trusting the generals to be a check on the president.” "

And there it is, the attempt to scare the gullible into thinking Trump has a red button installed on his smart phone next to his Twitter icon so he can launch a nuclear strike anytime somebody makes fun of his hair. It was never about "ICBMs are risky" it was all an attempt to argue for neutering the President's authority because their guy didn't win.

I am not looking to get political on this point.
While I personally advocate the nuclear deterrent it critics and sceptics have a point in relation to quality and mindset of the individual who ultimately gets to make the decision to use/ not use it.
It’s the one part of the deterrent “system” most wrapped up with human nature and strengths and weaknesses of the one individual.
So, for example some people would have potentially justifiable concerns about one politician too readily using the deterrent while in an another scenario other people would have potentially justifiable concerns about another politician being too reticent to use the deterrent.
I very much hope concerns about the current US President in this regard prove to be incorrect.
It is unfair and inaccurate to assume alterrior motives for all such concerns; much of the world, including much of the US’s closest friends and allies, share them.

 

[Arjen]

What a bunch of BS that this topic was going to be a general non-political discussion of nuclear weapons.

This is, and has been so since the beginning, a political thread.

 

[bobbymike]

Policy DOES NOT equal politics.

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/361152-cbos-fuzzy-math-on-nuclear-defense-modernization-exaggerates-cost

In reality, the actual cost likely to be incurred to modernize our nuclear deterrent posture, now more than five decades old for the most part, will be less than $399 billion. Over the course of a future time span of 30 years, that will average out to be less than $13.3 billion dollars per year.

In Fiscal Year 2017, the U.S. government spent $1.005 trillion on Social Security, $582 billion on Medicare, $404 billion on Medicaid and $48.9 billion on housing assistance. The likely cost to modernize the backbone of our nation’s security should be less than a third per year of what the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) now hands out to subsidize rent.