Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[sferrin]

Official unsure of where Iran's enriched uranium is stored

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-11-13-52-35

I. Am. Shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

[Rickshaw]

Re: Official unsure of where Iran's enriched uranium is stored

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-11-13-52-35

I. Am. Shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Why?

 

[bobbymike]

Still Time For Debate on Nuclear Deterrent


—John A. Tirpak2/16/2016

​The US nuclear deterrent will run aground in 2022, but there’s “still time” to have a national debate on whether the country needs to replace it on a one-for-one basis, the Air Force’s requirements and planning chief said Friday. Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes told reporters the Air Force already has its hands full recapitalizing the airborne leg of the nuclear triad with a new bomber, cruise missile, and B61 nuclear bomb, but the need to recapitalize the Minuteman III ICBM, as well as what he called the “fourth leg” of the triad—the Nuclear Command and Control system, which USAF also manages—will break the bank. “Our problems really start to get unmanageable in ’22, as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program advances,” he said. “We’d like to have a national debate on, what does 21st century deterrence actually mean? We know there’s still a nuclear component to it, but is it the same?” The cyber and conventional deterrent needs to be considered as well, he said, because Russia’s moves in the Ukraine have illustrated that it’s “hard for us to intervene without triggering a nuclear response.” Fully funding triad replacement will cut deeply into conventional force funds, he said. “That’s a decision the country has to make, what the right number is ... We’ll either have to put more money into it, or accept risk on the conventional side, or decide that 21st century deterrence is different, and make some choices.” (See also: Investing in Deterrence.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/02/23/u-s-military-is-gutted-as-china-and-russia-prepare-for-war/

Part 3 audio some nuclear discussion

 

[bobbymike]

Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion what we would consider defence spending is not what the officials and politicos in Washington, even those nominally in the Department of Defense, consider to be defence spending. For example, they have no problem spending money like water on things like the various diversity directorates and white elephants like the F-35. But things like decent working hardware? Actual standing forces rather than token deployments or even paper formations? Soldiers pay and benefits? Reversing ongoing cuts in real Research & Development? No way in hell according to their logic. Even at a time when the various foes of the United States are cleaning her clock, so to speak. :

Air Force to start Long-Range Standoff Weapon production by 2026

February 23, 2016

The chief of Air Force Global Strike Command reaffirmed the service's commitment to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon after announcing plans to begin production of the Air-Launched Cruise Missile replacement in 2026 and reach initial operational capability by 2030.

Gen. Robin Rand announced the weapon's time line during a Feb. 9 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing. The IOC and production dates had not been previously available publicly, including in fiscal year 2017 budget justification documents.

The Air Force maintains it is on track for the IOC date, despite a shift in the program's acquisition time line and a funding decrease in the service's proposed FY-17 budget. In that proposal, the Air Force delayed the program's milestone A review from the first quarter of FY-16 to the second quarter, arguing the move would allow the service "a realistic manpower and facilities ramp-up," Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Melissa Milner wrote in a Feb. 12 email to Inside the Air Force. The service also pushed the technology, maturation and risk-reduction phase from the first quarter of FY-16 into the third quarter of FY-17, according to budget documents.

The program's budget also took a hit due to a delay in executing the TMRR phase. Congress removed $20.5 million in FY-16 tied to supporting events in that phase and removed $38.1 million for the specific TMRR contract, budget documents state.

Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters during a Feb. 12 roundtable that the LRSO was funded to the service's estimated cost, which changes from year to year.

"The acquisition decision cycle does not always line up with the budget decision cycle," he said. "So new service cost positions are driven to meet an acquisition [Defense Acquisition Board] that are inconvenient in a budget environment where you already got a budget built and now it goes up or down and you have to make changes."

Despite the decrease, the Air Force says its IOC date has not changed. The service also solidified its commitment to the program in its proposed budget with a major funding request beginning in FY-18. The Air Force expects to ask for $419 million in FY-18 and $649 million in FY-19, according to budget documents.

"In this increasingly contested environment that we will be operating in, we need LRSO," Rand said. "The Air Force is committed to this. It is in our 2017 budget, and it is funded fairly strongly for the [Future Years Defense Program]."

The Long-Range Standoff Weapon would replace the nuclear-armed AGM-86B ALCM. The weapon would be deployed through the 2060s and the Air Force has plans to procure between 1,000 and 1,110 LRSOs, about double the size of the existing ALCM fleet, according to a fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association last May.

The weapon system will be able to penetrate and survive advanced integrated Air Defense Systems from a significant range, according to the Defense Department's FY-17 budget request. The continued funding also confirms that the Air Force has no plans to set aside the new nuclear-armed missile concept, despite calls from some Democrats in Congress to scrap the program. Last December, eight Senate Democrats issued a letter to President Obama urging him to terminate the LRSO plan, arguing the missile could destabilize relations with other nuclear-armed states. 174914

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities Robert Scher pushed back against that criticism from arms control groups during the Feb. 9 Senate hearing.

"I think the LRSO is a continuation of an existing weapon," he said. "So I would argue that it is not inherently destabilizing, as it is a weapon that already has existed."

What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!

 

[Rickshaw]

What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!

And what makes you think they don't? Are you so scared of the North Koreans or the Chinese that you feel they're about to attack tonight?

 

[sferrin]

Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it.

I wonder if it would cost more than losing a nuclear war? I'm thinking not.

 

[sferrin]

What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!

And what makes you think they don't? Are you so scared of the North Koreans or the Chinese that you feel they're about to attack tonight?

Wow. Just. . .wow.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The current occupant of the Oval Office may have a (now much frayed) mantra of 'Hope and Change'; However, hopping that your enemies will not clobber you is not a viable strategy. To put it mildly.

 

[Rickshaw]

The current occupant of the Oval Office may have a (now much frayed) mantra of 'Hope and Change'; However, hopping that your enemies will not clobber you is not a viable strategy. To put it mildly.

You don't think the 7,100 nuclear warheads the USA has at it's disposal might influence their thinking somewhat?

Or do you perceive them as mirror images to yourself?

You have heard of the concept of "deterrence" haven't you? You don't think that other nations might not want to destroy their major trading partner and risk their own nation's destruction (along with a good slice of the world)?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Quite apart from the fact that the 7,100 warhead figure is not what it seems (hint: deployed and/or maintained warheads, not to mention still extant delivery systems), the 'major trading partners won't go to war' theory has long since been debunked. And even during it's heyday in the 1990s, the theory was pretty shaky on historical grounds alone; For example, look at who France's major trading partner was just prior to the outbreak of World War II. Or who the Soviet Union's was before Operation Barbarossa kicked off...

In reality, Russia does arguably have the advantage in both operational warheads and the range of available delivery systems. And that's even before you get to the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. What the United States has is both an extremely rusty saber and a crisis in the current system of command & control, both in it's uniformed and civilian components. The latter problem of course has in turn worsened (and at least in part, directly caused in the first place) already critical problems in R&D and procurement/industrial infrastructure, which all means that a credible US counter to Russia (or China for that matter), deterrence or otherwise, is currently not on the cards in the short term.

The rest of NATO is no better.

So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.

 

[Rickshaw]

Quite apart from the fact that the 7,100 warhead figure is not what it seems (hint: deployed and/or maintained warheads, not to mention still extant delivery systems), the 'major trading partners won't go to war' theory has long since been debunked. And even during it's heyday in the 1990s, the theory was pretty shaky on historical grounds alone; For example, look at who France's major trading partner was just prior to the outbreak of World War II. Or who the Soviet Union's was before Operation Barbarossa kicked off...

Agreed but and it is a mighty big BUT, today we have economic rationalists in control of the world (for the most part) and they realise that war is bad for business. As all nations which oppose the USA have fewer warheads and delivery systems than the USA, I rather think they realise that they would be much, much, much, worse off in any nuclear exchange with the USA.

In reality, Russia does arguably have the advantage in both operational warheads and the range of available delivery systems. And that's even before you get to the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. What the United States has is both an extremely rusty saber and a crisis in the current system of command & control, both in it's uniformed and civilian components. The latter problem of course has in turn worsened (and at least in part, directly caused in the first place) already critical problems in R&D and procurement/industrial infrastructure, which all means that a credible US counter to Russia (or China for that matter), deterrence or otherwise, is currently not on the cards in the short term.

The rest of NATO is no better.

So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.

I don't see why. Russia is weaker economically and militarily. When faced with no opposition, Putin might prevail but I simply cannot see ANY American government willing to put up with Putin's shenanigans against it's core interests. Russia does not have an advantage, its nuclear forces are older and more poorly maintained than the US's. Russia has also proved that it understands the risks of nuclear war far better than Washington does.

In reality, you would need a complete madman or woman in charge of either Russia or the PRC or North Korea. We have no evidence of that. What we have is evidence of some very hard thinking, hard calculating people who have explored just how far they can go and know the consequences if they go further.

The reality is that the USA is as safe as houses from a nuclear attack from any government as long as it maintains parity with it's largest adversary.

 

[sferrin]

So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.

If we unilaterally disarm I'm sure China and Russia will do the same.

 

[bobbymike]

HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the nuclear posture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q58h0kUP9w

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force: National nuclear modernization fund should support all three legs of the triad

March 07, 2016

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said Monday that any national-level fund to support the Defense Department's nuclear triad modernization should encompass all three legs rather than a single program.

As the department aims to modernize the nuclear triad over the next few decades, some in the department and on Capitol Hill have advocated for a national-level fund to support and protect those efforts. The Navy has already established a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to support its Ohio-class Replacement submarine program, and the Air Force has expressed interest in working with Congress to develop a similar construct to support its new B-21 bomber and an intercontinental ballistic missile replacement effort.

During a March 7 briefing at the Pentagon, James said that if DOD and lawmakers decide that establishing a separate fund for nuclear modernization is the right direction to go, it would make sense that the fund include support for all three replacement efforts.

“Certainly if there is to be a fund for a nuclear modernization, it seems to me appropriate that it be for all three legs of the triad and not just for one leg of the triad,” James said. “So if indeed that is the approach that is selected, it seems to me that ought to be a joint fund.”

James said the deeper question centers around the source of any additional money. Current top-line budgets are too low to support the planned modernization efforts, and the department faces a funding bow wave in the early 2020s.

“It's a question of what kind of a military do the American people want going forward,” James said. “I believe we need these programs. And we're just going to have to get this squared away.”

The service last October awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to develop and produce the B-21 bomber, a program that analysts predict will cost around $100 billion over the course of its life cycle. Many details about the program remain veiled -- including the total contract value -- but James on Monday revealed the names of eight key suppliers.

Most notably, military engine producer Pratt & Whitney will develop the B-21's engine. The company also builds the engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, among other platforms, and is working with the Air Force to mature advanced engine technology.

Airframe and mission systems suppliers include: BAE, GKN Aerospace, Janicki Industries, Orbital ATK, Rockwell Collins and Spirit Aerosystems.

James said the Air Force released the supplier details out of an effort to be more transparent about the program, and she said she expects more details will be released in the future.

The service has taken some heat in recent weeks from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ), who has questioned the Air Force's decision to award a cost-plus contract for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program.

Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force's military deputy for acquisition, told reporters Monday that the contract was structured in this way in order to place great emphasis on cost and performance requirements. Bunch would not disclose information about the amount of the incentive fee that would be available to Northrop, but said it increases as the development program matures.

“The fee early on the schedule will be lower,” he said. “It will be dramatically larger as we get more toward the end and we start really trying to deliver the aircraft and we start doing the test program.”

Bunch noted that the service had planned to award a cost-plus contract for some time and briefed members of Congress on several occasions in classified and open sessions. He said that during those briefings, the service did not receive any information that would cause it to change its course.

“We've been briefing for many years, since the inception of the program, the staffs to keep them in the know -- in a classified environment where we could lay all the cards out on the table,” Bunch said. “We've been transparent with multiple meetings over the last few years where we've outlined our strategy and our way forward, and we've been consistent with our message even before we released the request for proposal.”

Asked if the service would consider opening the B-21 to foreign military sales, Bunch said the Air Force is not discussing such a move at this point in the program, but may explore that option in the future.
____________________________________________________________________________________
I've been an advocate for this for a long time a Nuclear Deterrence Agency like the MDA to fund all things nuclear including the nuke enterprise, existing warhead upgrades and new next generation warheads.

 

[sferrin]

Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words. I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh?? Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations.

 

[bobbymike]

Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words. I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh?? Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations.

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/nuclear-cruise-missile-opponents-are-pushing-a-dangerous-line/

 

[Rickshaw]

Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words. I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh?? Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations.

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that. He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991... :

 

[bobbymike]

Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words. I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh?? Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations.

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that. He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991... :

Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!

 

[Rickshaw]

Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!

As the Cold War has been over now for 15 years, no, I didn't "get that". I don't live in the past. Today is a completely different, multi-polar world, where nuclear weapons don't rule the thinking of most people.

 

[sferrin]

Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words. I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh?? Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations.

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that. He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991... :

Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!

Shhhh. He totally slayed you in his own mind.

 

[Rickshaw]

Shhhh. He totally slayed you in his own mind.

Must upset you enormously...

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/why-bombers-are-key-to-nuke-modernization-think-russia-north-korea-china/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/11/the_nuclear_arms_race_is_alive_and_well_109131.html

 

[bobbymike]

AFA-NDIA-ROA: The Benefits of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence: Modernizing the Triad and Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise, March 11, 2016, Bangor, Washington

7:30-8:00 Registration and Buffet breakfast.

8:00-8:10 Welcoming Remarks from Rear Admiral David Kriete, Commander, Submarine Group 9.

8:10-8:15 Introductory Remarks by Peter Huessy, President, Geo-Strategic Analysis, and Senior Defense Consultant, Mitchell Institute, Air Force Association.

8:15-9:00 Brad Roberts, Lawrence Livermore National Lab – “The Case for Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.”

9:00-9:45 Peter Huessy, Senior Defense Consultant, Air Force Association and Mitchell Institute, and President, GeoStrategic Analysis: "Review of Nuclear Deterrent Modernization Alternatives".

9:45-10:30 Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director, SSP: ORP update; Navy-Air Force collaboration on strategic systems; & UK Trident replacement.

10:30-10:45 Break.

10:45-11:30 Panel: Todd Harrison, Director, Defense Budget Analysis, CSIS; and Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, CSIS.

11:35-12:30 Panel: Matthew Kroenig, Associate Professor, Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; and Tom Karako, Senior Fellow, ISP/CSIS.

12:30-1:00 Break and Lunch Starts.

1:00-1:45 Luncheon Keynote - Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command: "Strategic Deterrence in an Uncertain World"

1:50-2:40 Lt Gen Jack Weinstein, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, USAF Headquarters: "The Value of ICBMs and Bombers: Communicating Strategic Requirements".

2:40-3:10 Rear Admiral Charles A. Richard, Director, Undersea Warfare Division (N97): "Deterrence Update: The State of the Ohio Replacement Program".

3:10 Farewell and thank you by Peter R. Huessy.

Conclusion - Tour participants proceed to buses in front of hotel.

Optional tour of Naval Base and SSBN (Registration for the tour is now closed.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting event.

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/03/rethinking-armageddon/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/14/why_do_us_nuclear_force_numbers_matter_for_deterrence_109136.html

 

[bobbymike]

Needed Nuclear Investment

—Brian Everstine

3/15/2016

Even though the Defense Department is looking to double the amount it spends on its nuclear arsenal, the total number is still just a fraction of the Pentagon’s overall budget and the funds must be protected, the head of US Strategic Command said. The issue isn’t if the US can afford keeping a nuclear triad, it’s “can we afford not to,” STRATCOM chief Adm. Cecil Haney said March 11 at an Air Force Association-, National Defense Industry Association-, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. The Defense Department currently spends about three percent of its total budget on its nuclear capability, but that number is expected to increase to six or seven percent through 2020 into the 2030s as the Pentagon invests in programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and the Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear submarines. However, those numbers do not reflect the “conventional piece” on top of that, including human capital and support equipment, noted Haney. (See also: Still Time for Debate on Nuclear Deterrent.)

Keeping the Treaties With Russia

—Brian Everstine

3/15/2016

​While Russia has done enough to comply with the New START treaty so far, the country’s approach to other treaties and continued emphasis on its arsenal is “problematic,” said Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of US Strategic Command. The US has had ample access through New START to review Russia’s nuclear arsenal, including conducting Open Skies flights and 18 inspections each year, said Haney on March 11 at an Air Force Association-, National Defense Industry Association-, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. “That transparency is important, inspections are important,” he added. While Russia has kept with New START, it has not kept with demands of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which requires Russia to eliminate medium- to short-range weapons, Haney said. Russia has also been focused on keeping its arsenal updated, and especially keeping it “mobile” and not in fixed sites. “The world’s gone mobile and gone underground,” Haney said, emphasizing that the US needs to “maintain strategic stability.”

 

[bobbymike]

Carter supports creation of national nuclear deterrence fund

Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee he would favor the creation of a national nuclear deterrence fund to address the Defense Department's coming “bow wave” of triad modernization expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16391.msg157554.html#msg157554

Been calling for this for years my first post was in 2010.

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/17/document-report-to-congress-on-u-s-strategic-nuclear-forces-2

Read the brief history of disarmament since 1991 over 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads.

 

[bobbymike]

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/03/17/validating-sea-based-strategic-deterrence/

 

[bobbymike]

Russia’s Puzzling Saber Rattling

—Amy McCullough3/23/2016

​Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of state for arms control and security, said she was "disturbed" by Russia's recent "nuclear saber rattling," saying it's "simply unwarranted and doesn't make any sense whatsoever." Former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on March 19 said, "We have less nuclear warheads, but the risk of them being used is growing, " reported Reuters. Ivanov served as Russia's foreign minister from 1998 to 2004 and now leads a Moscow-based, state-run think tank. Gottemoeller told reporters Tuesday in Washington, D.C., that she was "frankly puzzled" by the comments "because we believe that deterrence is stable between our countries." While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."


Vladimir I'm disturbed and puzzled by your unwarranted nuclear sabre rattling!

Early START

—Amy McCullough3/23/2016

​Although the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia doesn’t expire until 2021, a senior State Department official said she already is “urging” her Russian counterparts to think about “what comes next.” The treaty, known as New START, limits both countries to 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on 700 ICBMs, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable bombers. “The value of the New START treaty, especially during this period of bilateral crisis with the Russian federation, is that it lends a considerable level of mutual predictability,” said Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of State for arms control and security. Gottemoeller was the US’ chief negotiator on the treaty, under which Russia must notify the US when it takes an ICBM out of deployed status for maintenance, and the US must notify Russia when one of its nuclear-capable bombers deploys from its home base for more than 24 hours. “We’ve continued to say to the Russians, ‘We need to think about the future,’” she said.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.thewrap.com/tribeca-film-festival-adds-multimedia-nuclear-weapon-experience-the-bomb/

Of course by the looks of the panel this will be a total one sided hit job but I'd go just to watch nukes go off surrounded by a 360' screen. I would totally wreck the event by cheering each explosion ;D

But it would also be interesting because when arms control at any cost zealots like Joe Cirincione has a captive, largely ignorant, audience his hyperbole and general levels of obfuscation are almost laughable. I wonder how many times they'll say "Cold War arsenal" despite a close to 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads since 1991.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.thewrap.com/tribeca-film-festival-adds-multimedia-nuclear-weapon-experience-the-bomb/

Of course by the looks of the panel this will be a total one sided hit job but I'd go just to watch nukes go off surrounded by a 360' screen. I would totally wreck the event by cheering each explosion ;D

But it would also be interesting because when arms control at any cost zealots like Joe Cirincione has a captive, largely ignorant, audience his hyperbole and general levels of obfuscation are almost laughable. I wonder how many times they'll say "Cold War arsenal" despite a close to 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads since 1991.

It's depressing how stupidly naive, and ignorant the West is when it comes to nuclear weapons.

 

[sferrin]

While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-bad-time-to-cut-u-s-nuclear-capability-1458857659-lMyQjAxMTA2OTIyNTMyNTUwWj

Another National Institute of Public Policy scholar, along with Dr. Keith Payne and Dr. Mark Schneider, strong advocates for maintaining a safe, reliable AND credible nuclear deterrent.

 

[bobbymike]

While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.

It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.

 

[sferrin]

While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.

It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do. I mean damn. Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".