Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[Jemiba]

Folks, this constant "you have ... !", followed by "but you have, too !" becomes a bit tiring indeed !
The start promised a kind of technical discussion about nuclear weapons and their use and actually I can find
posts, that keep this promise ... but, as Arjen pointed out, it more or less is and was a political thread.
And it's the thread with the highest number of reports, because someone has offended or denigrated someone
else again and again ....
BUT, as this is the closest to a political thread, we have here, someone who cannot stand to be treated, as it is usual
in nearly all politic institutions, I've heard of, perhaps simply shouldn't participate/post here.
Nevertheless, I remind to https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25404.msg317076.html#msg317076.
And I'm still optimistic, that there is the possibility, that on one side the members of this forum actually are capable of discussing
such themes in a reasonable manner and on the other side, are capable of swallowing unpleasant things, like, say,
when someone absolutely won't share one's opinion ...

 

[sferrin]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/declassified-cold-war-files-reveal-how-soviets-sneaked-behind-enemy-submarines-without-sonar-1648945

Guess we should probably keep those ICBMs.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/declassified-cold-war-files-reveal-how-soviets-sneaked-behind-enemy-submarines-without-sonar-1648945

Guess we should probably keep those ICBMs.

No we should assume that SSBNs will be invulnerable forever but even if they're not in a couple of decades when 2040 rolls around and we need new ICBMs it will just take a couple years to research, develop, build and deploy new ones, right? :

 

[Brickmuppet]

i do wonder, from a technical standpoint if a small mobile ICBM like Midgetman would be more "future proofed" (and economical) than an SSBN and ICBMs in silos.

The 'great SCUD hunt' during operation Desert Storm in which the coalition forces had so much trouble finding Iraqi mobile missile launchers seems illustative. The coalition forces enjoyed near total air supremacy, a decade or more in technological supremacy over the Soviet export kit the Iraquis had and the Iraqis were hiding trucks in a big open desert, yet the attempt to destroy those weapons via a wide range of crackerjack NATO close air support units was slow and incomplete, indeed a SCUD inflicted the majority of US casualties (albiet after being knocked off course by an ABM).

In the US we have vast rural areas equipped with trees and we could build underground highways along the lines of what the Chinese seem to be doing. It seems that 900-1200 single warhead missiles dispersed throughout the lower 48 and Alaska, on hardened mobile launchers, would present a very real headache to an enemies counterforce targeting problems. The rest of the 1550 strategic warheads could be dispersed between long range bombers and perhaps carrier aircraft. Given that the Midgetman was sucsessfully tested, it's almost off the shelf. At any rate there are now numerous private rocket companies in addition to LockMart that could compete to produce something approaching the early '90s state of the art. At the very least, it would seem potentially cheaper and potentially more survivable than the current projects. The "cheaper" is a nontrivial matter given the 21 trillion dollar debt the US is facing.

I'm a layman in these issues so I'm curious what others here have to say.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/11/cyber-and-space-weapons-are-making-nuclear-deterrence-trickier/142767/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

 

[NeilChapman]

I am not looking to get political on this point.

Of course you are. But it's ok to be political. As in any reasonable discussion, expect a response to the points you made.

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.

I take it that "critics and skeptics" don't believe the US representative democracy is in a good position to ensure the "Quality" and understand the "Mindset" of the individual elected. Perhaps the "critics and skeptics" have proposed a different model about which you might elucidate?

It sounds like you're saying that if "critics and skeptics" (this doesn't include you, of course) don't like the outcome of the election then it is OK to make inflammatory statements and play into the fear, uncertainty and doubt of the "critics and skeptics" voting bloc. Especially since there is an election next year.

I get this is "political hardball", but these statements shouldn't be passed it off as legitimate concern. "Critics and skeptics" of the "critics and skeptics" could characterize your reasoning as passive aggressive.

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.

This doesn't make any sense. Too readily "using" what deterrent? Nuclear weapons haven't been used since WWII.

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.

You're inferring that "much of the world, including much of the US's closest friends and allies" have voiced concern about "the current US President" doing...what? Since this is a thread about nuclear weapons we'll assume you mean using nuclear weapons.

So that we're on the same page, to which "much of the US's closest friends and allies" are you referring?

 

[sferrin]

For politics, as it relates to nuclear weapons, please take it here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29755.msg319569/topicseen.html#msg319569

 

[Rickshaw]

It is not, in my opinion, possible to divorce nuclear weapons from the politics that surround them. Be it their development, their employment or the rationale as to their existence. To attempt to, causes human involvement to cease. Essentially, you are starting from a pre-determined position - that nuclear weapons must exist and as the world knows, that cannot happen. Even in the USA, Russia and the UK and France, there are political movements to end the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[bobbymike]

Despite the hyperbolic title really about Russian systems.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/28/putin_nukes_trump_112689.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=dffed99fde-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_11_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-dffed99fde-81812733

 

[bobbymike]

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet

We do not know how heavy a payload this missile carried, but given the increase in range it seems likely that it carried a very light mock warhead. If true, that means it would be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier.

More hedges than the Normandy countryside.

I would say that there would be a high probability that if a pro-nuke/missile defense group said the opposite in such parsing language the UCS would condemn for irresponsible fear mongering.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/28/dod-detects-probable-missile-launch-from-north-korea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2011.29.2017&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

 

[sferrin]

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet

We do not know how heavy a payload this missile carried, but given the increase in range it seems likely that it carried a very light mock warhead. If true, that means it would be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier.

More hedges than the Normandy countryside.

I would say that there would be a high probability that if a pro-nuke/missile defense group said the opposite in such parsing language the UCS would condemn for irresponsible fear mongering.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/28/dod-detects-probable-missile-launch-from-north-korea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2011.29.2017&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

I especially like the tone of "we can procrastinate a bit longer". Then when NK actually HAS one it'll be, "ohhh, too late to do anything. A shame really" with loads of faux concern.

 

[bobbymike]

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/nk-longest-missile-test-yet

We do not know how heavy a payload this missile carried, but given the increase in range it seems likely that it carried a very light mock warhead. If true, that means it would be incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier.

More hedges than the Normandy countryside.

I would say that there would be a high probability that if a pro-nuke/missile defense group said the opposite in such parsing language the UCS would condemn for irresponsible fear mongering.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/28/dod-detects-probable-missile-launch-from-north-korea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2011.29.2017&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

I especially like the tone of "we can procrastinate a bit longer". Then when NK actually HAS one it'll be, "ohhh, too late to do anything. A shame really" with loads of faux concern.

You forgot that they’ll blame the US and say we should disarm.

 

[Rickshaw]

OH, and there I was thinking that the other thread was reserved for political comment. It appears this thread is only for political comment when it suits the posters' viewpoint.

 

[bobbymike]

Survivability, Reliability Driving Nuclear Modernization Efforts

In the Air Force’s ongoing efforts to modernize its nuclear forces, the service is focusing on survivability and reliability in its new systems, Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said Thursday at the Association of Old Crows Symposium in Washington, D.C. In pushing along the B-21 bomber, the Long Range Standoff Weapon, and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent programs, Rand said his primary goal is to “make sure there’s improvement over what we currently have in the survivability and reliability.” These two principles of deterrence are joined by a third, Rand said, which is “you have to have the will” to deploy the weapon in the first place. But he insisted that technical advances are crucial to the modernization efforts because “the enemy has closed the gap quickly” in nuclear technologies. —Wilson Brissett

Reducing the Stockpile, Not Platforms, to Lower Nuke Costs

The US government simply can’t afford the coming bill for nuclear modernization, and needs to take steps to reduce the stockpile while maintaining a credible deterrence, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday. The military will face a bill of $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to operate, modernize, and recapitalize its bomber fleet, cruise missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released Oct. 31. That overall bill is “way more than we need to spend for a credible nuclear deterrence,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) told reporters Thursday. Instead of looking to move away from a triad or reducing the number of platforms, the military should look at reducing the overall stockpile to reduce the overall cost. But, currently, there is not a strategy to meet the coming costs. “I don’t know where this ends, I just know that it doesn’t end well,” Smith said. “At some point, we don’t have money anymore.”—Brian Everstine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the deception of just presenting the cost number with no perspective as percentage of total defense budget or total government spending over the next 30 years. The US will probably spend 3-4 times as much on food stamps over the next 30 as on the total cost of operating and modernizing the Triad. Remember also that the modernization component is only about $400 billion of the $1.2 Trillion.

Also, I would bet that after the cost to disassemble the warheads the total savings would be minuscule over the next 30 years. Even if they saved $100 billion (doubtful) the government is set to spend over $200 Trillion during that same time.

 

[sferrin]

Survivability, Reliability Driving Nuclear Modernization Efforts

In the Air Force’s ongoing efforts to modernize its nuclear forces, the service is focusing on survivability and reliability in its new systems, Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said Thursday at the Association of Old Crows Symposium in Washington, D.C. In pushing along the B-21 bomber, the Long Range Standoff Weapon, and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent programs, Rand said his primary goal is to “make sure there’s improvement over what we currently have in the survivability and reliability.” These two principles of deterrence are joined by a third, Rand said, which is “you have to have the will” to deploy the weapon in the first place. But he insisted that technical advances are crucial to the modernization efforts because “the enemy has closed the gap quickly” in nuclear technologies. —Wilson Brissett

Reducing the Stockpile, Not Platforms, to Lower Nuke Costs

The US government simply can’t afford the coming bill for nuclear modernization, and needs to take steps to reduce the stockpile while maintaining a credible deterrence, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday. The military will face a bill of $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to operate, modernize, and recapitalize its bomber fleet, cruise missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released Oct. 31. That overall bill is “way more than we need to spend for a credible nuclear deterrence,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) told reporters Thursday. Instead of looking to move away from a triad or reducing the number of platforms, the military should look at reducing the overall stockpile to reduce the overall cost. But, currently, there is not a strategy to meet the coming costs. “I don’t know where this ends, I just know that it doesn’t end well,” Smith said. “At some point, we don’t have money anymore.”—Brian Everstine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the deception of just presenting the cost number with no perspective as percentage of total defense budget or total government spending over the next 30 years. The US will probably spend 3-4 times as much on food stamps over the next 30 as on the total cost of operating and modernizing the Triad. Remember also that the modernization component is only about $400 billion of the $1.2 Trillion.

Also, I would bet that after the cost to disassemble the warheads the total savings would be minuscule over the next 30 years. Even if they saved $100 billion (doubtful) the government is set to spend over $200 Trillion during that same time.

That should probably go over in the politics thread as it's almost certainly going to go to that topic.

 

[Arjen]

<delete>

 

[bobbymike]

Survivability, Reliability Driving Nuclear Modernization Efforts

In the Air Force’s ongoing efforts to modernize its nuclear forces, the service is focusing on survivability and reliability in its new systems, Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said Thursday at the Association of Old Crows Symposium in Washington, D.C. In pushing along the B-21 bomber, the Long Range Standoff Weapon, and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent programs, Rand said his primary goal is to “make sure there’s improvement over what we currently have in the survivability and reliability.” These two principles of deterrence are joined by a third, Rand said, which is “you have to have the will” to deploy the weapon in the first place. But he insisted that technical advances are crucial to the modernization efforts because “the enemy has closed the gap quickly” in nuclear technologies. —Wilson Brissett

Reducing the Stockpile, Not Platforms, to Lower Nuke Costs

The US government simply can’t afford the coming bill for nuclear modernization, and needs to take steps to reduce the stockpile while maintaining a credible deterrence, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday. The military will face a bill of $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to operate, modernize, and recapitalize its bomber fleet, cruise missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released Oct. 31. That overall bill is “way more than we need to spend for a credible nuclear deterrence,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) told reporters Thursday. Instead of looking to move away from a triad or reducing the number of platforms, the military should look at reducing the overall stockpile to reduce the overall cost. But, currently, there is not a strategy to meet the coming costs. “I don’t know where this ends, I just know that it doesn’t end well,” Smith said. “At some point, we don’t have money anymore.”—Brian Everstine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the deception of just presenting the cost number with no perspective as percentage of total defense budget or total government spending over the next 30 years. The US will probably spend 3-4 times as much on food stamps over the next 30 as on the total cost of operating and modernizing the Triad. Remember also that the modernization component is only about $400 billion of the $1.2 Trillion.

Also, I would bet that after the cost to disassemble the warheads the total savings would be minuscule over the next 30 years. Even if they saved $100 billion (doubtful) the government is set to spend over $200 Trillion during that same time.

That should probably go over in the politics thread as it's almost certainly going to go to that topic.

I’m trying to segment policy from politics as best I can but maybe walking too fine a line?

The amount you spend is policy to me as it reflects the systems being purchased and not to politics IMHO

 

[sferrin]

But what you spend your money on, defense or social programs, is a political issue. (And I think we know, if it can go political it will, so best to try not to walk that line IMO. That topic would fit right in in the other thread though.)

 

[bobbymike]

But what you spend your money on, defense or social programs, is a political issue. (And I think we know, if it can go political it will, so best to try not to walk that line IMO. That topic would fit right in in the other thread though.)

Thanks will do.

 

[fightingirish]

Here a podcast episode about nuclear weapons from November 26th, 2017. Maybe this episode features nothing really new for the most of you all - but still might be something for the long winter nights.

270 – Nuclear Weapons
In this episode we chat about the science and engineering involved in nuclear weapons. Our guest is Alex Wellerstein of the Stevens Institute of Technology.
We talk about atomic bombs as well as hydrogen bombs, how to refine the necessary fuels as well as a little bit of history. [...]

Link: http://omegataupodcast.net/270-nuclear-weapons/

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/a-second-nuclear-age

 

[bobbymike]

https://apnews.com/900859587c9c4f6db430c07b37aa7fa4/Questions-swirl-about-plutonium-pit-production-at-US-lab

80 pits by 2030 ?? The Nation of Trinity, Alamagordo, the Manhattan Project :'(

Here is a BoTAS article from the '80s

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Caplan_Resuming-Nuclear-Testing_Bad-Idea.pdf

https://warontherocks.com/2017/12/deterrence-retreat-cold-wars-core-principle-fell-fashion/

 

[sferrin]

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Caplan_Resuming-Nuclear-Testing_Bad-Idea.pdf

https://warontherocks.com/2017/12/deterrence-retreat-cold-wars-core-principle-fell-fashion/

Probably should stick those over in politics as those two look prime for heading that way. (Nuclear testing is obviously a good idea from a technical standpoint, there's no disputing that, but the political aspects. . .)

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Caplan_Resuming-Nuclear-Testing_Bad-Idea.pdf

https://warontherocks.com/2017/12/deterrence-retreat-cold-wars-core-principle-fell-fashion/

Probably should stick those over in politics as those two look prime for heading that way. (Nuclear testing is obviously a good idea from a technical standpoint, there's no disputing that, but the political aspects. . .)

Was going to initially but that thread was locked, sorry.

 

[sferrin]

http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Caplan_Resuming-Nuclear-Testing_Bad-Idea.pdf

https://warontherocks.com/2017/12/deterrence-retreat-cold-wars-core-principle-fell-fashion/

Probably should stick those over in politics as those two look prime for heading that way. (Nuclear testing is obviously a good idea from a technical standpoint, there's no disputing that, but the political aspects. . .)

Was going to initially but that thread was locked, sorry.

That was quick, and unsurprising. I just hope they stay away from this thread. Certainly we don't want to give a toe back into this thread, so probably best to keep those topics out of this one lest they manage to get this one locked too.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/6/china-confirms-df-41-missile-test/

 

[sferrin]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/6/china-confirms-df-41-missile-test/

Mobile, of course.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.heritage.org/missile-defense/commentary/russia-has-repeatedly-flouted-missile-treaty-its-time-scrap-it?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2017/12/12/trump-announces-pick-for-nuclear-weapons-czar/

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/IS-425.pdf

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ8GOaZ0cKY

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/IS-426-1.pdf

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/IS-426-1.pdf

Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

There is a case, within the presented argument, to be made for re-establishment of the USIA.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/17/trumps_security_strategy_and_the_new_nuclear_world_112793.html

Pentagon officials reportedly fear that Russia is planning to expand its own arsenal to as many as 8,000 deployed warheads a decade from now.

Department of Defense reports that China is “is developing and testing several new variants of missiles, forming additional missile units, retiring or upgrading older missile systems; and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses.” Furthermore, as the National Institute for Public Policy noted, “China is expanding its strategic nuclear forces; the question is the limit of that expansion,” the Obama administration estimated it to be “several hundred,” while some independent estimates are far higher.

Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council notes that over the past decade, “spending on US homeland missile defense has actually decreased by roughly 46 percent from $3.7 billion to $2 billion.”

And others continue to write how OUR modernization, that has not even really started yet, is destabilizing.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/12/26/30259

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/1/3/analysts-outline-options-to-cut-nuclear-forces

These 'we can save $100 billion over 30 years' stories when the federal government will spend over $190 TRILLION are redundant. By never putting spending in proportion to anything they are just being deceptive.

At 3% compounded growth in spending the US government will have a budget of ~$5.7 trillion in 2030 when nuke weapons spending is estimated at $50 billion/annum or 9/10ths of one percent.

If you had take home pay of $57k per annum and had to spend $500 for a key 'home security' upgrade would you say that's too expensive placing your home and family at risk?

 

[sferrin]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/1/3/analysts-outline-options-to-cut-nuclear-forces

These 'we can save $100 billion' over 30 years when the federal government will spend over $190 TRILLION are idiotically redundant. By never putting spending in proportion to anything they are just being deceptive.

At 3% compounded growth in spending the US government will have a budget of ~$5.7 trillion in 2030 when nuke weapons spending is estimated at $50 billion/annum or 9/10ths of one percent.

If you had take home pay of $57k per annum and had to spend $500 for a key 'home security' upgrade would you say that's too expensive placing your home and family at risk?

Yeah, I pretty much stay away from these faux "analysts".

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.sldinfo.com/necessity-and-proportionality-beyond-the-nuclear-threshold/

 

[lastdingo]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/1/3/analysts-outline-options-to-cut-nuclear-forces

These 'we can save $100 billion' over 30 years when the federal government will spend over $190 TRILLION are idiotically redundant. By never putting spending in proportion to anything they are just being deceptive.

At 3% compounded growth in spending the US government will have a budget of ~$5.7 trillion in 2030 when nuke weapons spending is estimated at $50 billion/annum or 9/10ths of one percent.

If you had take home pay of $57k per annum and had to spend $500 for a key 'home security' upgrade would you say that's too expensive placing your home and family at risk?

You are implying an unproved and unprovable assumption: That the alternative options provide less deterrence.

That assumption is self-evident only to those who greatly prefer to stay on the current path trajectory (conservative-minded people) and those who believe that more nukes = more security, regardless of everything else.

 

[marauder2048]

US to loosen nuclear weapons constraints and develop more 'usable' warheads

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen-nuclear-weapons-policy-and-develop-more-usable-warheads

This is regarding the first NPR in eight years. Including developing a new low yield Trident warhead. This latter development as it says in the article seems a bit pointless as the US already has low yield weapons and also why give away the position of your subs to use a low yield weapon anyway.

I’m assuming the D5 will have the same range (or greater if they use a single warhead configuration) so how is it more detectable am I missing something?

A DCA-based approach to low-yield delivery might invite retaliation against the airbase(s) that launched the attack.
Same with a GLCM or an IRBM.

As a related historical note, depressed trajectory SLBMs were proposed (and nearly accepted) as a counter to the SS-20/Backfire.