Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[sferrin]

Could be an interesting read:

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Nuclear-Proliferation-Transforming-Modernization/dp/1612348211?ie=UTF8&keywords=nuclear%20weapons&qid=1464367765&ref_=sr_1_70&s=books&sr=1-70

China is believed to have doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal, making it “the forgotten nuclear power,” as described in Foreign Affairs. Susan Turner Haynes analyzes China’s buildup and its diversification of increasingly mobile, precise, and sophisticated nuclear weapons. Haynes provides context and clarity on this complex global issue through an analysis of extensive primary source research and lends insight into questions about why China is the only nuclear weapon state recognized under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that continues to pursue qualitative and quantitative advancements to its nuclear force.

Through precipitous and unnecessary disarmament we have invited China to pursue parity which, in effect, gives our adversaries the potential for a much larger arsenal than ours. All this at a time our weapons are withering on the vine and our production capacity for new weapons is basically zero. Dangerous times lie ahead.

And we only have our corrupt, power hungry, and/or blind politicians to blame.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.voanews.com/content/military-looks-toward-replacement-nuclear-submarines/3347658.html

 

[bobbymike]

NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer

 

[bobbymike]

A little off topic but interesting read.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/the-ghosts-of-soviet-past-crawling-through-the-decayed-nuclear-missile-bases-of-the-ussr/

 

[sferrin]

NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer

Oh I wish that was open for comments. Head hurts with all the dumbth expressed therein.

 

[marauder2048]

NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer

Oh I wish that was open for comments. Head hurts with all the dumbth expressed therein.

It was also posted on defensenews.com

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2016/05/26/lrso-does-not-make-sense-nor-do-its-proposed-numbers/84969298/

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/05/extended-deterrence-in-the-second-nuclear-age/

What annoys me is that you read articles condemning the current modernization plan as being "a throwback to the Cold War" its proponents as out of touch "Cold Warriors" when we used to have more nukes in Europe than we now have in our entire arsenal.

If we are going down to 700 launchers and 1550 deployed warheads (and maybe 400 tactical nukes) is it too much to ask that we replace our 30+ years old delivery vehicles and keep a modern and robust weapons infrastructure to possibly hedge against future strategic surprises?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Russian Nuclear Challenge

—Will Skowronski6/1/2016


​Russia’s apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons in more situations could undermine NATO cohesion, a new Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment report found. “While NATO’s been progressively reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been more recently moving in the exact opposite direction,” author Evan Montgomery said Tuesday while introducing the report. Russian analysts, he said, believe the use of small-yield nuclear weapons would actually de-escalate a conflict by causing an adversary to back down. The new doctrine, Montgomery said, is creating an “emerging gap in the escalation ladder” and challenging US commitments in Europe. To deter Russia from engaging in nuclear coercion, the report proposes NATO incorporate additional nations, including Poland, into the nuclear delivery mission. The report notes many NATO members might see the move as too provocative, but might be open to Polish aircraft being stationed at bases where nuclear weapons are already stored. “So long as other NATO members are willing to host [US] nuclear weapons in peacetime and deliver them during a conflict, the unique structure of the alliance will continue to underpin the credibility of [US] extended deterrence,” Montgomery wrote.

 

[bobbymike]

From Heritage Foundation

Strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. A modern, flexible, and capable nuclear weapons posture is essential to keeping the U.S. safe, its allies assured, and its enemies deterred. In order to improve the U.S. strategic posture, Congress and the Pentagon should:

◦Oppose misguided arms reductions. Congress should not provide funding for implementation of agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage and that do not benefit U.S. national security—agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia is violating. Congress should not provide funding for unilateral nuclear weapons–reduction efforts while all other nuclear players are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.

◦Modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems are aging and in need of investment. If they are not modernized, the U.S. will soon have inadequate nuclear weapons infrastructure and inadequate nuclear delivery platforms. Further delays increase the overall costs of the programs and leave the U.S. less capable of responding to unexpected developments in the nuclear programs of other nations.

◦Consider the benefits of yield-producing experiments for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Conducting very-small-scale, yield-producing experiments would benefit the science that underpins the program, and the U.S. could gain important benefits; indeed, China and Russia are already conducting such experiments.[21]

◦Advance a “protect-and-defend” strategic posture. At the core of today’s world is a fundamental asymmetry between the values of the U.S. and the values of its adversaries. While the U.S. values the lives of its citizens, economic prosperity, and institutions, U.S. adversaries value leadership survival above all. The U.S. should develop precise means to credibly threaten that which its adversaries value, and deploy both passive and active defenses to remove the benefits that adversaries might gain by attacking the U.S. or its allies.

◦Re-evaluate U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon currently bases its nuclear posture on the notion that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”[22] In light of Russia’s demonstrated recklessness in Ukraine and its nuclear weapons modernization steps, this posture is no longer valid.

 

[sferrin]

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/05/extended-deterrence-in-the-second-nuclear-age/

What annoys me is that you read articles condemning the current modernization plan as being "a throwback to the Cold War" its proponents as out of touch "Cold Warriors" when we used to have more nukes in Europe than we now have in our entire arsenal.

Those are generally written by pacifists who would prefer no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power. It's their way of insulting those who would prefer America remained America. Just disgusting. Hell, we used to have more nukes in our air defense forces than we have in our entire inventory today. Genies, Nike Hercules, Bomarcs. . .between the three we were probably north of 3000 warheads just right there. Then there were nuclear Talos and Terrier. . .

 

[bobbymike]

This just ominously popped up on Twitter but Congressional Quarterly is a paid site can't read the full article.

Nuclear Modernization Plans May Change in Obama's Last Months

 

[sferrin]

Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election. The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on). If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump.

 

[bobbymike]

Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election. The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on). If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump.

My gut tells me the LRSO and GBSD are toast and all ICBMs will be withdrawn from service.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-nuclear-deterrence-challenge-in-asia-1465318715#livefyre-comment

 

[sferrin]

Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election. The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on). If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump.

My gut tells me the LRSO and GBSD is toast and all ICBMs will be withdrawn from service.

And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border. What would stop them? They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence.

 

[bobbymike]

Segment 2 Russian Nuke Modernization (although it is all interesting IMHO)

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/06/07/putins-neo-imperial-ambitions/

 

[bobbymike]

UK has 'secretly' upgraded Trident arsenal and developed an entirely new warhead, report finds (Daily Telegraph)

I'm a bit dubious about this report, especially given the timing...

On the nuclear weapons news thread probably at least a couple of years ago there was an article that there were many US scientists seconded to the British weapons program because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc.

The gist of the article was that this work was being done in the UK, maybe this is the fruits of their labor??

 

[sferrin]

"because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc."

You can't make this stuff up. <facepalm>

 

[SOC]

And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border. What would stop them? They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence.

I'm not sure they're putting SSNs on our boomers. An Ohio is still pretty damn hard to find, and if that was our primary deterrent you can bet that we'd have our own SSNs running interference.

They won't take Canada either (although Arctic region shenanigans are likely regardless...), Russia will only invade non-NATO members. Georgia, Ukraine, sorta Syria, and Kazakhstan may be next. And China will be happy to exert more influence over the parts of the South China Sea it thinks it owns rather than try and bother Canucks.

 

[bobbymike]

"because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc."

You can't make this stuff up. <facepalm>

Here are the relevant passage from the NDAA. Notice the conflicting wording however a nuke expert I talk to says it is impossible to do anything that isn't construed at 'new' or 'enhanced' that you don't have to spend money on. A single scientist/engineer allocated to work on a new design's salary has to be accounted for and therefore the Secretary of Energy has to request approval. That was his interpretation and this is what he does for a living.

 

[sferrin]

And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border. What would stop them? They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence.

I'm not sure they're putting SSNs on our boomers. An Ohio is still pretty damn hard to find, and if that was our primary deterrent you can bet that we'd have our own SSNs running interference.

They won't take Canada either (although Arctic region shenanigans are likely regardless...), Russia will only invade non-NATO members. Georgia, Ukraine, sorta Syria, and Kazakhstan may be next. And China will be happy to exert more influence over the parts of the South China Sea it thinks it owns rather than try and bother Canucks.

China has already tried to assert that it has claims to the Arctic Ocean area because (essentially) "we're a big modern country with lots of people and we demand it". Both Russia and China are in a, "let's see what we can get away with" mode and are pushing it as hard as possible. The Canada thing was this behavior taken to it's logical conclusion assuming the West continues to do nothing. Without drastic changes in Washington I don't see the US being willing to risk war with either China or Russia to save one of it's allies.

 

[kaiserd]

This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.

If China actually invades Canada you'l have the right to tell the rest of the World "told you so"; otherwise absolutely no point in trying to refute the fantasist arguments being put forward....

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/08/breedlove-u-s-russia-need-better-communications-tactical-nukes

 

[bobbymike]

Russians Violating New START Arms Treaty (The Washington Free Beacon)

Verify treaties hold Russia accountable? Sorry we're busy

http://freebeacon.com/issues/intelligence-community-holds-getting-inclusive-boots-rainbow-suits-breakout-sessions/

 

[sferrin]

Russians Violating New START Arms Treaty (The Washington Free Beacon)

Verify treaties hold Russia accountable? Sorry we're busy

http://freebeacon.com/issues/intelligence-community-holds-getting-inclusive-boots-rainbow-suits-breakout-sessions/

Not enough face-palms on the intertubes for that one. What a pathetic joke we've become.

 

[GTX]

This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[sferrin]

This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.

Ain't that the truth!

Yeah, god forbid we don't address a problem before it's too big to do anything about. Where would the fun be in that? : I mean I know it's fashionable to the self-appointed "intelligentsia" to fight for the right to lay one's head on the block (as well as their neighbors') but damn. But I'll bite. What is objectively unpossible regarding anything that's been mentioned here? Where is the "lunatic fringe"?

 

[GTX]

When people start talking about modern day USA or Canada being invaded due to an implied lack of weapons (nuclear or otherwise) we are well into this territory:

 

[sferrin]

When people start talking about modern day USA or Canada being invaded due to an implied lack of weapons (nuclear or otherwise) we are well into this territory:

Right, right. Because our current nuclear weapons will last forever and China and Russia are our best buds right? Sorry but anybody who thinks Canada would remain Canada, with the US stripped of it's nuclear weapons (read the thread), is a fool. And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded. (Like I said, read the thread.)

 

[GTX]

And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded.

... no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power...

You were saying?

 

[sferrin]

And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded.

... no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power...

You were saying?

How about we quote the entire sentence shall we?

"Those are generally written by pacifists who would prefer no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power. "

It's obvious why you didn't quote the entire thing, because it doesn't say what you want it to. It doesn't say "the US would get taken over without nuclear weapons". It says the people in question wouldn't care if it did mean that. Now that we've fixed your little faux pas how about you tell us why the notion of a huge, resource rich country being taken over by two resource-hungry countries, who don't have a history of "live and let live" but instead grab onto anything they can get away with, is "lunacy" when it isn't defended with nuclear weapons. GO!

 

[GTX]

Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.

 

[sferrin]

Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.

What does matter is that it didn't say what you claimed it did. Now answer the question. Why is the notion of a huge, resource rich country being taken over by two resource-hungry countries, who don't have a history of "live and let live" but instead grab onto anything they can get away with, "lunacy" when it isn't defended with nuclear weapons?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).

 

[sferrin]

Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).

No idea. Given that it's just a modification of the current Mk4 (the newest of which rolled off the line almost 30 years ago) I doubt we'd be incredibly impressed with the differences. Unless they've added terminal guidance I'd be surprised if they could make it a hard target weapon with current technology. (Most of the precision is due to the bus not the RV, though the RV does contribute.)

 

[bobbymike]

Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.

You know you took sferrin's quote out of context so quit digging.

If you have studied the history of the nuclear disarmament movement in the US their unofficial tagline of the extreme/pacifist side (as sferrin said quit clearly) was "Better Red than Dead" they advocated surrender if it got them a nuclear free world. They were also mostly Communists heavily influenced by Moscow as the KGB archives documented opened to historians post Cold War.

 

[bobbymike]

Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

 

[sferrin]

Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures. Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China. Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)

 

[Rickshaw]

Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures. Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China. Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)

I take it you believe there would be massive difference to a president who was bankrolled by Haliburton? :

 

[kaiserd]

Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures. Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China. Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)

Objectively speaking is ANY of that remotely true or is it just a smear on politicians you happen not to like?

Is there any evidence that these Democratic senators (with whom I wouldn't agree with by the way) are (1) on the Chinese government payroll and (2) this is the basis of their opposition to this particular weapon system?

Is there ANY evidence that Hillary Clinton or her campaign is receiving money from the Chinese government?

Wouldn't it be earth shattering need if any of this was remotely even slightly true?

I'd suggest moderators need to take this topic discussion in hand......

 

[Hood]

Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).

So in my mind its always seemed likely that as long as the Successor continues to use the Trident D5 that some kind of modernised/refurbished warhead would be needed. The story outlined in the article suggests that the warhead is real, Parliament has never been consulted on nuclear deterrent R&D matters before. The hint of a new advanced warhead to follow on probably relates more to longer-term US work on its new Trident missile with the 4A being refurbished and modestly improved to keep the D5 ticking along at least in UK buses. It would be ironic if the US actually had to buy back an "Anglicised" American warhead for its D5s to keep them going into the 2030s.