Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/11/09/the_prompt_launch_scare_110326.html

A Peter Huessy, Keith Payne, Dr. Mark Schneider (or all three) in a Trump administration overseeing nuclear modernization and strategy would be welcome.
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-modernization-cyber-security-top-trump-defense-priorities/

On nuclear arms, the new website states that the Trump administration “recognizes the uniquely catastrophic threats posed by nuclear weapons and cyber attacks.”

“Mr. Trump will ensure our strategic nuclear triad is modernized to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent, and his administration will review and minimize our nation’s infrastructure vulnerabilities to cyber threats,” the website states.

Russia and China are aggressively building up their nuclear arsenals with new weapons and delivery system.

By contrast, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been sharply reduced under Obama administration arms control policies. Aging weapons, missiles, submarines, and bombers also are in need of modernization to maintain nuclear deterrence against foreign strategic threats.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, oh, goody, lets head back to an arms race, hey?

Remember, the number of weapons when discussing WMDs is immaterial - once you destroy the civilsed world, there isn't much point in redestroying it.

You cannot control what your opponents do but you can always lead the way with what you do - if you are mature and responsible enough.
 
bobbymike said:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-modernization-cyber-security-top-trump-defense-priorities/

On nuclear arms, the new website states that the Trump administration “recognizes the uniquely catastrophic threats posed by nuclear weapons and cyber attacks.”

“Mr. Trump will ensure our strategic nuclear triad is modernized to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent, and his administration will review and minimize our nation’s infrastructure vulnerabilities to cyber threats,” the website states.

Russia and China are aggressively building up their nuclear arsenals with new weapons and delivery system.

By contrast, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been sharply reduced under Obama administration arms control policies. Aging weapons, missiles, submarines, and bombers also are in need of modernization to maintain nuclear deterrence against foreign strategic threats.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Is this the same man who wanted improved relations with Putin's Russia?
How exactly is any word of that comment really any different than Obama's or Hilary Clinton's position re: modernisation of US nuclear forces? New subs & their missiles, new land based ICBMs, new bomber, starting to address neglect of nuclear weapon infrastructure, all Obama's actual legacy in this area.
It was Bush Junior's neglect Obama had to reverse - typical Republican defense BS, happy to cut spending then blame someone/ anyone else & claim their credit. Fortunately their voters prejudices blind them to this reality.
 
We need to stick our heads in the sand and pretend Russia and China aren't building up modern, potent, nuclear forces. That will surely fix everything. If history has shown us anything, it's that ignoring military build ups and showing weakness always turns out for the best.
 
sferrin said:
We need to stick our heads in the sand and pretend Russia and China aren't building up modern, potent, nuclear forces. That will surely fix everything. If history has shown us anything, it's that ignoring military build ups and showing weakness always turns out for the best.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make, ultimately? As deterrence, all you need is sufficient weapons to make your opponent think twice about using their own.
 
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/mo-mirvs-mo-problems/
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/mo-mirvs-mo-problems/
Click to expand...

He made me read the whole thing before I got to the "ICBMs are bad cuz reasons". ::) Funny how they're only bad for the US apparently.
 
Having a belief in open debate about complex issues, I couldn't disagree more with this report. This idea that US unilateral disarmament will cause other countries to reduce or give up their nukes is delusional and dangerous.

Since the end of the Cold War we have massively (90+%) reduced deployed strategic weapons, including total weapons in service and not in service and have almost gotten rid of our tactical weapons. Other than Russia, who is a party to treaties (evidence of cheating notwithstanding) is there any other nation that has altered their nuclear programs voluntarily due to this?

http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/10-big-nuclear-ideas.pdf
 
bobbymike said:
Having a belief in open debate about complex issues, I couldn't disagree more with this report. This idea that US unilateral disarmament will cause other countries to reduce or give up their nukes is delusional and dangerous.

Since the end of the Cold War we have massively (90+%) reduced deployed strategic weapons, including total weapons in service and not in service and have almost gotten rid of our tactical weapons. Other than Russia, who is a party to treaties (evidence of cheating notwithstanding) is there any other nation that has altered their nuclear programs voluntarily due to this?

http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/10-big-nuclear-ideas.pdf
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

How many more times does history have to prove that weakness invites evil? No matter how good the intentions.

Russia and China are developing hypersonic weapons with nuclear capability, and this article thinks our bombers and tactical fighters, no matter how stealthy, can do with modified gravity bombs which the basic design is 40 years old plus (B-61-12)? And a large Arsenal makes up for weapons flaws which are amplified in a small aresenal, such as the W76, the most numerous and oldest missile warhead with its design concerns that it may fizzle and be unreliable instead of producing its nominal yield.

We are asking for another Pearl Harbor, only that today the nature of nuclear warfare is such that it would be a knockout punch. Deterrence only works if your potential enemy is convinced he will lose. These eggheads seem to think you can have a "minimum deterrence" (which I think is an oxymoron) and unilaterally disarm to foolish levels which is delusional.
 
http://ims-2017.s3.amazonaws.com/2017_Index_of_Military_Strength_ASSESSMENT_MILITARY_NUCLEAR.pdf

Today, the United States is focused on sustaining the existing stockpile, not on developing new warheads, even though all of its nuclear-armed adversaries are developing new nuclear warheads and capabilities and accruing new knowledge in which the U.S. used to lead.
Click to expand...

Using 2009 as a baseline, the ages of the current systems of the nuclear triad are 39 years for the Minuteman III, 19 years for the Trident II D -5 SLBM, 48 years for the B-52H, 12 years for the B-2, and 28 years for the Ohio Class SS - BNs.
Click to expand...

Currently, the U.S. can produce no more than about 10 plutonium pits a year at the Los Alamos PF-4 facility. Infrastructure modernization plans for PF-4, if funded, will boost that number to about 20 by the middle of the next decade and to between 50 and 80 by the end of the next decade. Russia can produce around 2,000 pits a year.
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
Currently, the U.S. can produce no more than about 10 plutonium pits a year at the Los Alamos PF-4 facility. Infrastructure modernization plans for PF-4, if funded, will boost that number to about 20 by the middle of the next decade and to between 50 and 80 by the end of the next decade. Russia can produce around 2,000 pits a year.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

LIES! Don't you know you're destabilizing world peace with talk like that? Get those facts out of here!
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Currently, the U.S. can produce no more than about 10 plutonium pits a year at the Los Alamos PF-4 facility. Infrastructure modernization plans for PF-4, if funded, will boost that number to about 20 by the middle of the next decade and to between 50 and 80 by the end of the next decade. Russia can produce around 2,000 pits a year.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

LIES! Don't you know you're destabilizing world peace with talk like that? Get those facts out of here!
[/quote]

Yes! We can trust Putin!! Don't you know it is OUR nuclear weapons that are the problem? (Sarc)
 
Cotton Calls for $26 Billion Defense Supplemental
— Wilson Brissett11/18/2016

​Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called on Congress to pass a defense supplemental spending bill before the end of the year to counteract what he called “eight years of neglect of our military” under the Obama Administration. Speaking at the Defense One Summit in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Cotton acknowledged that President Obama had recently called for a similar bill, but said defense budgets have “cannibalized future readiness and modernization.” Cotton said a $26 billion spending bill he previewed on the Senate floor Wednesday could begin to address the problem. He described his bill as a “down payment for the rest of this fiscal year,” a “down payment on readiness,” and a way to “simply fund the outstanding requirements list” handed down by the service chiefs. While he did not discuss details of the proposed bill beyond its $26 billion price tag, Cotton said his goal is to “stop the hemorrhaging in the short-term” and create “breathing space for a rebuilding of our military” in the long-term.

“In national security, the threats we face have to drive the budget,” said Cotton. This principle stands in contrast to his view of domestic spending, where the available budget should drive priorities, he noted. Refusing to comment on his potential role in the administration of President-elect Donald Trump, Cotton said “the world’s gotten a lot more dangerous in the last five years,” and called for an increase in military spending that would acknowledge that reality. “There’s not a lot of fat left in the DOD budget” for major systems, Cotton said, though he did call on the Air Force to “eliminate the B-52 and get enough B-21s to replace it.” He also called for the full modernization of the nuclear triad, including ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, saying that because of the nuclear deterrence mission, “there has not been great power conflict in the last 70 years.” Cotton said the US ground-based deterrent offers “a decisive advantage against Russia and against China.” While “submarines can be sunk” and “planes can be downed,” he said, the geographic dispersion of the US ground-based system makes it much more difficult to attack effectively.
-------------------------------------------------
POTUS ready 2024 ;D
 
stew3 said:
bobbymike said:
Having a belief in open debate about complex issues, I couldn't disagree more with this report. This idea that US unilateral disarmament will cause other countries to reduce or give up their nukes is delusional and dangerous.

Since the end of the Cold War we have massively (90+%) reduced deployed strategic weapons, including total weapons in service and not in service and have almost gotten rid of our tactical weapons. Other than Russia, who is a party to treaties (evidence of cheating notwithstanding) is there any other nation that has altered their nuclear programs voluntarily due to this?

http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/10-big-nuclear-ideas.pdf
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

How many more times does history have to prove that weakness invites evil? No matter how good the intentions.

Russia and China are developing hypersonic weapons with nuclear capability, and this article thinks our bombers and tactical fighters, no matter how stealthy, can do with modified gravity bombs which the basic design is 40 years old plus (B-61-12)? And a large Arsenal makes up for weapons flaws which are amplified in a small aresenal, such as the W76, the most numerous and oldest missile warhead with its design concerns that it may fizzle and be unreliable instead of producing its nominal yield.

We are asking for another Pearl Harbor, only that today the nature of nuclear warfare is such that it would be a knockout punch. Deterrence only works if your potential enemy is convinced he will lose. These eggheads seem to think you can have a "minimum deterrence" (which I think is an oxymoron) and unilaterally disarm to foolish levels which is delusional.
Click to expand...

People will have different ideas of what represents "minimum deterrence" but it is no oxymoron. A deterrent needs to be survivable, resilient, and sufficient to inflict such terrible damage to an opponent that no remotely sane opponent would dare risk its use.
Concepts of unilateral disarmament, however well meaning, are naive and foolish. However it is equally foolish to enter into an unaffordable nuclear arms race (were even the winner loses fiscally).
I support the need for the triad, deep modernisation of US nuclear infrastructure and new systems like the the B-21, new nuclear armed cruise missile, new land based ICBM, new missile subs etc.
But arbitrarily chasing Russian warhead numbers is a fools errand. By the way (didn't the USSR have substantially more missiles and missiles than Reagan's era US? Your rose-tinted glasses for past glory days may be blinding you to past and present realities.
 
Here is a chart from Wiki to 1982 cannot find beyond that (I know I have something in my library but not spending Sunday looking :D)
 

Attachments

  • USvUSSRnukes.PNG
    USvUSSRnukes.PNG
    32 KB · Views: 112
DOUBLE the megatonnage. Forget accuracy, that's TWICE as much *BOOM* going off over respective countries. And by 1986 it was significantly more lopsided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

Compare 1985 to 1980.
 

Attachments

  • US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles_svg.png
    US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles_svg.png
    37.1 KB · Views: 110
sferrin said:
DOUBLE the megatonnage. Forget accuracy, that's TWICE as much *BOOM* going off over respective countries. And by 1986 it was significantly more lopsided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country

Compare 1985 to 1980.
Click to expand...
What concerns me this time around - it is really hard to compare Cold War arsenals to the 90% smaller arsenals today - is that Russian delivery systems and their nuke enterprise is vastly more active and developed. See the prior comment with Russia having a 2000 nuclear pit build/annum capacity to our 40.

Also, all their delivery systems will have a huge upload capability. 500 warheads when the US had 2000 delivery systems and 11,000 deployed strategic warheads it less meaningful than adding 500 warheads when US has only 1382 deployed warheads.

Reagan did inherit a massive, yet underutilized, nuke infrastructure. It is estimated that in less than 10 years the US will not employ a SINGLE scientist that has built a nuke warhead.
 
Preaching to the choir. I just hope Trump does something to turn it around.
 
Possibly of some interest to members

http://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/strategic-deterrence-breakfast-series
 
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Toward_a_More_Flexible_NATO_Nuclear_Posture_web_1115.pdf
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/01/the_trump_administrations_nuclear_weapons_policy_first_steps_110417.html
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/02/reinvigorating_deterrence_education_110423.html
 
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/us-weighs-its-nuclear-options
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2371&utm_source=RealClearDefense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=81e33330d0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-81e33330d0-81812733
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLpk3F9GrOk&feature=youtu.be

Reagan Defense Forum - Non-proliferation and Strategic Deterrence
 
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/12/09/north-korea-icbm-nuke/?comp%3D1199442010954%26rank%3D0

Impossible I just don't believe it, we were assured by Clinton..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw
 
That any part of the nuclear enterprise is attached to an article like this is a national outrage. Modernization cannot come soon enough.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/morale-improving-but-sustainment-problems-still-dog-air-forces-nuclear-enterprise
 
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/14/trumps-defense-secretary-pick-may-have-doubts-about-land-based-nuclear-missiles.html

https://defense360.csis.org/nuclear-forces/
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/the-air-force-is-unworried-by-trumps-fickle-nuclear-weapons-talk
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/310535-trump-nuclear-weapon-realist-can-correct-obamas
 
http://thebulletin.org/can-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-speed-their-abolition/abolish-nuclear-weapons-strip-away-their-handsome-mask

::)
 
bobbymike said:
http://thebulletin.org/can-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-speed-their-abolition/abolish-nuclear-weapons-strip-away-their-handsome-mask

::)
Click to expand...

Ye Gods. These "scientists" seem to display a remarkable ignorance of history and the real world.
 
Trump tweets support for increased nuclear capabilities
December 22, 2016 | Tony Bertuca


President-elect Donald Trump, following meetings with top U.S. military officials and defense executives, took to Twitter on Thursday to state his support for strengthening nuclear capabilities.

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Trump tweeted.

Vice Adm. James Syring, chief of the Missile Defense Agency; Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, deputy Air Force chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration; Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran; Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson; and Air Mobility Command Chief Gen. Carlton Everhart were among those who met with Trump Wednesday, according to a press pool report.

“I met some really great Air Force GENERALS and Navy ADMIRALS today, talking about airplane capability and pricing. Very impressive people!” Trump tweeted about the meeting.

Trump also met with the chief executives of Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Ash Carter made the case for nuclear modernization -- which has been pegged to cost approximately $1 trillion over its entire life cycle -- during a Sept. 26 speech at Minot Air Force Base, ND.

“The fact is, most of our nuclear weapon delivery systems have already been extended decades beyond their original expected service lives," Carter said at the time. "It's really a choice between replacing them or losing them."

DOD Comptroller Mike McCord has said the department's need for an additional $10 billion per year starting in 2021 to pay for the necessary modernization "is the biggest acquisition problem that we don't know how to solve yet.”

https://insidedefense.com/insider/trump-tweets-support-increased-nuclear-capabilities
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-22/trump-says-u-s-nuclear-arsenal-must-be-greatly-expanded

Back to START I 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/donald-trump-vladimir-putn-signal-renewal-nuclear-arms-race/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/donald-trump-says-he-wants-to-greatly-strengthen-and-expand-us-nuclear-capabilitiy-a-radical-break-from-us-foreign-policy/2016/12/22/52745c22-c86e-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html
 
https://audioboom.com/posts/5430971-the-role-of-nuclear-weapons-in-the-u-s-russian-relationship-elbridgecolby-carnegieendow
 
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-said-the-us-should-expand-nuclear-weapons-hes-right-214546
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom