Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/mattis-talks-nukes-but-is-trump-listening/

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/18/russia_military_modernisation_and_lowering_the_nuclear_threshold_110652.html

Nuclear Posture Review Coming Soon

—Brian Everstine 1/19/2017

​​Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he expects the incoming Trump Administration to conduct a nuclear posture review to assess what is needed to keep deterrence healthy. Speaking on Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Goldfein sought to explain the need for all three legs of the triad, noting the Air Force is building its next generation B-21 Raider bomber and beginning work on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system to replace the aging ICBM system. To drive that point home, Goldfein held up a decades-old floppy disk that is still in daily use in the Air Force's missile fields. The Air Force is looking forward to a discussion on the future of deterrence, one that isn't just the missiles in the field but also issues in space and cyber, Goldfein said. Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, Trump's nominee to be Defense Secretary, recently expressed support for modernization of the missiles and bombers, but said he'd need to look at updating the Air Force's Long-Range Standoff missile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully the NPR recommends accelerating the pace of modernization and includes building brand new warheads for next generation systems.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/why-mattis-should-support-long-range-stand-off-nuclear-cruise-missile/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=41104673&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8W1GWsnVfqVNFZ6l20-dU5xO88_TKtwVRt4GnEzQIBuIfuI4mLeffCLSstEbrzEvnOKtqp0Mb0Im4dJET8m5E0JcQ2QQ&_hsmi=41104673

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/staying-course-nuclear-modernization-1095?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=a91c39fef5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-a91c39fef5-122460921

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/25/china-deploys-missiles-amid-calls-nuclear-weapons-deter-donald/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24893/china-announces-deployment-long-range-nuclear-missile/
------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off the WS-120a blueprints

https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/china/

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/27/how_far_chinas_nuclear_capabilities_stretch_110704.html

Mitchell: Nuclear Modernization Critical to US Security

—Peter Huessy1/27/2017

​The US can’t afford not to modernize its nuclear force, especially its land-based missiles, according to a new report from AFA’s Mitchell Institute, which was released on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Speaking during the rollout ceremony, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said "the globe is not getting any safer" so it is critical that a modernized land-based missile be acquired now to support the extension of American military and diplomatic power. Retired Maj. Gen. Roger Burg, who authored the report and once oversaw the nation’s ICBM force, said the high alert level of the Minuteman III missiles serves as the backbone of the nuclear deterrent and commanders need the "stabilizing" character of a new ground-based missile system in the face of more aggressive and better nuclear-armed adversaries. He also emphasized that the current system, though still a capable deterrent force, is becoming more and more costly to maintain and sustain. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), co-chairman of the Senate ICBM coalition, who also spoke at the ceremony, said the 25-year cost of a modernized Minuteman force—some $42 billion—was actually $20 billion less than the annual fraud in the Medicare program. It’s also the least expensive of all elements of the nuclear deterrent to operate in a modernized mode, he added. Hoeven said that in the face of massive Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization, as well as North Korean nuclear threats, the US must modernize its nuclear force, especially a new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. (See also: Burg’s op-ed in Breaking Defense.)

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/30/nuclear_balancing_and_the_curse_of_the_heavy_icbm_110714.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/30/iran-conducts-ballistic-missile-test-us-officials-say.html

h/t Grey Havoc from Nuclear Weapons News thread

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-tests-missile-10-warheads/

A boost in the Chinese nuclear arsenal to 800 or 1,000 warheads likely would prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal by taking weapons out of storage.

The new commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, stated during a Senate confirmation hearing in September that he is concerned about China's growing nuclear arsenal.

"I am fully aware that China continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure second-strike capability," Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Although it continues to profess a ‘no first use' doctrine, China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads and continues to develop and test hyper-glide vehicle technologies," Hyten added.

"These developments—coupled with a lack of transparency on nuclear issues such as force disposition and size—may impact regional and strategic stability and are cause for continued vigilance and concern."

Click to expand...

Why going below START I was foolish and below SORT idiotic. We will more than likely face two adversaries with equal or larger deployed warhead counts PLUS much more active and modernized TRIAD and nuclear enterprises.

bobbymike said:

We will more than likely face two adversaries with equal or larger deployed warhead counts PLUS much more active and modernized TRIAD and nuclear enterprises.

Click to expand...

Yep. And they are allies.

bobbymike said:

h/t Grey Havoc from Nuclear Weapons News thread

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-tests-missile-10-warheads/

A boost in the Chinese nuclear arsenal to 800 or 1,000 warheads likely would prompt the Pentagon to increase the U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal by taking weapons out of storage.

The new commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, stated during a Senate confirmation hearing in September that he is concerned about China's growing nuclear arsenal.

"I am fully aware that China continues to modernize its nuclear missile force and is striving for a secure second-strike capability," Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Although it continues to profess a ‘no first use' doctrine, China is re-engineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads and continues to develop and test hyper-glide vehicle technologies," Hyten added.

"These developments—coupled with a lack of transparency on nuclear issues such as force disposition and size—may impact regional and strategic stability and are cause for continued vigilance and concern."

Click to expand...

Why going below START I was foolish and below SORT idiotic. We will more than likely face two adversaries with equal or larger deployed warhead counts PLUS much more active and modernized TRIAD and nuclear enterprises.

Click to expand...

Purely factual query; where is there any indication that China actualy has any where near 1,000 warheads, yet alone the greater than 1,500 needed to overtake the US?
The article merely suggests that the long held 250 estimate may now be a low-ball estimate given China belatedly moving to multiple warhead ICBMs, and that in some proposed scenario where the Chinese warhead numbers ballooned up then the US would field more of the warheads in storage (presumably primarily by upping the warhead count on current delivery systems at the expense of decoys).

Note: There is of a strong argument that future START agreements should also include at least China as well as the other main nuclear powers (acknowleged and "unacknowledged"). Appears unlikely under current US administration.

The big issue with China is how to attack* all of their hardened and deeply buried targets.
By virtue of their location, MaRVs are required which means a hit on RV count and
unless nuclear earth penetrators are substantially more mature than publicly documented,
you'll need high yield warheads to dig out those targets.

* Especially without overflying other (presumably non-belligerent) nuclear powers in the process.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/01/making-americas-icbms-great-again/135024/?oref=DefenseOneFB

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/america-must-resume-underground-nuclear-testing/

1. Test the W76 warhead of our Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. This is the most survivable element of our Triad of delivery systems. Choose, at random, one of the oldest warheads currently at sea in the fleet, and detonate it underground in as realistic a test as possible.

2. Test the W78 warhead of our Minuteman III ICBMs. This is a different, but also very large, class of warheads ready for immediate launch. Again, a random choice of an old warhead.

3. Test the B61 bomb, America’s only “tactical” nuke, based in five European nations. It is now undergoing massive changes in a life-extension program, and we must be sure the changes haven’t altered basic performance.

4. Conduct low-yield tests exploring greater use of fusion, less of fission. Russia is now 20 years ahead of us in advancing this vital frontier of nuclear science. This is tomorrow’s tactical nuke, possibly leading to pure fusion weapons.

5. Conduct tests of the most prominent approaches for destroying hard and deeply buried targets with reduced residual radiation, leading to certified design and production. Critical targets of this type are proliferating worldwide, and we must be able to kill them.

6. Test, to certify for production, the final design of a modern, high-yield strategic deterrent weapon. This might well be a variant of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, terminated in 2009.

7. Conduct tests of optimum nuclear designs for destruction of chemical and biological agents. When attacking chem-bio production facilities, weapon stockpiles, or weapon launch sites, it’s important to neutralize the agents as well.

8. Conduct tests of much-advanced intrinsic security systems, to ensure it would be impossible for any enemy to detonate a U.S. warhead they might acquire. We must be sure that incorporation of such systems do not impact warhead performance.

Click to expand...

bobbymike said:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/america-must-resume-underground-nuclear-testing/

5. Conduct tests of the most prominent approaches for destroying hard and deeply buried targets with reduced residual radiation, leading to certified design and production. Critical targets of this type are proliferating worldwide, and we must be able to kill them.

Click to expand...

Goes to the point above regarding nuclear earth penetrators. To put things in perspective: Only about 10% of the nuclear tests the US conducted were nuclear weapons effects tests.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/01/new_threat_realities_and_deterrence_requirements_110724.html

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9877/american-security-russia

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/07/progress_on_strategic_arms_control_110760.html

http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/hey-team-trump-tell-america-whats-in-the-iran-deal/

From Inside Defense

Air Force chief keeping an open mind on low-yield nuclear weapons

February 07, 2017

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein indicated this week he is "absolutely" open to the idea of incorporating more tactical nuclear weapons into the arsenal, after the Defense Science Board recommended the Air Force consider that option as modernization efforts proceed.

"I do believe we're going to have discussions about munitions; I do believe we're going to have discussions about yield; I do believe we're going to have discussions about numbers of munitions required," Goldfein told reporters at a Feb. 7 Defense Writers Group breakfast. He later added that "as long as we keep those key attributes [of the existing triad] in place, then I don't have any issue with having a dialogue about numbers and yields."

He expects the department will begin its nuclear posture review, ordered Jan. 27 by President Trump, this spring. The review, due in January 2018, should prescribe a nuclear triad that is "modern, robust, flexible, resilient and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies and partners," according to the president's executive order.

Any consideration of changing the mix of nuclear weapons will be driven by U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. John Hyten's needs, Goldfein noted.

"When we have any dialogue about numbers of munitions, numbers of targets, numbers of legs, [Hyten's] voice is as important as any other voice in this dialogue because he's the supported commander," Goldfein said. "I've got to make sure, before I start talking about different ways of doing business, that whatever ways have got to be connected to his operational plans, those targets that he's responsible for holding at risk for the commander in chief."

The chief also suggested the conversation around deterrence should shift to encompass more than nuclear capability in the 21st century.

"When you have capabilities in space, when you have capabilities in cyber, when you have capabilities in those global commons, and you add that to what you can do relative to the nuclear deterrent, what does deterrence in the 21st century look like?" Goldfein continued.

CQ Roll Call reported last week the Defense Science Board told the president in an unpublished December report that the ongoing nuclear modernization effort should incorporate a higher number of less-destructive weapons and broaden the methods of delivery as a means of greater deterrence.

Keeping all three legs of the land-, air- and sea-based nuclear triad is broadly supported across the federal government, though Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was noncommittal when asked about keeping the airborne Long-Range Stand-Off weapon at his Jan. 12 Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing. Though the B-61 bomb has been a key feature of U.S.-NATO strategy, lawmakers on the defense committees and outside experts are split on whether to explore growing the tactical weapons stockpile and if "limited" nuclear war is even possible.

Goldfein reiterated the reliability, survivability and deterrent value of each leg of the triad but did not speculate on how the makeup of the nuclear arsenal could change.

"I'm actually eager to have that dialogue because it's time for us to, with any administration, have a fresh look at the nuclear enterprise that results in strategic guidance, policy guidance, to the department on where the administration wants us to go," he said. "I'm anticipating a much broader dialogue that will include the legs of the triad and the understanding of why we built each leg."

Coming Soon: Nuclear Posture Review

— John A. Tirpak2/9/2017

​The Defense Department will undertake a nuclear posture review “this spring,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told reporters Tuesday. The review will not only consider the numbers and types of nuclear weapons—bombers and bombs, silo-based missiles and submarine-based missiles—but issues such as the yield of the warheads and the specific types of munitions. This “fresh look at the nuclear enterprise” will “determine where this administration wants to go” with the nuclear force. Goldfein said he believes such a review will again bear out the need for the Triad, and specifically the silo-based missiles, because they are a “cost-imposing” capability that an enemy would have to target in a first strike. The review will also determine “what does deterrence look like in the 21st century?” when the array of tools available to national leaders includes cyber weapons and other kinds of duress. (See also: Nuclear Posture Review Coming Soon)

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trumps-nuclear-options?utm_content=bufferf75ca&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

bobbymike said:

From Inside Defense

Air Force chief keeping an open mind on low-yield nuclear weapons

Click to expand...

I certainly hope so. Neither Russia nor China are intentionally crippling themselves.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-the-future-of-nuclear-weapons-will-be-netw-433472/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/318421-trump-should-undo-obamas-disastrous-nuclear-policies

From Inside the Air Force

Wilson backs nuclear priority, munitions investment at readiness hearing
February 09, 2017

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson argued the service's effort to modernize its nuclear assets tops the Air Force's other key procurement efforts going into fiscal year 2018 budget discussions, in an appearance before a Senate defense subcommittee Feb. 8.

Though work to update the land-based intercontinental ballistic missile and the air-launched cruise missile enjoy bipartisan support in Congress, the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, KC-46 tanker and B-21 bomber procurement usually headline the Air Force's priorities.

Wilson told the Senate Armed Services readiness and management support subcommittee that nuclear modernization should come first, followed by the F-35, KC-46 and B-21 in the list of what most needs funding going forward.

"Our first priority would be nuclear modernization and we've delayed investment in that for far too long," he said. "Today, we have 75 [fewer] F-35s than we had planned on in 2012, so the F-35 program is a significant modernization program going forward. . . . The KC-46 and B-21 are significant programs going forward. And today's modernization is tomorrow's readiness, and right now, our average fleet is over 27 years old. We've got 21 of 39 fleets of our aircraft that exceed the 27-year average. So building this new capability will help the modernization going forward."

Air Force officials have priced the ICBM replacement, including acquisition and 50 years of operation and sustainment costs, at $159 billion. Development and procurement of the long-range standoff missile, which will replace the ALCM, is projected to cost $8.3 billion.

A white paper published last month by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) calls for modernization while keeping New START Treaty force levels of 400 ICBMs, 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles on 12 submarines and 60 nuclear bomber aircraft, replacing the ALCM and extending the service lives of the B61-12 bomb and W76-1, W78, W80 and interoperable warheads. McCain also asks for a nuclear-capable F-35 variant.

The white paper advocates for $6.5 trillion above current funding for the ground-based strategic deterrent and nuclear infrastructure shortfall from FY-18 through FY-22.

The vice chief's remarks came during a hearing to explore the military's struggle to maintain readiness levels after several years of financial uncertainty under sequestration, multiple continuing resolutions and one-year budgets. When Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) told the panel of service vice chiefs that "we are probably looking at another CR for the remainder of this year," Wilson answered such a funding situation would cause the Air Force to stop flying this summer, dip into readiness accounts and backlog depots to make up for the $1.5 billion hole.

Lawmakers in both parties voiced support for doing away with the Budget Control Act of 2011, including ranking member Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who said removing the caps would allow members to go back to making their arguments for both defense and non-defense spending without worrying about maintaining a 50-50 balance.

When subcommittee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) noted he was reluctant to bring up base realignment and closure, Wilson reiterated a point he also made to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday: The Air Force is 25 percent over base capacity and should look at ways to save money through BRAC, despite its up-front costs.

Wilson also told the subcommittee the service would need about $1 billion annually for approximately a decade to replenish the munitions stockpile depleted by the battles in the Middle East. The Air Force has fired about 43,000 munitions, or around 1,500 per month, in its campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the vice chief said.

"To meet all the combatant commanders' needs, we have a deficit across all of them that we need to dig our way out of," he told Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). "We've put investments not only into the munitions, but into . . . the infrastructure that makes those munitions. So all the plants that produce the fill for the munitions are part of the investment going forward. But it's a significant investment we believe of about $1 billion a year for about a decade just on munitions." -- Rachel S. Karas

https://www.afit.edu/news.cfm?article=736

AFGSC Chief Scientist discusses S&T challenges for the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise during AFIT visit

Subject areas discussed included research and educational aspects of: (1) hypersonics, in which AFIT and AFRL scholars jointly engaged in discussions with Dr. Miller (2) quantum computing, networks and key distribution (3) C-3 (Command, control and communication) networks and cyber (4) systems engineering (5) AFIT's nuclear research program and the B-52 bomber project (6) technical intelligence and missile plume signature diagnostics research (7) big data analytics (8) unmanned systems and autonomy and (9) directed energy systems including High Energy Laser weapons."

Click to expand...

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-defense-ministry-confirms-multi-warhead-missile-test/

As I said during its negotiation and signing New START will embolden China to seek parity of nuclear forces.

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2016-december/_assets/docs/NSS-dec2016_nuclear-test-readiness.pdf

bobbymike said:

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2016-december/_assets/docs/NSS-dec2016_nuclear-test-readiness.pdf

Click to expand...

Thank You!
I've been looking for something along these lines for a while.

Aside from the obvious political pucker-factor involved in this, are there any domestic, statutory roadblocks that need to be addressed?

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1694776-af-accelerates-lrso-nuclear-cruise-missile

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/nuclear-modernization-costs-400b-over-ten-years

http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-team-expand-nuclear-options

How did CQ Roll Call get a copy of the DSB report? Where's my copy?

bobbymike said:

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2016-december/_assets/docs/NSS-dec2016_nuclear-test-readiness.pdf

Click to expand...

What a pickle. These types of decisions are historically short sighted.

Something for DoE to get started on.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/15/whats-wrong-in-our-arms-treaty-with-russia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/15/the_myth_of_us_nuclear_leadership_110809.html

bobbymike said:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/15/the_myth_of_us_nuclear_leadership_110809.html

Click to expand...

It's mind-boggling that anybody could believe making yourself helpless will compel others to do the same.

sferrin said:

bobbymike said:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/15/the_myth_of_us_nuclear_leadership_110809.html

Click to expand...

It's mind-boggling that anybody could believe making yourself helpless will compel others to do the same.

Click to expand...

Since the end of the Cold War, not including Russia as they were direct party to Arms Control with us and Libya (who saw Iraq and gave up their WMD programs out of fear) has any nation changed their behavior or stopped their Nuke/WMD programs in response to US 'Leadership'? AKA our current massive disarmament? Strategic deployed stockpiles are down 90% is that not enough "Leadership"?

The US destroyed it's Peacekeepers under treaty. Russia's answer is to break the treaty. Moscow must be dying of laughter.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/14/a-european-nuclear-deterrent/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/17/australia-to-boycott-global-summit-on-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons