Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/27/banning_nuclear_weapons_111043.html?utm_source=RealClearDefense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=d0cc784117-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-d0cc784117-81812733
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/03/27/banning_nuclear_weapons_111043.html?utm_source=RealClearDefense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=d0cc784117-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-d0cc784117-81812733

Gotta love it. Next Democrat we get in the White House will use it as an excuse to gut our forces further. China and Russia no doubt see the U.N. as the gift that keeps on giving.
 
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/03/31/stratcom-chief-nuclear-force-upgrade/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dodbuzz+%28DoD+Buzz%29&comp=7000029710983&rank=0
 
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/russia/
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2017/april/Pages/EnhancedNuclearBuildupWouldFaceChallenges.aspx
--------------------------------------------------------------
We desperately need to speed up Triad and warhead modernization.
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/03/if_nuclear_deterrence_fails_whats_the_plan_111094.html
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/china-has-built-nuclear-submarine-mass.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/columbia-class-on-track-but-navy-keeping-wary-eye-on-budget-situation
 
Just get madder and madder at the state of the Triad and nuke enterprise.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/ohio-class-submarines-useless-decade-stratcom
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-tom-cotton-russia-has-subverted-our-treaty-on-cruise-missiles-for-years-its-time-to-act/2017/04/06/1c27df04-1a49-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.5ce827cefc05

First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete.

Second, the bill would provide $500 million in funding for new defense capabilities that could neutralize whatever advantage Russia gains by violating the treaty. For instance, we could continue and accelerate the deployment of sea- and land-based missile-defense sites. A new Russian cruise missile becomes much less valuable if the United States and its allies can easily shoot it down.

Third, the bill would direct the Pentagon to facilitate the transfer of cruise missiles among our allies. Even if the United States cannot keep these kinds of weapons itself, it can arrange business deals among our allies who can. The Polish government has been acquiring air-launched cruise missiles for some time; perhaps if we helped add intermediate-range ground-launched missiles to their arsenal, Russia might think twice about its reckless strategy.

Finally, the bill curtails funding for two treaties that Russia wants to preserve. The first is a possible extension of the New START Treaty, which limits each country’s strategic nuclear forces (such as longer-range, intercontinental systems). The second is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows Russia to conduct aerial surveillance over the United States (and vice versa). If the Russians won’t keep their INF commitments — which benefit us — why should the United States continue other treaties that benefit them?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Also need to R&D and build a new generation of IRBMs that if not on land we can deploy and CPGS on surface ships.
 
"First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete."

Or Mk41 based JASSM.

Or take LRPF (Long Range Precision Fires) and put a small afterburning turbojet in it. Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it fits in a Harpoon canister.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    1.3 MB · Views: 273
sferrin said:
"First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete."

Or Mk41 based JASSM.

Or take LRPF (Long Range Precision Fires) and put a small afterburning turbojet in it. Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it fits in a Harpoon canister.
That looks like a ScFerDyne Inc. proposal :D
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
"First, the bill would invest $100 million in developing a new intermediate-range cruise missile. Under the treaty, the United States can’t test, produce or possess this kind of missile, but it can conduct research on possible improvements to other missiles, such as extending their range or adapting them for different environments. For instance, the United States could develop a land-based version of the Tomahawk missile, which is usually launched from Navy ships or submarines. This kind of research would keep us in compliance — for now — but also prepare us in case the treaty becomes obsolete."

Or Mk41 based JASSM.

Or take LRPF (Long Range Precision Fires) and put a small afterburning turbojet in it. Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it fits in a Harpoon canister.
That looks like a ScFerDyne Inc. proposal :D

Would still be useful even if they left it with a rocket motor. ;)
 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9056/heres-americas-plan-for-nuking-its-enemies-including-north-korea
 
Nuclear Posture Review Taking Big Deterrence Perspective

— Wilson Brissett4/13/2017

​The Trump Administration’s ongoing nuclear posture review will look at “capabilities in cyber and capabilities in space” in its assessment of US strategic deterrence, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said Wednesday. “That’s all going to be in the nuclear posture review,” he said at a Heritage Foundation event in Washington, D.C. In addition to making recommendations on the modernization of the nuclear triad and related systems, Goldfein said he expects the review to offer guidance on the question, “What does deterrence look like in the twenty-first century?” Gen. John Hyten, boss of US Strategic Command, recently said that such a vision would require thinking about space, cyber, and conventional capabilities alongside the traditional strategic deterrent provided by nuclear forces. Goldfein said that “the timeline of the President’s nuclear posture review couldn’t be better,” and that modernizing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and “nuclear command and control” systems remains a “top priority” for him.
 
https://washingtonspectator.org/russian-arms-race-ritter/
 
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/cooking-the-nuclear-books
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-forces-nuclear-modernization-programs-put-at-risk-by-yearlong-continuing-resolution?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN%20DNR%204.18.17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup
____________________________________________________________
Starting to get down on democracy :'(
 
Pentagon launches Nuclear Posture Review
April 17, 2017

(Editor's Note: This story has been updated to reflect additional information supplied by the Pentagon subsequent to publication.)

The Pentagon, amid escalating tensions with North Korea and Russia, has named the team that will manage its first Nuclear Posture Review since 2010.

The review will be led by the deputy defense secretary and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, "and include interagency partners. The process will culminate in a final report to the president by the end of the year," according to a Pentagon statement issued Monday.

Multiple sources said Rob Soofer, a Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, had been tapped to become the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, which would position him to potentially oversee the review.

The Pentagon declined to confirm that Soofer was joining the Defense Department, and Soofer, who previously worked as an aide to former Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ), was unable to be reached for comment.

The Defense Department has not named a new deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy since President Trump was inaugurated, according to spokeswoman Laura Seal, who declined to confirm Soofer's appointment. The Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review was headed by Brad Roberts, a former DASD who had the job multiple sources say Soofer is about to get.

The nuclear review, which the Pentagon commenced Monday, comes as North Korea recently conducted a failed missile launch over the Sea of Japan and displayed an arsenal of weapons during a massive military parade in Pyongyang.

A final report is due to the White House by the end of the year.

Significant details of the review structure have yet to emerge, though Gen. John Hyten, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command, has told Congress it will likely take six months. The Pentagon has not announced whether the results of the review will be classified.

Trump first directed the Pentagon to produce the review in a Jan. 27 presidential memorandum, which noted the NPR should ensure the nuclear triad is "modern, robust, flexible, resilient, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies and partners.”

James Acton, co-director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the review under Trump would likely have different “mood music” than what was produced under President Obama, partly because the Obama review focused on a world without nuclear weapons and framed the U.S.-Russia relationship as one of mutual cooperation.

“I would expect [the Trump administration] to take a somewhat more robust line on declaratory policy talking about the circumstances in which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, I would expect them to massively de-emphasize a world without nuclear weapons, I'm sure they will make some more bellicose noises abut nukes,” Acton said. “But the actual operative statements? I would be surprised if they looked significantly different from the Obama administration.”

The Obama administration's position on maintaining the triad and sticking to mostly 20 years of declaratory policy did not deviate much from previous administrations, Acton said. The George W. Bush administration wrote an NPR calling for new nuclear capabilities, but neither the funding nor the political will to start any programs materialized.

“It's going to be very hard to get the money for new capabilities,” Acton said. “And the actual circumstances in which the U.S. categorically rules out the use of nukes is extremely thin already. That's why I think there won't be much change.”

Still, Michaela Dodge, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said she expects the new global security environment – namely, a revanchist Russia and a confrontational North Korean ruler -- will lead the Trump administration to look long and hard at recommending new nuclear capabilities and missions.

“I do think it will affirm commitment to the nuclear triad,” she said. “I think it will recognize that the past assumption that Russia was no longer a potential adversary or that the potential for conflict was low should be looked at very hard.”

Dodge said the administration might also debate whether to remain part of the New Start Treaty with Russia, especially now that the Pentagon has asserted Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. New Start calls for the United States and Russia to draw down their respective arsenals to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads by February 2018. Trump has criticized New Start as a “bad deal.”

Hyten, the chief of STRATCOM, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 4 the review will assess possible threats from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as well as military options available to address those threats. The review, he said, would also examine Russia's violations of the INF Treaty and the modernization of the nuclear triad.

Hyten said the United States has spent 20 years de-emphasizing nuclear weapons in its national security strategy, while adversaries have been doing the exact opposite.

“Russia, in 2006, started a huge, aggressive program to modernize and build new nuclear capabilities; they continue that to this day,” he said. “China has done the same thing. . . . Our adversaries have taken the exact opposite view of our de-emphasis and have emphasized those nuclear capabilities once again.”

The cost to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces, meanwhile, is expected to exceed $400 billion over the next decade, according to a Feb. 14 Congressional Budget Office report.

"Over the next two decades, essentially all of those nuclear delivery systems and weapons would have to be refurbished or replaced with new systems to continue operating," the report states. "Consequently, the Congress will need to make decisions about what nuclear forces the United States should field in the future and thus about the extent to which the nation will pursue nuclear modernization plans."

Bob Scher, a former assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities in the Obama administration, said the review will also have to wrestle with cost of the nuclear portfolio.

“Cost is always an issue, especially when there are so many other needs within the defense budget for that same dollar,” he said. “In the end, I believe we have taken all of the slack out of the modernization timelines and have no choice but to move forward with the plans we have on the books now, or we risk having systems slowly age out before replacements can be fielded. The only way to significantly reduce costs is to change the underlying nuclear strategy and field fewer systems, and the only real cost savings there is getting rid of an entire leg of the triad, and honestly I don't see that happening in this environment.”

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul Selva, told the House Armed Services Committee on March 8 the Pentagon should maintain the nuclear arsenal, but also “emphasize that the existence of that arsenal need not be absolute” if adversaries are open to transparent, bilateral negotiations.

“I think if we can balance those two things in our discussion, both publicly and privately, of what the implications are for maintenance of an arsenal and reduction of that arsenal in a measured and prudent way, we can be successful,” he said.
 
http://thebulletin.org/next-nuclear-posture-review-bring-state-energy-and-allies10715?platform=hootsuite
 
https://missilethreat.csis.org/country/pakistan/
 
PACOM Boss Says INF Treaty is Outdated

—Wilson Brissett4/28/2017

​Adm. Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific forces, believes the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is outdated and the US is “being taken to the cleaners by countries that are not signatories,” he told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday. “I do think we should look at renegotiating the treaty,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee the next day. The INF treaty, which bans US and Russian ground-launched missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, was signed in 1987 for “a bi-polar world” defined by the competition between the US and the Soviet Union, he told SASC. “Now we’re in a multi-polar world, where we have a lot of countries developing these weapons.” Of immediate concern are China and Iran, who are not signatories to the treaty. Harris said that 90 percent of China’s missiles fall into the category banned by the treaty, and Iran test launched such a missile in January. The US has no such weapons, Harris said, because “we adhere to the INF treaty religiously, as we should.” However, Russia deployed a new cruise missile in February in violation of the treaty. Harris also said he is “concerned about Chinese and Russian hypersonic weapons development” because the ability of the US to build similar systems would “run up against treaty restrictions.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/28/russian_nuclear_weapons_policy_111261.html
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/nuclear-warhead-modernization-needs-funding-increase-gao-finds

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684310.pdf
 
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/04/28/China-Russia-agree-to-stop-North-Korea-denuclearization-joint-exercises/1741493398420/
___________________________________________________________
Not holding my breath in 3.......2.........1
 
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/01/us-air-force-to-conduct-another-missile-test-as-north-korea-tensions-rise-officials-say.html
 
The Triad and All Domain Deterrence

—Nikki Kirsch

5/3/2017

​Strategic deterrence in the 21st century is an “all domain campaign” that will require integration of the US’ nuclear deterrent with space, cyber, missile defense, electronic warfare, and conventional capabilities to build an effective modern deterrent, said the vice commander of US Strategic Command on May 2. Vice Adm. Charles Richard, speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event on Capitol Hill, said the US must make necessary investments in its nuclear triad to maintain its advantage over potential adversaries into the future, but he is concerned the current modernization schedule for each leg of the nuclear triad delivers just in time, leaving little room for error. A potential continuing resolution from Congress also could pose a challenge to modernization of the triad, as a CR would not allow for serious programmatic changes or trades to take place. The just announced Nuclear Posture Review, along with the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, is a “major strategic undertaking that will set the new administration’s policy, strategy, and force posture” regarding the strategic deterrent, he added, and the reviews are coming “not a moment too soon.”
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/01/us-air-force-to-conduct-another-missile-test-as-north-korea-tensions-rise-officials-say.html

These things don't grow on trees and they aren't making anymore. I can think of cheaper ways to tell Lil Kim we mean business for once.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/01/us-air-force-to-conduct-another-missile-test-as-north-korea-tensions-rise-officials-say.html

These things don't grow on trees and they aren't making anymore. I can think of cheaper ways to tell Lil Kim we mean business for once.
Don`t know in these specific instances but whatever gets us to GBSD the fastest I'm for :D

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/522238/gt-222gm-minuteman-iii-launch
 
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-north-korea-islands-20170503-story.html
 
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1314996?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Don't need ICBMs. Just the same old tired, thoughtless arguments, tendentious reasoning and logical omissions from the "disarm us at any cost" crowd.

https://www.csis.org/events/debate-modernization-nuclear-missiles

The only debate for me is whether the GBSD should be Peacekeeper sized or bigger (think WS-120a)
 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/05/04/431833/case-new-nuclear-weapons/

Since the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal peaked in the 1980s,

When the first line of the report is incorrect...............

http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook-multimedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the world is a safer place when US nukes are rolling of the assembly line like Snickers bars. :D
 
http://poniforum.csis.org/blog/the-future-of-submarine-second-strike-and-the-balance-of-stabil-1
 
https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/170421_Cancian_PONI2016_Web.pdf?platform=hootsuite
 
http://www.king5.com/news/local/hanford/breaking-tunnel-at-plutonium-finishing-plant-collapses-in-hanford/438116235
 
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-05/bring-back-nuclear-tomahawks

Yup about 5000 of them................ :eek: Although a nuclear X-51 would be better IMHO.
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-05/bring-back-nuclear-tomahawks

Yup about 5000 of them................ :eek: Although a nuclear X-51 would be better IMHO.

AFAIK, the Navy did not demur in the slightest in the NPR that was used to justify TLAM-N's retirement.
 
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/12/why-the-us-is-right-to-invest-in-nuclear-weapons-215132

Read the comment section OMG! :eek:
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/12/why-the-us-is-right-to-invest-in-nuclear-weapons-215132

Read the comment section OMG! :eek:

I doubt I could handle the degree of dumbth on display.
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/intel-report-iran-refining-nuke-delivery-system-flagrant-violation-ban/

Just in time for the Treaty to expire in ten years with nuke warhead ready to mount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom