Register here

Author Topic: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY  (Read 447051 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2011, 11:44:25 am »
I am trying to find an article I read recently that said "at this point the US is capable of producing about 40 new warheads a year at Los Alamos and will not have the ability to ramp up production until the 2023 completion of another facility"
 
Sorry for the paucity of information but this situation is scary given the lack of information we have about China's nuclear program. Also given that Russia has active production lines how did we let this happen?
 
Combine this with the lack of will, it seems, to modernize the Triad's deliver systems.........
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 612
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2011, 01:33:15 am »
You must be very pessimistic to think that the US needs more than 40 new warheads per year.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2011, 01:27:13 am »
The future of American nuclear deterrance:
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2012, 07:06:09 am »
Strategic Review Suggests Potential New U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cuts

 The United States might have opportunities to achieve additional nuclear arsenal cuts without undermining its strategic deterrent, the Obama administration said in a defense planning document issued on Thursday (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2011).


 "As long as nuclear weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal. We will field nuclear forces that can under any circumstances confront an adversary with the prospect of unacceptable damage, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments," the defense strategic guidance states. "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy" (U.S. Defense Department release, Jan. 5).


 The document, released by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Pentagon press briefing, calls for an increased U.S. armed forces focus on Asia and the withdrawal of some military personnel from Europe, Reuters reported. The paper, which addresses spending plans only in general terms, was published amid efforts to reduce defense spending by no less than $450 billion over the next 10 years. ???
==========================

Submitted without commentary - gnashing teeth  >:(
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 07:12:45 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2012, 07:13:50 am »
 Meanwhile;


Russia this year intends to conduct 11 ICBM trial firings, ITAR-Tass reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2011). “Four launches will be carried out for the purpose extending service life and seven under experimental programs to test new missiles and improve existing ones with a view to piercing missile defense systems,” said Col. Oleg Koval, spokesman for the Russian strategic missile forces.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2012, 12:22:19 pm »
What is the point beyond which disarmament constitutes treason?

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2012, 12:33:19 am »
Www.armscontrolwonk.com is an invaluable resource if you find proliferation and nuclear issues interesting.


There's a good article debunking the notion that China might have more than 400 warheads, for a start.


Also can't miss the opportunity to post a link to playboy on SP :D

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/the-secret-treachery-of-a-q-khan
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 01:03:34 am by Gridlock »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2012, 03:48:37 am »
 WASHINGTON -- Forthcoming updates to the U.S. nuclear weapons force structure should eliminate the long-held objective of deterring a massive surprise atomic attack by Russia, arms control advocates said on Friday (see GSN, Jan. 6).

 
Only by doing away with the requirement, which necessitates a much larger nuclear force than otherwise necessary, can Washington and Moscow negotiate arms reductions beyond those mandated under the New START treaty that entered into force last year, said Morton Halperin, an adviser with the Open Society Institute.  The size of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal is far beyond what is needed to deter Russia two decades after the end of the Cold War, Halperin indicated. “We need to start from scratch,” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Arms Control Association in Washington. “We need to ask ourselves the question: Under what circumstances might the Russian leadership wake up and say, ‘Oh, it’s Easter Sunday, the Americans are at rest, we can launch a surprise attack and it will be successful?’ What would have to be going on in the world that would make that even conceivable?”


 New START requires each government by 2018 to reduce deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from a cap of 2,200 mandated by next year under an older treaty. It also limits the number of fielded strategic warhead delivery platforms to 700, with an additional 100 systems permitted in reserve (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2011).

 
The United States as of last September had 1,790 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on bomber aircraft and land- and submarine-based missiles, according to data from an exchange mandated under the treaty (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2011). The U.S. nuclear stockpile totaled 5,113 warheads in September 2009, including stored weapons, according to a Pentagon disclosure (see GSN, May 4, 2010).

 
President Obama is set in coming weeks to assess options for updating guidance on plans for the possible employment of nuclear weapons in combat. His resulting Presidential Policy Directive would initiate preparation of a succession of highly classified defense planning documents and culminate in a new strategic war plan.

 
The president’s decisions could prove crucial to his administration’s hopes of carrying out additional arsenal reductions in conjunction with Russia, Gary Samore, National Security Council coordinator for arms control and nonproliferation, suggested in comments published last May by Arms Control Today.

 
“Reductions below the level that we have now are going to require some more fundamental questions about force structure,” Samore said then.


http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/arms-control-proponents-question-us-nuclear-readiness-doctrine/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So would they support more nukes if a strategic targeting review included Russia, China, North Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, etc. warranted it? Of course not because the goal is for the US to have zero nukes even unilaterally.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2012, 06:38:29 am »
Zero from Zero.  Would you expect anything more? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2012, 08:47:30 am »

Meanwhile

Russian Military Continue Massive Re-armament

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released information about its weapons procurement in 2011. According to the first deputy minister Alexander Sukhorukov, the Ministry has purchased 30 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) and Yars ballistic missiles, 4 military satellites, 21 aircraft, 82 helicopters, one Stereguschiy class corvette, 8,531 military trucks and other military hardware. The total weapons procurement budget for 2011 amounted to 721.2 billion rubles (about $23 billion) including both federal budget money and government-guaranteed loans what was significantly more that in previous years, said the military official.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 03:26:56 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 03:28:29 pm »
I will bet you every penny I am ever going to earn that the US will never unilaterally achieve zero (overt or covert or one-stage-from-completion like Japan and others).  ::)


Seriously, how can so many Americans be so very, very naive? Name one action of the current administration, action not statement, that has demonstrated anything other than a continuation of exceptionalism and desire to be the sole global superpower. How's that promised closure of gitmo coming along? Did Bush ever dare to claim the power of global extra-judicial execution of US citizens?


It'd be hilarious how scared and dogmatic you are if there wasn't a non-trivial chance the US could be solely responsible for ending life on earth. Look at how obsessed the 42 administration was with abrogating the ABM treaty for that strange 9-month period between Bush v Gore and 9/11. Just a bunch of ex-Kremlinologists and defence industry chiefs pining for the cold war while the actual, real threat was making final preparations to do you-know-what.


Anyhow, your apparent belief that islamo-commie Obama is secretly implementing unilateral disarmament is a nice thought, if not the paranoia behind it, but it is demonstrably false. So can we talk physics packages and rogue states and NPT and NSG now?




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2012, 07:54:04 am »
 U.S. Pushes Back Future Nuclear-Armed Sub Jan. 27, 2012 

The U.S. ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming approaches Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga., in 2009. The Obama administration on Thursday announced plans to set back by two years the preparation of a successor to the nation’s Ohio-class fleet of nuclear-armed submarines (U.S. Navy photo). The United States will push back by two years the Navy's time line for preparing a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines, a move intended to defer related expenses and promote a stronger foundation for the project, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday (see GSN, Jan. 6).
 
The Pentagon chief announced the decision in laying out plans to reduce armed forces spending by $487 billion across 10 years, the New York Times reported. The future submarines would eventually host the U.S. sea-based nuclear deterrent in place of the nation's existing fleet of Ohio-class vessels. The first of the next-generation submarines had been scheduled to enter service in 2029, according to a previous report (see GSN, Jan. 24). The Defense Department also intends to build a successor to its line of B-2 strategic bombers (see GSN, July 21, 2011; Christopher Drew, New York Times, Jan. 26).  The cuts announced on Thursday would not affect the country's existing nuclear bomber or ICBM fleets, according to the Associated Press (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Jan. 27).

 
With the exception of the coming fiscal year, U.S. defense spending would rise annually over the next half-decade with the reductions in place, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Pentagon's $525 billion budget request for the 2013 budget cycle is $6 billion less than lawmakers provided for the current fiscal year, but projected spending would increase in following years until peaking at $567 billion in 2017. Still, Defense Department figures indicate the budget would remain largely consistent from year to year with inflation taken into account. Fiscal 2013 begins on Oct. 1 (David Cloud, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26).

 
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.
 
 
“[Panetta's] announcement today is yet another indication that the president is backing off his part of the deal. Ultimately, this changes the circumstances for U.S. participation in the treaty under both Condition Nine of the New START Treaty Resolution of Ratification and language I offered in the National Defense Authorization Act for [fiscal 2012]." Turner said he would "look carefully" at the administration's spending plan for nuclear weapons activities overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration, focusing on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex and Uranium Processing Facility programs "which the president pledged to accelerate" (see related GSN stories, Dec. 19, 2011 and July 8, 2011).

 
"These two facilities are absolutely critical to the ability of the U.S. to maintain a credible and reliable deterrent, and they were an essential piece of the New START treaty bargain," he said. “I am also concerned about the administration’s missile defense plans," the lawmaker added (see GSN, Jan. 18). "For three years, the administration has underfunded and diverted funding from national missile defense.  With rising threats from Iran, North Korea, China and others, we cannot afford the risk created by the administration’s irrational opposition to the missile defense of the United States. I hope the [fiscal 2013] budget undoes more than three years of neglect of national missile defense” (U.S. Representative Michael Turner release, Jan. 26).
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2012, 08:25:33 am »
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there.  Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 09:03:40 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2012, 01:07:54 pm »
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there.  Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.

For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2012, 01:58:21 pm »
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.

No surprise there.  Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.

For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.

I hope he's got the backing. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.