Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
Was leafing through my old BotAS magazines from the mid 80's as they describe the more than half dozen warheads being worked on for our various delivery systems. I believe I read on another site MX had four separate warheads under consideration up to 800kt.sferrin said:
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
Budgetman Won the GBSD Analysis - AFA
The Air Force considered but discarded a mobile version of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, because of the cost, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. When the GBSD—which will replace the Minuteman III ICBM—first came up for discussion, “the first question I asked was, are we looking at mobile?” Welsh told reporters during his last meeting as Chief with the Defense Writers Group in Washington, D.C. USAF experimented with mobile ICBMs in the 1980s—using trucks, railcars, and even C-5 airlifters as potential launch platforms for a “Midgetman” missile—because of concerns about Soviet missile precision and the danger of an effective first strike. In the analysis of alternatives for the GBSD, “we talked about [missile mobility] at great length, actually,” Welsh said, but “it’s an expensive option.” The “focus” of discussion moved on to simply replacing the missiles and re-using as much of the infrastructure as possible, he said. Welsh affirmed his support for the triad, saying a new GBSD is “the right approach,” but reiterated his call for a “national debate” on the strategic nuclear deterrent, urging that the nation needs to fund this foundational capability such that it is “credible and viable.” Static ICBMs in silos are a “really cheap” capability and offer a “very good, … very responsive” nuclear option when weighed against submarine-launched missiles or bombers, he asserted. “It’s just not as expensive as everyone seems to think it is,” he added
The Air Force considered but discarded a mobile version of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, because of the cost, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. When the GBSD—which will replace the Minuteman III ICBM—first came up for discussion, “the first question I asked was, are we looking at mobile?” Welsh told reporters during his last meeting as Chief with the Defense Writers Group in Washington, D.C. USAF experimented with mobile ICBMs in the 1980s—using trucks, railcars, and even C-5 airlifters as potential launch platforms for a “Midgetman” missile—because of concerns about Soviet missile precision and the danger of an effective first strike. In the analysis of alternatives for the GBSD, “we talked about [missile mobility] at great length, actually,” Welsh said, but “it’s an expensive option.” The “focus” of discussion moved on to simply replacing the missiles and re-using as much of the infrastructure as possible, he said. Welsh affirmed his support for the triad, saying a new GBSD is “the right approach,” but reiterated his call for a “national debate” on the strategic nuclear deterrent, urging that the nation needs to fund this foundational capability such that it is “credible and viable.” Static ICBMs in silos are a “really cheap” capability and offer a “very good, … very responsive” nuclear option when weighed against submarine-launched missiles or bombers, he asserted. “It’s just not as expensive as everyone seems to think it is,” he added
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
Modernization Milestones
—Will Skowronski
6/17/2016
The Air Force expects to move its Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program into the technology maturation and risk reduction phase with a Milestone A decision within the next two weeks, Air Force Chief of Staff nominee Gen. David Goldfein told lawmakers Thursday. The Air Force accelerated the replacement for the air-launched cruise missile by two years, but members of the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed concern during Goldfein’s nomination hearing, saying the Pentagon’s efforts to modernize the Air Force’s legs of the strategic triad were falling behind. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said Defense acquisition chief Frank Kendall has deferred reaching Milestone A decisions for the LRSO and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) programs. “I worry that this is inconsistent with the President’s commitment [to modernize] and could delay the fielding of these critical replacements.” Goldfein, who currently serves as the Vice Chief of Staff, said the service also expects to issue a request for proposal for the GBSD—the planned replacement for the Minuteman III ICBM—within the next two weeks, and a Milestone A decision is expected in August.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Runs Don’t Scare Me
—John A. Tirpak
6/17/2016
The Navy’s ability to secure a “sea-based deterrent fund” to finance its Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine program isn’t a concern to the Air Force, service Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. “I’m not scared of that thing at all” as a possible poacher of USAF funds, he told defense writers in Washington, D.C. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” he said, stating he doesn’t think the fund, which finances Navy nukes and subs separately from its base budget needs, is meant as a special side deal for the sea service. It’s just the “seapower caucus … trying to help” the Navy, he said. If there’s to be a special nuclear modernization fund at all, though, Welsh said it should underwrite the entirety of the nuclear enterprise, and that includes USAF bombers and ICBMS, both of which need replacement. “The debate … must include all pieces of the nuclear business,” he said. Welsh also said the USAF nuclear enterprise has made great gains in addressing morale and retention problems. He said the “pride is back” in the nuclear enterprise, and that the service had “50 percent more people” wanting to stay in the field “than we had jobs for” the last three years.” That, he said, is “a good indicator” and is proof that “a lot of good things have happened” in the nuclear Air Force.
—Will Skowronski
6/17/2016
The Air Force expects to move its Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program into the technology maturation and risk reduction phase with a Milestone A decision within the next two weeks, Air Force Chief of Staff nominee Gen. David Goldfein told lawmakers Thursday. The Air Force accelerated the replacement for the air-launched cruise missile by two years, but members of the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed concern during Goldfein’s nomination hearing, saying the Pentagon’s efforts to modernize the Air Force’s legs of the strategic triad were falling behind. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said Defense acquisition chief Frank Kendall has deferred reaching Milestone A decisions for the LRSO and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) programs. “I worry that this is inconsistent with the President’s commitment [to modernize] and could delay the fielding of these critical replacements.” Goldfein, who currently serves as the Vice Chief of Staff, said the service also expects to issue a request for proposal for the GBSD—the planned replacement for the Minuteman III ICBM—within the next two weeks, and a Milestone A decision is expected in August.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Runs Don’t Scare Me
—John A. Tirpak
6/17/2016
The Navy’s ability to secure a “sea-based deterrent fund” to finance its Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine program isn’t a concern to the Air Force, service Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. “I’m not scared of that thing at all” as a possible poacher of USAF funds, he told defense writers in Washington, D.C. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” he said, stating he doesn’t think the fund, which finances Navy nukes and subs separately from its base budget needs, is meant as a special side deal for the sea service. It’s just the “seapower caucus … trying to help” the Navy, he said. If there’s to be a special nuclear modernization fund at all, though, Welsh said it should underwrite the entirety of the nuclear enterprise, and that includes USAF bombers and ICBMS, both of which need replacement. “The debate … must include all pieces of the nuclear business,” he said. Welsh also said the USAF nuclear enterprise has made great gains in addressing morale and retention problems. He said the “pride is back” in the nuclear enterprise, and that the service had “50 percent more people” wanting to stay in the field “than we had jobs for” the last three years.” That, he said, is “a good indicator” and is proof that “a lot of good things have happened” in the nuclear Air Force.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,748
- Reaction score
- 10,200
The 'Budgetman' sounds like a textbook recipe for disaster, in every sense of the word, as if there hasn't been enough of those in the last 30 odd years or so. 
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,283
- Reaction score
- 8,943
Grey Havoc said:The 'Budgetman' sounds like a textbook recipe for disaster, in every sense of the word, as if there hasn't been enough of those in the last 30 odd years or so.
I think what they have in mind is like what they did with Peacekeeper, and put new missiles in existing silos. Nobody will be more surprised than me if they actually follow through and do more than a token deployment though.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2215
Up the thread there was a reference to a story, behind a pay wall, that Obama will change the current modernization plan. Is this the plan?
Up the thread there was a reference to a story, behind a pay wall, that Obama will change the current modernization plan. Is this the plan?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
More push against the LRSO
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/opinion/a-nuclear-weapon-that-america-doesnt-need.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
They always add a throw away sentence is these op-eds like "We support modernization" when let's face it they really don't. The trick they play is that if the LRSO is cancelled a group of different politicians will immediately start proposing cancelling the GBSD as too expensive giving cover to the LRSO people. They think we don't remember their game from the 80's when they opposed every single modernization program GLCM, Pershing II, neutron bombs, Trident II, MX, Midgetman and all warhead modernization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/opinion/a-nuclear-weapon-that-america-doesnt-need.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
They always add a throw away sentence is these op-eds like "We support modernization" when let's face it they really don't. The trick they play is that if the LRSO is cancelled a group of different politicians will immediately start proposing cancelling the GBSD as too expensive giving cover to the LRSO people. They think we don't remember their game from the 80's when they opposed every single modernization program GLCM, Pershing II, neutron bombs, Trident II, MX, Midgetman and all warhead modernization.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,283
- Reaction score
- 8,943
bobbymike said:
The amount of stupidity in that comments section makes me wonder how the human race had the sense required to survive this long. And Feinstein writing an article on nuclear weapons? Ye gods, has a more clueless politician ever been born?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
Russian Nuclear Strategy
Monday, June 27, 2016 10:00 am - 11:30 am
CSIS Headquarters - 1st Floor Conference Center
As of today, Russia has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world, with only that of the United States approaching it in size. What are Russia's intentions for its nuclear weapons? What are the Kremlin's modernization plans, its strategy, and its view of the role of nuclear weapons in its security policy? And what does all of that mean for the prospects for arms control when the next U.S. President takes office in 2017?
Featuring
Pavel Podvig
Director, Russian Nuclear Forces Project
Nikolai Sokov
Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Live Stream here:
https://www.csis.org/events/russian-nuclear-strategy
Monday, June 27, 2016 10:00 am - 11:30 am
CSIS Headquarters - 1st Floor Conference Center
As of today, Russia has the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world, with only that of the United States approaching it in size. What are Russia's intentions for its nuclear weapons? What are the Kremlin's modernization plans, its strategy, and its view of the role of nuclear weapons in its security policy? And what does all of that mean for the prospects for arms control when the next U.S. President takes office in 2017?
Featuring
Pavel Podvig
Director, Russian Nuclear Forces Project
Nikolai Sokov
Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Live Stream here:
https://www.csis.org/events/russian-nuclear-strategy
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,613
Kadija_Man said:bobbymike said:
All of which were destablising to the established strategic balance...
And objectively speaking, with the advantage of hindsight, we're all of these systems a good idea and/or ended up money well spent?
From a quick glance only Trident II appears to have remotely been a long served weapon that was remotely a good investment.
An if anyone would like to stand up and say neutron bombs were a good idea I'll be able to point at a lunatic ....
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 765
kaiserd said:
I struggled loose from my straight jacket just long enough to write this: ERWs were about the only way (during the period in which they were developed) to cost-effectively counter the Warsaw Pact's 4-to-1 advantage in armor.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,283
- Reaction score
- 8,943
marauder2048 said:
x2. Extremely effective. I'd suggest anybody terrified of "neutron bombs" almost certainly has no idea what they're talking about. Their specialty was to kill with prompt radiation and limit fallout and outright destruction.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/27/corker-mccain-dont-quit-nuke-modernization/86439404/
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/25/after-nuclear-missile-loss-dems-vow-keep-fighting/86304882/
They will non stop until we are defenseless
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/25/after-nuclear-missile-loss-dems-vow-keep-fighting/86304882/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will non stop until we are defenseless
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,613
sferrin said:
If your not terrified of a nuclear weapon then something is wrong with you.
Re: netron bombs they were a number of issues, including but not limited to their potentialy destabilising effect (seen as more palitiable to use them than other nuclear weapons) and the fact that in practise actual weapons developed were not really the "clean" weapons envisioned by the theory of neutron weapons (still producing substantial explosive yields as well as the tailored human-killing radiation release).
My recollection is also that there a question if effective against tank crews in the most modern armour of either side. And that's before you got into any potential moral or political arguments around these weapons.
Classic unsuccessful Cold War weapon; with some relatively minor exceptiond decisions made not to develop or field neutron weapons for very sound reasons, arm-chair generals 2nd guess and substitute their own hawkish views/ opinions. Everyone else came to view that fielding them just wasn't worthwhile.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 490
marauder2048 said:
What by slowly killing their crews and giving them incentive to actually take on the NATO's tanks and breakthrough before dying?
The problem with Neutron warheads is that their radiation kills (relatively) slowly. It does not instantly fry the target. The result would more than likely have been a lot of very enraged, slowly dying Warsaw Pact army crews.
Of course, it also depends on how you count the Warsaw Pact's armoured "horde", something the Pentagon was remarkably loose at doing under Reagan, with their numbers varying markedly from issue to issue of "Soviet Military Power". Propaganda? No, of course not... :
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,613
sferrin said:
My apologies to the Senator, honestly thought she was was a he. I don't really see the relevance of her gender to this topic discussion.
Considering you called her a "disgusting human being" and are making misogynist comments disparaging her physical appearance (all because you disagree with her?) perhaps your catty comments re: "knowledge" of other contributors is missing the bigger picture.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,283
- Reaction score
- 8,943
flateric said:
Removed mine. :-[ It's definitely a tough one when political forces directly effect nuclear. Perhaps it would be easier to stay on target if we limited the topic to the weapons themselves, effectivity, and deployment rather than if we should or shouldn't have them and who is doing what in DC and the Kremlin?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,138
- Reaction score
- 5,949
Funny you disagree with someone on most things implying you've studied their positions and didn't once come across the fact the senator is a women. In fact I question the veracity of your original statement and believe you just made up knowing anything about the Senator in order to assert you morally superior "hey I disagree but don't call names" commentkaiserd said:
Of note the same names always show up at the same time threads get shitty. In fact the trend is consistent a negative comment for good or for ill is made about a politician and certain members respond with an attack on other members. That said it is practically impossible in my humble opinion to remove politics from a nuke weapons discussion they being the most political of weapons around.
marauder2048
"I should really just relax"
- Joined
- 19 November 2013
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 765
Kadija_Man said:marauder2048 said:
What by slowly killing their crews and giving them incentive to actually take on the NATO's tanks and breakthrough before dying?
The problem with Neutron warheads is that their radiation kills (relatively) slowly. It does not instantly fry the target. The result would more than likely have been a lot of very enraged, slowly dying Warsaw Pact army crews.
Of course, it also depends on how you count the Warsaw Pact's armoured "horde", something the Pentagon was remarkably loose at doing under Reagan, with their numbers varying markedly from issue to issue of "Soviet Military Power". Propaganda? No, of course not... :
The 4-to-1 armor disparity figures comes from Carter-era DoD publications which were not known for their alarmism. ERWs kill relatively slowly but incapacitate and impair quickly particularly with a crew under the strain of operating a Warsaw Pact tank of that era.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,283
- Reaction score
- 8,943
marauder2048 said:Kadija_Man said:marauder2048 said:
What by slowly killing their crews and giving them incentive to actually take on the NATO's tanks and breakthrough before dying?
The problem with Neutron warheads is that their radiation kills (relatively) slowly. It does not instantly fry the target. The result would more than likely have been a lot of very enraged, slowly dying Warsaw Pact army crews.
Of course, it also depends on how you count the Warsaw Pact's armoured "horde", something the Pentagon was remarkably loose at doing under Reagan, with their numbers varying markedly from issue to issue of "Soviet Military Power". Propaganda? No, of course not... :
The 4-to-1 armor disparity figures comes from Carter-era DoD publications which were not known for their alarmism. ERWs kill relatively slowly but incapacitate and impair quickly particularly with a crew under the strain of operating a Warsaw Pact tank of that era.
More important is the deterrent factor. Suddenly the overwhelming numerical advantage of WarPac forces is reduced and that's going to make the other side think twice about starting a land war. Better to deter the other guy and avoid the war altogether I'd think. (Much like Russia uses it's strategic nuclear forces to deter the West, with it's much larger and more effective conventional forces.)
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 681
Just how useful would the anti-radiation lining the Soviets installed on many tanks and AFVs have been against neutron bombs? Enough to minimize their concern about the threat such weapons posed?
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,613
Colonial-Marine said:
Well considering that neutron weapons largely weren't actually fielded this suggests that no one had much fate in their deterrent value; from my own limited reading on neutron bombs my understanding that no one was actually sure such measures would actually be effective at protecting tank crews but given the uncertainty can understand preference shown in practise for instead going for alternative non-nuclear and nuclear weapons.
- Status
