Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
RyanC said:
bobbymike said:
Same people same flawed logic.

I don't know, I find the logic to be *slightly* better than traditional "War is Boring" tripe.

What we really need is Nuclear SDB for the *entire* manned combat aircraft fleet, from F-22 to B-1B.

I've posted it before, but basically, smallest nuclear weapon *that we know of* fits inside a 155mm diameter shell.

SDB's diameter is about 180mm or so.

SDB can glide for about 30-40 miles on it's own, and has a pretty decent CEP, even on "GPS-denied, Inertial guidance only" mode.

I kind of like the idea of a F-22 being able to carry 16 nuclear weapons with a CEP of about 25 meters. ;D
You had me at "Nuclear SDB" B)

Personally I don't know why the labs, military, NNSA or proponents in Congress don't push for, at least, R&D on a family of warhead designs from low Kt to high Mt for the Asteroid Defect Mission. Seems the "We can save the world with nukes" might be a decent marketing plan?
 
RyanC said:
bobbymike said:
Same people same flawed logic.

I don't know, I find the logic to be *slightly* better than traditional "War is Boring" tripe.

What we really need is Nuclear SDB for the *entire* manned combat aircraft fleet, from F-22 to B-1B.

I've posted it before, but basically, smallest nuclear weapon *that we know of* fits inside a 155mm diameter shell.

SDB's diameter is about 180mm or so.

SDB can glide for about 30-40 miles on it's own, and has a pretty decent CEP, even on "GPS-denied, Inertial guidance only" mode.

I kind of like the idea of a F-22 being able to carry 16 nuclear weapons with a CEP of about 25 meters. ;D

I'll bet it would shock some to their very core to learn that "back in the day" damn near everything had a nuclear option. Imagine this baby fitted with W82 warheads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmUU1SUDeAo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVpogSPBJPY
 
RyanC said:
bobbymike said:
Same people same flawed logic.


SDB can glide for about 30-40 miles on it's own, and has a pretty decent CEP, even on "GPS-denied, Inertial guidance only" mode.

I kind of like the idea of a F-22 being able to carry 16 nuclear weapons with a CEP of about 25 meters. ;D

F-22 was able to lob SDB I 70+ nautical miles downrange.
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html

As the saying goes, "there's no cure for stupid".
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html

As the saying goes, "there's no cure for stupid".
And that's why I try and support guys like Peter Huessy who really is one of the good guys in my opinion when it comes to nuclear issues. He along with the Mitchell Institute have been supporting discussions about nuclear issues in their 'Breakfast Series' of discussions for years. I also make a point to support and comment positively with guys like Adam Lowther (no relation to Scott although somewhat similar views ;D), Dr. Keith Panye & Dr. Mark Schneider (National Institute for Public Policy) Michaela Dodge (Heritage) Constance Douris (Lexington Institute) Matthew Kroenig (University of Georgetown) Rebeccah Heinrichs (Hudson Institute) & Elbridge Colby (Center for a New American Security) and I am missing a few.
 
http://webjeju.com/theguardian/2016/09/17/obama-to-decide-on-cuts-to-us-nuclear-arsenal-in-october/
 
bobbymike said:
http://webjeju.com/theguardian/2016/09/17/obama-to-decide-on-cuts-to-us-nuclear-arsenal-in-october/

So the LRSO is likely dead. Why am I not surprised?
 
bobbymike said:
http://webjeju.com/theguardian/2016/09/17/obama-to-decide-on-cuts-to-us-nuclear-arsenal-in-october/

As long as he gets his "legacy" screw the country.

"The cruise missiles have been described as potentially destabilising because they can be launched without warning and are impossible to distinguish from their conventional counterparts."

Perhaps they could answer the question as to why, if they're so destabilizing, haven't they kicked off a nuclear war by accident, or even caused concern, by now. Was the world on the verge of nuclear annihilation when Russia launched cruise missiles into Syria? When the US launched them in to Iraq, or Kosovo, or any of the other places they've launched them? One can't help but wonder how these terror weapons would be more "destabilizing" than AGM-86s - that we've had for a quarter century. Or more destabilizing than AGM-129s (surely a stealth cruise missile would be the end of the world, no?) Or how about Hound Dogs, with their megaton warheads? But hey, that's okay. At least Russian and Chinese nuclear-armed cruise missiles aren't destabilizing. This kind of stupidity is actually far more dangerous to the country than Russian or Chinese nukes.
 
I thought it was telling that certain countries convinced the Obama (begged, threatened with their own nuclear program, etc) to Not pursue No-First-Use.

The president wants to cut weapons, programs, policies, but his foreign policy has left the world with at least one, if not two, new nuclear weapon states. That's the real legacy....
 
DrRansom said:
I thought it was telling that certain countries convinced the Obama (begged, threatened with their own nuclear program, etc) to Not pursue No-First-Use.

The president wants to cut weapons, programs, policies, but his foreign policy has left the world with at least one, if not two, new nuclear weapon states. That's the real legacy....

North Korea and Iran certainly. And South Korea and Japan to the list I'd think too. The US can't be relied upon anymore so they'll both inevitably feel the need to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter China. Nobel Peace Prize indeed.
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
I thought it was telling that certain countries convinced the Obama (begged, threatened with their own nuclear program, etc) to Not pursue No-First-Use.

The president wants to cut weapons, programs, policies, but his foreign policy has left the world with at least one, if not two, new nuclear weapon states. That's the real legacy....

North Korea and Iran certainly. And South Korea and Japan to the list I'd think too. The US can't be relied upon anymore so they'll both inevitably feel the need to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter China. Nobel Peace Prize indeed.

I think the DPRK is at the top of both nation's list rather than the PRC.

Of course, we mustn't forget Pakistan, India, Israel all nations which gained nuclear status under Republican presidents. ::)
 
Kadija_Man said:
Of course, we mustn't forget Pakistan, India, Israel all nations which gained nuclear status under Republican presidents. ::)

Are you dating that to the first non-zero yield test?
 
GAO Assessed the Need for Each Leg of the Strategic Triad and Considered Other Reductions to Nuclear Forces

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679952.pdf
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=2313

GBSD cost estimating trouble.
 
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-chinese-multiwarhead-df41-missile/?platform=hootsuite
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gathering-nuclear-storm-1474668674

http://www.wsj.com/articles/evading-the-constitution-to-ban-nuclear-tests-1471303498
 
Carter: Investment Shows Commitment to Nuke Forces

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks at Minot AFB, North Dakota, Sept. 26, 2016. DOD photo.

​Minot AFB, N.D.—Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Monday kicked off a multi-day, multiple base visit to the USAF nuclear enterprise, telling B-52 and Minuteman III crews at Minot AFB, N.D., that while their mission isn't highly visible to the public, those in the Defense Department will place increased emphasis on its health in the face of increasing aggression from nuclear powers abroad. “All together, you are part of something vital and special,” Carter told a gathering of Minot personnel on Monday. “After all, there's a lot that goes into this mission—because while deterrence may seem like a simple, even elegant concept, it rests on a complicated, human-intensive, and technology-intensive process.” A healthy nuclear deterrence is dependent on how it is perceived, and if potential adversaries believe the US nuclear triad is healthy and credible. “How we deter cannot be static; rather it must adapt as threats evolve, while continuing to preserve strategic stability—reinforcing nuclear restraint, rather than inviting competition or attack,” Carter said. The US has underinvested in its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War, a trend the administration is seeking to end with the Fiscal 2017 budget. Previously, the Defense Department spent about $15 billion per year as a “modest investment in basic sustainment and operations.” The budget request calls for $19 billion for 2017, which is part of $108 billion over the next five years to “sustain and recapitalize” the nuclear force.

FIP Beginning to be Felt at Nuke Bases

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—Defense Secretary Ash Carter's miniature tour of the Air Force's nuclear infrastructure kicked off at Minot AFB, N.D., a base that is home to two legs of the nuclear triad and has seen modest improvements under the service's push to revamp its nuclear community. Decades of underinvestment in the nuclear community led to out-of-date facilities and related low morale in the nuclear career fields. Since Air Force Global Strike Command’s Force Improvement Program launched in February 2014, there's been increased spending on quality of life improvements and infrastructure that is needed. During a speech to airmen at Minot, Carter highlighted these investments: a repaired runway, expanded childcare options, 24/7 fitness centers. “It's created new incentive pay and special assignment duty pay for military personnel,” Carter said. “It's helped increase locality pay rates for civilians. And importantly, it reflects how we're taking steps to replace the helicopters that help ensure our ICBMs are secure.” Airmen with the 91st Security Forces Group here have seen a few increases in quality of life since the FIP, including new Operational Camouflage Pattern uniforms, Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights for M-4s, and improved plates and protective vests. Security forces airmen have seen increased specialty pay, since they spend extended amounts of times deployed to missile alert facilities across the service's sprawling missile bases. There is still room for some quality of life improvements, especially on some things that aren't really considered on the policy level. Lt. Col. Jared Nelson, commander of the 742nd Missile Squadron at Minot, said one improvement he'd like to see is new chairs in the missile facilities. The missile facilities, and cushioning of the chairs, dates back more than 50 years.

A Cultural Change, 85 Feet Underground

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—The biggest change from the Air Force's attempt to revitalize the morale of its the nuclear community hasn't been money spent on new equipment, it has been the change away from intense inspections to more personal accountability, airmen in the service's missile fields say. Lt. Col. Jared Nelson, commander of the 742nd Missile Squadron at Minot AFB, N.D., said since the move away from regular, intense inspections where airmen felt pressured to always post perfect scores, he has seen an improvement in both morale and overall performance of his airmen. “We're better today,” Nelson said. The Air Force's missileers for years felt intense pressure to receive perforce scores on inspections, a culture that reached a breaking point in 2014 when almost 100 missileers at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., were caught cheating in their proficiency exams. After that incident broke, the Air Force began a grassroots effort to review morale issues in the nuclear community, called the Force Improvement Program, that focused on what airmen said needed to be changed. One of the first changes was a move away from constant testing and inspections, to pass/fail tests and a system where airmen can use more personal accountability to track their proficiency. Airmen are less stressed about the exams, and in turn have been able to focus on improving in their jobs. About “85 percent of what was wrong” with morale has been fixed by issues raised in the FIP, Nelson said.

A Changing Nuclear Threat

—Brian Everstine9/27/2016

​Minot AFB, N.D.—While there isn't a looming threat of a nuclear exchange between global powers, the threat of nuclear attacks is still high and in different ways that the US must be prepared for, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday. While visiting missileers and B-52 crews at Minot AFB, N.D., Carter said there is a reality that potential nuclear adversaries, such as Russia or North Korea, could take an “unwise resort to smaller but still unprecedentedly terrible attacks” as a means to coerce a conventionally superior opponent to back off or abandon an ally during a crisis. This threat is growing following recent activity by Russia, such as its 2014 incursion into Ukraine. “We cannot allow that to happen, which is why we're working with our allies in both regions to innovate and operate in new ways that sustain deterrence and continue to preserve strategic stability,” Carter said during a troop event at Minot.

In Europe, Carter said the US and NATO is “refreshing” its nuclear playbook to integrate conventional and nuclear deterrence “to ensure we plan and train like we'd fight.” This includes the basing of B-61 and dual-capable fighter aircraft at bases across the continent. “Moscow's recent saber-rattling and building of new nuclear weapons systems raises serious questions about its leaders' commitment to strategic stability,” Carter said. The US needs to make needed investment now, because while the military was avoiding serious spending on its nuclear infrastructure since the end of the Cold War, other countries have increased spending. “We didn't build new types of nuclear weapons or delivery systems for the last 25 years, but others did, at the same time that our allies in Asia, the Middle East, and NATO did not, so we must continue to sustain our deterrence.” While Carter called out Russia and North Korea for its unprofessional actions, he said some countries have “shown responsible behavior,” including India, Pakistan, and China. Iran, even, has constrained its nuclear aspirations under the recent nuclear accord that “as long as it continues to be implemented, will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/26/pentagon_chief_is_expert_on_nukes_but_says_little_about_them_110126.html
 
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
Of course, we mustn't forget Pakistan, India, Israel all nations which gained nuclear status under Republican presidents. ::)

Are you dating that to the first non-zero yield test?

He forgot the big one: Truman, Democrat, 1949, Soviet Union.

Or drawing a very, very long bow of historical equivalence there. Especially since one case (Israel) predates active US non proliferation policy.
 
Probably worth mentioning: LBJ, Democrat, 1964, China.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
Of course, we mustn't forget Pakistan, India, Israel all nations which gained nuclear status under Republican presidents. ::)

Are you dating that to the first non-zero yield test?

He forgot the big one: Truman, Democrat, 1949, Soviet Union.

Or drawing a very, very long bow of historical equivalence there. Especially since one case (Israel) predates active US non proliferation policy.
Who were arguably handed the technology by Democrat Communist sympathizers
 
bobbymike said:
Abraham Gubler said:
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
Of course, we mustn't forget Pakistan, India, Israel all nations which gained nuclear status under Republican presidents. ::)

Are you dating that to the first non-zero yield test?

He forgot the big one: Truman, Democrat, 1949, Soviet Union.

Or drawing a very, very long bow of historical equivalence there. Especially since one case (Israel) predates active US non proliferation policy.
Who were arguably handed the technology by Democrat Communist sympathizers

Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.
 
kaiserd said:
Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.

If FDR and Truman hadn't prohibited counter-espionage against Soviet cells during WWII it's probable that Fuchs and his confederates would have been sniffed out much earlier.
Thankfully, some elements of the US Army (e.g. the Venona project) disregarded this prohibition otherwise Fuchs et al would never have been exposed and convicted.
 
marauder2048 said:
kaiserd said:
Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.

If FDR and Truman hadn't prohibited counter-espionage against Soviet cells during WWII it's probable that Fuchs and his confederates would have been sniffed out much earlier.
Thankfully, some elements of the US Army (e.g. the Venona project) disregarded this prohibition otherwise Fuchs et al would never have been exposed and convicted.

Could and should US counter-espionage measures been better? Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly yes.
But that's a million miles from what was being untruthfully and slanderously alleged by bobbymike and it was his comments that I was responding to.
 
kaiserd said:
marauder2048 said:
kaiserd said:
Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.

If FDR and Truman hadn't prohibited counter-espionage against Soviet cells during WWII it's probable that Fuchs and his confederates would have been sniffed out much earlier.
Thankfully, some elements of the US Army (e.g. the Venona project) disregarded this prohibition otherwise Fuchs et al would never have been exposed and convicted.

Could and should US counter-espionage measures been better? Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly yes.
But that's a million miles from what was being untruthfully and slanderously alleged by bobbymike and it was his comments that I was responding to.
And who do you think they voted for and whose economic program did they support? The far left of the democrat party and the international Comintern have been simpatico since at least the 1930s.
 
bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
marauder2048 said:
kaiserd said:
Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.


If FDR and Truman hadn't prohibited counter-espionage against Soviet cells during WWII it's probable that Fuchs and his confederates would have been sniffed out much earlier.
Thankfully, some elements of the US Army (e.g. the Venona project) disregarded this prohibition otherwise Fuchs et al would never have been exposed and convicted.

Could and should US counter-espionage measures been better? Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly yes.
But that's a million miles from what was being untruthfully and slanderously alleged by bobbymike and it was his comments that I was responding to.
And who do you think they voted for and whose economic program did they support? The far left of the democrat party and the international Comintern have been simpatico since at least the 1930s.

That really isn't true. At all. Apart from the paranoid minds of the US hard right. Interesting to see there are still some out there that subscribe to the long discredited McCarthy era red-in-the-bed fantasies.
And looking to discredit their Democrats enemies as somehow equivalent to/ in league with international communism.

By your very logic the Republcan party during approx. the same period was "simpatico" with facisim and nazism; shared values of corporatism, anti-semitisim. Militarism and anti-democratic sympathies (after successive electoral crushings by FDR and the Democrats). In truth this would be a gross simpilification and generalisation to the point of being actively and intentionaly dishonest and misleading.
 
kaiserd said:
bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
marauder2048 said:
kaiserd said:
Pathetic and untrue political slander.
They were handed nuclear secrets by their agents within the US and other countries nuclear weapon programmes. And the USSR had its own nuclear weapon programme running from before the end of WW2.
The likes of Klaus Fuchs was no more a Democrat than you are; they were communist true believers, blinded to the evil of Stallin and his system.


If FDR and Truman hadn't prohibited counter-espionage against Soviet cells during WWII it's probable that Fuchs and his confederates would have been sniffed out much earlier.
Thankfully, some elements of the US Army (e.g. the Venona project) disregarded this prohibition otherwise Fuchs et al would never have been exposed and convicted.

Could and should US counter-espionage measures been better? Were mistakes made? Undoubtedly yes.
But that's a million miles from what was being untruthfully and slanderously alleged by bobbymike and it was his comments that I was responding to.
And who do you think they voted for and whose economic program did they support? The far left of the democrat party and the international Comintern have been simpatico since at least the 1930s.

That really isn't true. At all. Apart from the paranoid minds of the US hard right. Interesting to see there are still some out there that subscribe to the long discredited McCarthy era red-in-the-bed fantasies.
And looking to discredit their Democrats enemies as somehow equivalent to/ in league with international communism.

By your very logic the Republcan party during approx. the same period was "simpatico" with facisim and nazism; shared values of corporatism, anti-semitisim. Militarism and anti-democratic sympathies (after successive electoral crushings by FDR and the Democrats). In truth this would be a gross simpilification and generalisation to the point of being actively and intentionaly dishonest and misleading.
It's more interesting the lengths some go to hide this relationship.
 
http://allthingsnuclear.org/syoung/president-changed-nuclear-policy

https://blog.gao.gov/2016/09/27/nuclear-weapons-and-the-u-s-strategic-triad/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-future-idUSKCN11W2IW

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-nuclear-missile-replacement-triggers-massive-testing-regime
 
bobbymike said:
It's more interesting the lengths some go to hide this relationship.

Apparently all you need to do is say "McCarthy" and its as if Henry Wallace was never VP and the New Deal was just about building walking tracks in national parks.
 
GBSD: The Biggest Operational Test Program Ever?

—Brian Everstine 9/28/2016

​Kirtland AFB, N.M.—The test and evaluation process for the Air Force's next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile could be the biggest ever, even larger and more expensive than the F-35, an official here said. The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is deemed a "very big program," prompting the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center to ask for additional funding in the next Program Objective Memorandum cycle, between Fiscal 2018 and 2022. Kirtland is the home of multiple agencies overseeing the service's nuclear development and testing of new weapons, including the Nuclear Weapons Center and the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center. The Air Force had previously requested additional funding for other "very big programs," such as the F-35 and F-22. The testing process for GBSD is a big question mark going ahead, because there's a lot of unknowns such as how many missiles will eventually be purchased and the extent of refurbishment of launch control centers. Also, the testing process for ballistic missiles is even more difficult because they "don't land," and instead crash into the sea and are destroyed in test launches. There will be extensive simulation and modeling needed to operationally test the GBSD. (See also: Ground-Based Question Mark from the July 2016 issue of Air Force Magazine.)

Depots for ICBMs

—Brian Everstine 9/28/2016

​Kirtland AFB, N.M.—The Air Force is using an aircraft's long-term maintenance schedule to ensure the health of its Minuteman III fleet, using empty silos under New START as depots for the ICBMs. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center here recently did a proof of concept to do in-depth "wingtip to wingtip, tip to tail" maintenance of the missiles like they do aircraft, said Tom Berardinelli, the director of staff for the center. Under the programmed depot maintenance cycle, the service is able to identify problem areas and make replacements before it breaks. However, that has not yet been possible with the ICBM feet. The depot cycle will be an Air Force-owned process with contractor support, unlike aircraft depot cycles where planes return to manufactures for in-depth work. Under New START, the Air Force will go down to 400 silos, which frees up silos to be kept in a "warm status" to do intensive work without impacting the alert status of the rest of the missile fleet. The Air Force is expecting the new method will identify plenty of problems to fix. "We're gonna find a lot, it's a 50 year old infrastructure," Berardinelli said.

Carter Presses Case for LRSO

—Brian Everstine 9/28/2016

​Kirtland AFB, N.M.—Much like the rest of the military's nuclear arsenal, the Defense Department must move ahead on the Long-Range Standoff Weapon to ensure a credible deterrent and the ability to penetrate a denied area, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Tuesday. Speaking at the home of the Air Force's Nuclear Weapons Center, Carter said the LRSO is needed because the current Air Launched Cruise Missile is too old to keep a safe and ready deterrent in the future. Carter this week visited Kirtland and Minot AFB, N.D., to highlight the need to rebuild the military's aging nuclear infrastructure. On Monday, Carter visited a nuclear weapons storage facility at Minot where airmen work on the ALCM. The cruise missile fleet there maintains a high readiness rate—a mission capable percentage of about 98 percent —because of intense maintenance where "every screw" counts, airmen at the base said. Some component manufacturers aren't around, and the airmen have even considered 3D printing components. The missiles were manufactured in the 1980s and were originally expected to stick around for just a decade, but are now projected to be in service beyond 2030. (For more about the nuclear force, read the editorial in the September issue of Air Force Magazine: 21st Century Peace Through Strength.)
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/27/first-strike-nuclear-doctrine-wont-change-carter.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
 
Russian SSBN Yuri Dolgorukiy

http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/503766.html?utm_source=twsharing&utm_medium=social

Sarmat

https://southfront.org/rs-28-sarmat-heavy-intercontinental-ballistic-missile/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/27/first-strike-nuclear-doctrine-wont-change-carter.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

I fear that Carter may be saying that more in the hope than in the expectation.
 
http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942

reshaping or canceling the plan to spend at least $85 billion or more on roughly 650 new land-based missiles to support a deployed force of 400 missiles; halting the plan for roughly 1,000 new air-launched, nuclear-capable cruise missiles at a cost of some $20 billion to $25 billion; trimming back the plan for 12 new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, which are estimated to cost $140 billion to develop.

The unilateral disarmament crowd never sleeps......... It is dangerous, dangerous thinking.
 
Must be time for Mr. Perry to chime in. ::)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-scrap-americas-icbms.html?_r=0

In recent years, Russia and the United States have started rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting the world on the threshold of a dangerous new arms race. But we don’t have to repeat the perilous drama of the 20th century. We can maintain our country’s strength and security and still do away with the worst of the Cold War weapons.

Notice what's missing from this statement (and the rest of the article)? Throw out the words Cold War several times with no comparison of today's arsenal to the actual Cold War arsenal.

The American plan to rebuild and maintain our nuclear force is needlessly oversize and expensive, expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This would crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge of our conventional forces and to build the capacities needed to deal with terrorism and cyberattacks.

5% of the defense budget 1/2 o 1% of the federal budget over 30 years.

Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn’t only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.

$85 billion over 30 years or ~4/100ths of 1% of total government spending over the same time frame. Notice they never include comparative numbers.

Today, the United States’ submarine and bomber forces are highly accurate, and we have enough confidence in their security that we do not need an additional insurance policy — especially one that is so expensive and open to error.

Open to error? In the article he gives one example in the last 40 years or have I missed all the accidental ICBM launches? FYI Stratcom chief Adm. Cecil Haney 100% refuted this 'we will launch on warning' arms control zealot shibboleth.

But the development of new air-launched nuclear cruise missiles, which has been proposed, is unnecessary and destabilizing. We can maintain an effective bomber force without a nuclear cruise missile.

No ICBMs, no modern cruise missiles.........just posted an article where they call for reducing the future Columbia SSBN force as well. As I indicated different groups will attack different elements of the Triad and nuke enterprise in the hope of massive unilateral reductions.

Instead of over investing in nuclear weapons and encouraging a new arms race, the United States should build only the levels needed for deterrence. We should encourage Russia to do the same. But even if it does not, our levels of nuclear forces should be determined by what we actually need, not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for missile.

Last time I checked we are the only ones not modernization and basically haven't for 25 years. Don't take my word for it SecDef Carter just made the statement himself a day or two ago. And while yes we have a modernization 'blueprint' 1) first deployments are decades away, 2) How much actually gets built with a multi-decade screeching and wailing 'look how much it costs won't someone think of the children' concerted arms control attack, who knows?

As for sizing our forces to what we require for our security I completely agree.......START I levels 1200 launchers and 6000 deployed warheads.

Russia and the United States have already been through one nuclear arms race. We spent trillions of dollars and took incredible risks in a misguided quest for security.

Misguided quest for security, has he forgotten what the first half of the 20th Century looked like without nuclear weapons? There has been the largest decline of military and civilians deaths as a percentage of global population since 1945, I think they called this the 'nuclear age'
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-obama-nuclear-policy.html?mabReward=A3&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton expressed doubts about whether the United States should go forward with a trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear forces at a fund-raiser in February, questioning an Obama administration plan that she has remained largely silent on in public.

Mrs. Clinton also suggested she would be far tougher against foreign nations that hack into American computer networks and would kill one of the Pentagon’s pet projects, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile.

“The last thing we need,” she told the audience, “are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed.”
 
bobbymike said:
http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942

reshaping or canceling the plan to spend at least $85 billion or more on roughly 650 new land-based missiles to support a deployed force of 400 missiles;
halting the plan for roughly 1,000 new air-launched, nuclear-capable cruise missiles at a cost of some $20 billion to $25 billion;
trimming back the plan for 12 new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, which are estimated to cost $140 billion to develop.

The unilateral disarmament crowd never sleeps......... It is dangerous, dangerous thinking.

Jesus. I thought these people were suppose to be smart. (Maybe they're book smart but they damn sure aren't street smart.) Everything is "destabilizing" with no evidence whatsoever and, in fact, most factual, objective evidence showing exactly the opposite.
 
bobbymike said:
“The last thing we need,” she told the audience, “are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed.”


Sorry sweetie, we've had them for half a century. So has everybody else. ::)
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signed-secret-document-to-lift-u-n-sanctions-on-iranian-banks-1475193723

Will we ever get a full comprehensive accounting of the sham called the Iranian Nuclear Deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom