Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sferrin said:
That comment a page or two back where they mention Russia exceeding current Treaty limits by 250 warheads but, "it's all good, no big deal".
Click to expand...

Right. Which is followed by the non-sequitur that the Russians intend to abide by
the treaty when all of the preceding evidence suggests otherwise.
The Russians were violating START I right up to the point where it expired.

One theory is that these treaties are pushed for and administered by an
otherwise unemployable mass of rent seeking civil servants and some
genuine "true believer" types.

I always find the "destabilizing" label funny since it's almost hilarious wrong in it's
application: MX was not and neither is a cruise missile that can only be launched
by subsonic bombers which are not on alert.

Trident D5 was arguably destabilizing but it didn't get the apoplectic coverage
back in the day and now seems to be the only element of the triad that
they claim to have learned to love.
 
Yep. A hard target capable, heavy payload, short flight time weapon is A-Okay. A weapon that spends 99.9% of it's time sitting in a bunker, and would take hours to get to it's target (if it managed to get in the air)? Well, that my friend is going to bring on the apocalypse. As I've said elsewhere, the level of stupidity required to actually believe the nonsense they peddle makes it difficult to believe they're not actually trying to bring about the destruction of the US. Feinstein rants in mock outrage about how the USAF, "better not be trying to make another nuclear weapon" when talking about the new cruise missile, but Russia? Crickets man.
 
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/177842/boeing-statement-on-request-for-proposal-for-new-icbm.html

Boeing Statement On Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Request for Proposal

"Boeing created the Minuteman ICBM in 1958, and we are ready to again offer an ICBM that will meet the Air Force mission requirements through 2075. "

How much confidence would you have in a car manufacturer who said, "Continental built you the Mark II in 1956 and we are ready to again offer you a car"? What a joke.
 
http://media.wix.com/ugd/a2dd91_22dade499b944802899e380cb08012a8.pdf

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/12/the_40_year_nuclear_procurement_holiday_110195.html

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-war-build-americas-new-nuclear-missile-just-getting-18016
 
http://machinedesign.com/materials/improving-nuclear-security-additive-manufacturing

Now to 3D print the whole warhead
 
Orionblamblam said:
Now if only they could 3D print some weapons-grade plutonium...
Click to expand...

Maybe we could buy some from Russia. . . :mad: :'(
 
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
Now if only they could 3D print some weapons-grade plutonium...
Click to expand...

Maybe we could buy some from Russia. . . :mad: :'(
Click to expand...
Hey, we can build 40 pits/year right up there with North Korea
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/17/why_its_safe_to_scrap_bill_perrys_advice_110217.html

It is also common for critics of ICBMs to argue that modernizing the nation’s 1970s era ICBMs risks starting an arms race with Russia and China. However, if this is an arms race, then Russia and China have been running for 10 years with their extensive modernization programs while the United States is still tying its shoes at the starting block.
Click to expand...

Because the authors of this article are too nice to say the disarmament zealots have been making disingenuous arguments for decades and continue to make them.
 
Indeed, and they continue to get rewarded for their 'efforts': http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2016/06/27/american-arms-control-expert-appointed-deputy-head-of-nato-over-gop-opposition/
 
You can't make this up. It's almost like we WANT to commit national suicide. It makes one wonder what qualifies one as an "expert". Whoever disarmed us the most? But hey, at least Russia is only 300 warheads over treaty limits and China isn't making any.
 
Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century

https://cgsr.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/SW_21_2016_Summary_Report.pdf
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/russia-developing-mach-12-hypersonic.html

Page 34-35 in this document

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/current.pdf
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-accuses-russia-of-violating-missile-treaty-1476912606
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/november/Pages/FutureNuclearCruiseMissileFacesPoliticalHeadwinds.aspx
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-russia-america-headed-towards-nuclear-war-18123

http://aviationweek.com/blog/trumps-nuke-numbers-spotlight-us-warhead-dip
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/november/Pages/BudgetImpasseThreatensOhioReplacement.aspx

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1719485-who-will-build-the-next-nuclear-armed-icbm
 
This is how you do real testing:

"The most important demonstration took place on 26 June 1962 with the first attempted
intercept of an ICBM fired from Vandenberg AFB to Kwajalein, a distance of 4,500 miles.
Unfortunately, the radar malfunctioned and the interception attempt failed. A second attempt on
19 July 1962 intercepted an Atlas D nose cone traveling 16,000 mph. One wire service release
declared the intercept a “majestic bull’s-eye, comparable some have said, to a bullet hitting a
bullet.” Project Office officials declared the test only partially successful.19 The U.S. Army
made history on 12 December 1962 when the NIKE-ZEUS Project office made a fully successful
intercept of an ICBM nose cone, passing well within the acceptable limits for a simulated nuclear
warhead.
 
sferrin said:
This is how you do real testing:

"The most important demonstration took place on 26 June 1962 with the first attempted
intercept of an ICBM fired from Vandenberg AFB to Kwajalein, a distance of 4,500 miles.
Unfortunately, the radar malfunctioned and the interception attempt failed. A second attempt on
19 July 1962 intercepted an Atlas D nose cone traveling 16,000 mph. One wire service release
declared the intercept a “majestic bull’s-eye, comparable some have said, to a bullet hitting a
bullet.” Project Office officials declared the test only partially successful.19 The U.S. Army
made history on 12 December 1962 when the NIKE-ZEUS Project office made a fully successful
intercept of an ICBM nose cone, passing well within the acceptable limits for a simulated nuclear
warhead.
Click to expand...
54 YEARS AGO amazing.

Maybe someday someone will publish a book going through all the advanced weapon systems and strategic advantages we 'gave away' during the course of the Cold War.
 
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/03053017/NuclearArsenal2.pdf

This report describes four changes to U.S. nuclear modernization plans that ensure
strategic stability in a cost-effective way:

1. Reducing the planned number of submarines from 12 to 10
2. Cancellation of the new cruise missile
3. Elimination of the tactical nuclear mission
4. A gradual reduction in the size of the ICBM force
Click to expand...

Later in the study they say even 8 SSBN(X)s is sufficient........
 
bobbymike said:
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/03053017/NuclearArsenal2.pdf

This report describes four changes to U.S. nuclear modernization plans that ensure
strategic stability in a cost-effective way:

1. Reducing the planned number of submarines from 12 to 10
2. Cancellation of the new cruise missile
3. Elimination of the tactical nuclear mission
4. A gradual reduction in the size of the ICBM force
Click to expand...

Later in the study they say even 8 SSBN(X)s is sufficient........
Click to expand...

I can't help put wonder if these guys operate out of pot-legal states. This kind of ignorance almost makes me angry. If they want to prattle on like a high school philosophy class about the meaning of blue, fine. But when it comes to national security. . .no.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/spending-bill-delay-would-trip-up-nuclear-missile-sub-cr-vs-orp/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36558486&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-96eO6zxOXXTcKr6WTSQZVD05bMAJsTKFBK3-nE4tp8dlspgBovy6mC03fFWrycSrpo9ObGVz37CxGN-WwyPvwJHv_IaQ&_hsmi=36558486

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-trim-fat-us-nuclear-arsenal#comment-520201

Trim the fat? The arsenal is anorexic now.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-six-nuclear-myths-and-six-nuclear-truths?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20161027_AW-19_116&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=7467&utm_medium=email&elq2=b5a3143b844c4a5e9452c6ad635f0a86

Peter Huessy is a real champion of the arsenal and deterrence. He has been unwavering in his support for modernization for a long time. In DC monthly (or more often) he has a breakfast series that invites prominent persons to discuss these issues, wish I lived in DC.
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/spending-bill-delay-would-trip-up-nuclear-missile-sub-cr-vs-orp/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36558486&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-96eO6zxOXXTcKr6WTSQZVD05bMAJsTKFBK3-nE4tp8dlspgBovy6mC03fFWrycSrpo9ObGVz37CxGN-WwyPvwJHv_IaQ&_hsmi=36558486

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-trim-fat-us-nuclear-arsenal#comment-520201

Trim the fat? The arsenal is anorexic now.
Click to expand...

At this point it's pretty much trying to trim the fat off a corpse. AvWeek has really taken a dive the last five or so years.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/can-us-match-new-chinese-and-russian-nuclear-weapon-technology#comment-522161

Having read Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" that an article with this title can be written is a very sobering event in the nation's history.

Time for Manhattan Project II
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1634863-navy-weighs-new-plan-for-nuclear-armed-subs

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/11/02/the_russian_nuclear_weapons_buildup_110294.html
 
bobbymike said:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/can-us-match-new-chinese-and-russian-nuclear-weapon-technology#comment-522161

Having read Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" that an article with this title can be written is a very sobering event in the nation's history.

Time for Manhattan Project II
Click to expand...

And it's self-inflicted by naïve utopian stupidity. (And that's being generous. The alternative is that those in question actually want the country destroyed.)
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/spending-bill-delay-would-trip-up-nuclear-missile-sub-cr-vs-orp/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=36558486&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-96eO6zxOXXTcKr6WTSQZVD05bMAJsTKFBK3-nE4tp8dlspgBovy6mC03fFWrycSrpo9ObGVz37CxGN-WwyPvwJHv_IaQ&_hsmi=36558486

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-trim-fat-us-nuclear-arsenal#comment-520201

Trim the fat? The arsenal is anorexic now.
Click to expand...

At this point it's pretty much trying to trim the fat off a corpse. AvWeek has really taken a dive the last five or so years.
Click to expand...

I was hoping the regime change at AvWeek would have improved matters but so far it's been very disappointing.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-modernizing-us-nuclear-forces
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-the-us-air-force-wants-new-nuclear-tipped-18308
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-the-us-air-force-wants-new-nuclear-tipped-18308
Click to expand...

"“There will be two versions—one to carry an updated W80 thermonuclear warhead, and another packed with conventional explosives for non-nuclear attacks,” the War is Boring report states."

Ye Gods. Blogs quoting blogs.

 
It's a bit baffling; the B-2 was to carry the AGM-131 SRAM II: a low RCS, standoff, nuclear tipped missile.
No one regarded this pairing of stealthy bomber and stealthy missile as destabilizing.

I tend to think that that one of the big motivators for LRSO is the ever improving point and terminal air defense systems;
B61-12 doesn't appear to have much in the way of RCS reductions or evasive capability.

The other motivator is mobile and relocatable targets; an LRSO in flight and a B-21 represent a basic
but effective T/FDOA geolocation network albeit one with an error ellipse large enough to require a nuke
to achieve a kill.
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-new-plan-build-more-lethal-ballistic-missile-18258

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/04/22361 - Report on Columbia Class
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1694776-air-force-defends-nuclear-cruise-missile
 
Whoever came up with the name "Columbia" class needs to be taken behind the woodshed.

Strategic weapons platforms demand the names of states, not cities.
 
RyanC said:
Whoever came up with the name "Columbia" class needs to be taken behind the woodshed.

Strategic weapons platforms demand the names of states, not cities.
Click to expand...
I thought 'Neptune Class" (firing Tridents) would have been cool B)
 
marauder2048 said:
I tend to think that that one of the big motivators for LRSO is the ever improving point and terminal air defense systems;
B61-12 doesn't appear to have much in the way of RCS reductions or evasive capability.
Click to expand...

Don't know that anything could be done about it while keeping it a gravity bomb. Of course they could take the 'splody part out and stick it in a JASSM. . .
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
I tend to think that that one of the big motivators for LRSO is the ever improving point and terminal air defense systems;
B61-12 doesn't appear to have much in the way of RCS reductions or evasive capability.
Click to expand...

Don't know that anything could be done about it while keeping it a gravity bomb. Of course they could take the 'splody part out and stick it in a JASSM. . .
Click to expand...

Yep. An SRSO seems vital. Since the cancellation of SRAM II also killed SRAM-T it's an open requirement.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/sole-us-air-force-nuclear-cruise-missile-showing-its-age
 
bobbymike said:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/sole-us-air-force-nuclear-cruise-missile-showing-its-age
Click to expand...
Seems to be a few stories that the reason the LRSO is so critical is that the ALCM has huge reliability issues.

Our arsenal is at a critical "may not work" stage. I get more disgusted with this situation everyday.
 
bobbymike said:
bobbymike said:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/sole-us-air-force-nuclear-cruise-missile-showing-its-age
Click to expand...
Seems to be a few stories that the reason the LRSO is so critical is that the ALCM has huge reliability issues.

Our arsenal is at a critical "may not work" stage. I get more disgusted with this situation everyday.
Click to expand...

Keep that fire burning when you go to the voting booth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom