Secret Projects Forum

General => The Bar => Topic started by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 10:56:51 am

Title: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 10:56:51 am
In trying to keep the NEWS ONLY thread NEWS ONLY I'm starting this one for general -non political- discussion.  SJW spamming/trolling will be reported.  That said, this system seems tailor-made for stirring $hit and walking the gray area:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14114.msg258640.html#msg258640

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-nuclear-armed-drone-submarine/

talk about jacking up tension levels.  In theory Russia could park this in international waters just off the coast and sit there perfectly legally.  Parking a 100 Mt warhead 12.1 NM off the coast would take international trolling to a whole new level.  Tow it to it's deployment spot and have it drop anchor.  Even setting it off IN PLACE is going to cause a LOT of damage.  How does a country deal with something like this?  Blow it up as soon as it shows up? During peacetime?  Park an ASW right next to it? The ASW would get zero notice and be vaporized when the thing went off.  Equip it with short range, high speed missiles and they could be on target before the decision maker could even order the thing blown up. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 08, 2015, 11:34:47 am
In trying to keep the NEWS ONLY thread NEWS ONLY I'm starting this one for general -non political- discussion.  SJW spamming/trolling will be reported.  That said, this system seems tailor-made for stirring $hit and walking the gray area:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14114.msg258640.html#msg258640

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-nuclear-armed-drone-submarine/

talk about jacking up tension levels.  In theory Russia could park this in international waters just off the coast and sit there perfectly legally.  Parking a 100 Mt warhead 12.1 NM off the coast would take international trolling to a whole new level.  Tow it to it's deployment spot and have it drop anchor.  Even setting it off IN PLACE is going to cause a LOT of damage.  How does a country deal with something like this?  Blow it up as soon as it shows up? During peacetime?  Park an ASW right next to it? The ASW would get zero notice and be vaporized when the thing went off.  Equip it with short range, high speed missiles and they could be on target before the decision maker could even order the thing blown up. 
And something like IIRC 70% of US imports/exports go through 5 main ports. Five weapons and the entire economy is dead for years if not decades [forever].

Also, outside our SSBN sites planned to destroy as many of our subs as possible. Do any of the proponents of "SSBNs only" for deterrence want to comment? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 11:43:01 am
I've often wondered why they didn't (apparently) plan something like this but with Oscars and nuclear-armed Shipwrecks. 24 supersonic sea-skimmers easily capable of carrying megaton-class warheads.  One Oscar II parked off Virginia could take out many high value targets in a matter of minutes. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: merriman on September 08, 2015, 11:47:56 am
I've often wondered why they didn't (apparently) plan something like this but with Oscars and nuclear-armed Shipwrecks. 24 supersonic sea-skimmers easily capable of carrying megaton-class warheads.  One Oscar II parked off Virginia could take out many high value targets in a matter of minutes.

Gee ... thanks.

David
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: DrRansom on September 08, 2015, 12:07:42 pm
There seem to be two possibilities here, which the article didn't really distinguish from:

A. Something akin to a Super-Cavitating megaton yield torpedo. Nuclear armed torpedo, but with longer range and higher speed.

B. A ultra-long range (possibly nuclear powered) UUV with a megaton yield warhead. In this case, I am uncertain about the 'high-speed' element here, other than high strategic speed?

Viewed from one point of view, this is an excellent way of negating US strategic submarine superiority without requiring that Russia develop more attack submarines or dedicate existing attack submarines to strategic targets.

A tricky part is that having nuclear weapons based on the seabed goes against some arms control treaty (I forgot which one). Russia may not want to violate that, hence the emphasis on long range UUV. E.g. if the UUV is continuously cruising, then there is no technical violation of that treaty. Russia is also banking on the US not wanting to resume strategic arms race (which seems to be a safe guess right now).

As for defenses, perhaps something like a shore-based ASROC tied into a SOSUS barrier? Get an extended range ASROC, 100nm +, and connect interconnect that into a shoreline defense grid. Still requires a torpedo capable of hitting a, possibly, super-cavitating warhead.

I do think that we will start seeing arguments for revitalized homeland defenses, be it against cruise missiles or sub launched weapons. But that requires the will to spend money and ideas about how to push defense costs low enough to be affordable.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 08, 2015, 12:14:59 pm
Oh, joy.

A tricky part is that having nuclear weapons based on the seabed goes against some arms control treaty (I forgot which one). Russia may not want to violate that, hence the emphasis on long range UUV. E.g. if the UUV is continuously cruising, then there is no technical violation of that treaty. Russia is also banking on the US not wanting to resume strategic arms race (which seems to be a safe guess right now).

I think we can safely predict that we will be saying bye-bye to yet another arms control treaty in the not too distant future, this one in the form of the Seabed Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabed_Arms_Control_Treaty).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 08, 2015, 01:08:31 pm
Oh, joy.

A tricky part is that having nuclear weapons based on the seabed goes against some arms control treaty (I forgot which one). Russia may not want to violate that, hence the emphasis on long range UUV. E.g. if the UUV is continuously cruising, then there is no technical violation of that treaty. Russia is also banking on the US not wanting to resume strategic arms race (which seems to be a safe guess right now).

I think we can safely predict that we will be saying bye-bye to yet another arms control treaty in the not too distant future, this one in the form of the Seabed Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabed_Arms_Control_Treaty).
Actions such as these combined with INF Treaty violations are why I have always feared a Russia 'break-out' from New START as well, remember there is no 'reserve' warhead limits. Russia still employs four times as many people in its nuclear weapons complex and has active warhead production lines. Now this married to all their large MIRV capable systems (Sarmat the SS-18 replacement will be capable of 10 to 15 warheads IIRC) we wake up one day to a 5000 warhead arsenal.

Why I have been a proponent of the GBSD being at least Peacekeeper sized housed in new super hardened silos with reserve warheads to upload it, the Trident D5 and our bombers to the maximum warhead limit if required
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 08, 2015, 01:16:02 pm
What a bunch of BS that this topic was going to be a general non-political discussion of nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 08, 2015, 01:21:39 pm
What a bunch of BS that this topic was going to be a general non-political discussion of nuclear weapons.
Which are the overtly political comments? Discussions of force levels, weapon systems, treaties that limit nuclear weapons, possible deployment concepts?? Help me out here?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 01:36:13 pm
I've often wondered why they didn't (apparently) plan something like this but with Oscars and nuclear-armed Shipwrecks. 24 supersonic sea-skimmers easily capable of carrying megaton-class warheads.  One Oscar II parked off Virginia could take out many high value targets in a matter of minutes.

Gee ... thanks.

David

What?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: PaulMM (Overscan) on September 08, 2015, 02:20:41 pm
Discussion about nuclear weapons tends to be political. Discussion of rumours about scary Russian nuclear robot submarines posted on websites with dubious past records for accuracy is inherently political.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 08, 2015, 02:39:14 pm
Discussion about nuclear weapons tends to be political. Discussion of rumours about scary Russian nuclear robot submarines posted on websites with dubious past records for accuracy is inherently political.
Interesting that is has a Pentagon codename, no? Interesting that former head of Stratcom Gen. Kehler commented on the weapon system and did not dismiss? Seems to be a couple of Pentagon officials that commented as well. A former CIA agent with a background in Russian affairs is quoted.

Also, I have not seen Bill Gertz called out for any intentional deceit in his reporting. If he has links to those counter articles would be welcome.

But in a general sense when you have civilian control of the armed forces and democratically elected officials in charge of the defense budget process OF COURSE there is always a political dimension.

So to me here is a fair point followed by an unfair political point.

Fair point
1) The US should counter this system by building X, Y & Z
Unfair political point
2) But Obama won't because X, Y & Z

Now the opposite side of the spectrum

Fair point
1) This article is hyperbole Russia wouldn't build something like this is would be too strategically dangerous
Unfair political point
2) Republicans are making this up to scare us into another arms race to benefit the Military Industrial Complex

I think the examples are easy to distinguish


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 08, 2015, 03:07:32 pm
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/09/will-subdrones-cause-world-war-iii/120383/?oref=d-topstory
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 03:11:36 pm
Discussion about nuclear weapons tends to be political.

Which is why I put "non political" in the opening post.  Talking about technical or operational aspects of nuclear weapons is no more inherently political than any other weapon system, and it's not difficult to distinguish between a political post and a non-political post.  I think we all know the difference.  What I'm attempting here in this thread is to be able to have discussion without all the emotional BS that inevitably raises it's head whenever politics are dragged into the discussion. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: merriman on September 08, 2015, 05:26:22 pm
I've often wondered why they didn't (apparently) plan something like this but with Oscars and nuclear-armed Shipwrecks. 24 supersonic sea-skimmers easily capable of carrying megaton-class warheads.  One Oscar II parked off Virginia could take out many high value targets in a matter of minutes.

Gee ... thanks.

David

What?

I live in Virginia Beach

David
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 05:57:29 pm
I've often wondered why they didn't (apparently) plan something like this but with Oscars and nuclear-armed Shipwrecks. 24 supersonic sea-skimmers easily capable of carrying megaton-class warheads.  One Oscar II parked off Virginia could take out many high value targets in a matter of minutes.

Gee ... thanks.

David

What?

I live in Virginia Beach

David

Oh.  Nothing personal.  Just a lot of high value targets in the area.  (DC, the Pentagon, Newport News, Langley, etc. )
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sublight is back on September 08, 2015, 06:09:24 pm
The concept is laughable. Slow moving, underwater, unmanned. It is just begging for a group of Navy Seals to swim up to it and do all those terrible things Navy Seals are really, really good at doing.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 06:15:24 pm
The concept is laughable. Slow moving, underwater, unmanned. It is just begging for a group of Navy Seals to swim up to it and do all those terrible things Navy Seals are really, really good at doing.

"The UUV is equipped with a deadman's switch to discourage tampering.  If it moves more than 100 yards from it's station or any breach of the hull is detected it goes off. "  It would be a piece of cake to set it up so no Secret Squirrel is going to disable it.  Ultimately it would come down to a game of chicken.  Besides, wouldn't tampering with another country's nuclear deterrence be considered an act of war? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: DrRansom on September 08, 2015, 06:21:13 pm
The concept is laughable. Slow moving, underwater, unmanned. It is just begging for a group of Navy Seals to swim up to it and do all those terrible things Navy Seals are really, really good at doing.

Did you read the story? There is this odd reference to "High-Speed." I don't get how you make a high-speed UUV with any appreciable range, but that is what the story says.

We can think of two high-speed regimes:
A. > 15kts, e.g. fast for a submarine
B. Super-cavitating

From what the story says, I suspect that high-speed refers to A. However, both cases are beyond the ability of SEALs to disable it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sublight is back on September 08, 2015, 06:34:37 pm
The concept is laughable. Slow moving, underwater, unmanned. It is just begging for a group of Navy Seals to swim up to it and do all those terrible things Navy Seals are really, really good at doing.

"The UUV is equipped with a deadman's switch to discourage tampering.  If it moves more than 100 yards from it's station or any breach of the hull is detected it goes off. "  It would be a piece of cake to set it up so no Secret Squirrel is going to disable it.  Ultimately it would come down to a game of chicken.  Besides, wouldn't tampering with another country's nuclear deterrence be considered an act of war?

How many of these will blow up alone in international waters before they stop deploying them? You guys need to stop sniffing the propaganda and relax. The Navy has this covered.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 08, 2015, 06:35:27 pm
"The UUV is equipped with a deadman's switch to discourage tampering.  If it moves more than 100 yards from it's station or any breach of the hull is detected it goes off. " 

This is a quote from The Washington Free Beacon story? I can't seem to find it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 06:40:53 pm
"The UUV is equipped with a deadman's switch to discourage tampering.  If it moves more than 100 yards from it's station or any breach of the hull is detected it goes off. " 

This is a quote from The Washington Free Beacon story? I can't seem to find it.

Probably because it wasn't in there.  I merely pointed out it would be very easy to discourage tampering.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 08, 2015, 06:43:05 pm
How many of these will blow up alone in international waters before they stop deploying them?

Who says it actually has to be rigged that way?  Who would take the chance that it might be though?

You guys need to stop sniffing the propaganda and relax. The Navy has this covered.

Well that was certainly useful.  ::) [/quote]
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sublight is back on September 08, 2015, 06:57:19 pm
How many of these will blow up alone in international waters before they stop deploying them?

Who says it actually has to be rigged that way?  Who would take the chance that it might be though?

You guys need to stop sniffing the propaganda and relax. The Navy has this covered.

Well that was certainly useful.  ::)
[/quote]

I just cant believe you are entertaining the plausibility of such an absurd platform. Nobody would put a booby trap on a sub full of nukes. No platform like this, even without nukes, would make it through deployment without having an unforeseen "accident" in extremely deep international waters, where nobody could ever say for certain what exactly happened.  Given the nature of classified programs and espionage, I wouldn't be surprised if they had already deployed some autonomous submersibles and that we'd already had our way with them.

I may or may not be overselling the Navy's capabilities, but they certainly have a spectacular and almost completely classified history of undersea espionage the likes of which wont be fully known for generations to come.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on September 09, 2015, 12:56:44 am
I see a great deal of conjecture, of the usual paranoid variety, being posted.

I can see several reasons why the Russians would not deploy such a weapon - primarily the hated political/strategic  ones which we are supposedly forbidden to mention.  Despite what many may claim, the Russian Federation leadership lives with the same fear that the fUSSR's leadership lived with - a decapitation strike and if they were to deploy such a weapon, it's use would open the doors to the US deploying similar (not identical) weapons which were intended to wipe the Russian leadership out first.  As most American weapons are inherently more accurate and reliable than most Russian ones, I suspect I know who would be the losers in such an exchange.

It appears to me that a lot of people desire a return to the Cold War.  Do they really miss it that much?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: UpForce on September 09, 2015, 01:10:50 am
The Free Beacon article seems highly speculative.

I'm highly conscious of the Russian leadership's evolving irresponsibility in the international arena but if one seeks more immediate concerns, well, there are plenty of easily verifiable ones. Perhaps the most recent is an exercise of their forces featuring "winnable" scenarios of nuclear weapons use. Some of these are actually (and doctrinally quite cynically) called "de-escalatory" strikes, in effect hitting targets which they apprise as not likely to trigger symmetrical retaliatory (or MAD) responses from the West. That being said a nuclear armed AUV does somehow fit with the harebrained if not feverish duginist (as in neo-stalinist far right whatever Alexey Dugin's, whom Putin seems to entertain as he seems fit and convenient) ideologies of the US as a "sea power" and Russia as a "land power".

Even so, the decision process in deploying and controlling a nuclear armed AUV seems highly reckless - perhaps unless the intention from the get-go is to actually use it to full effect which is of course beyond reckless. Thus there's not much incentive to not interfere with such a project symmetrically (or rather, prohibitively forcefully) as early as possible. But one must also be conscious here of the russian penchant for deception ("maskirovka") and so-called "reflexive control" i.e. getting the adversary to do one's own bidding through manipulation. So how might the US change its actions if there was even a semi-credible possibility of a potentially immediate homeland threat? Two precedents spring to mind - 9/11 and the Cuban missile crisis.

The current Russian leadership seeks to break out of the current European security arrangement which it sees as constraining and re-establish a "Eurasian" Russia as a global heir to the Soviet empire. Central to this is severing the transatlantic relationship of western and/or democratic nations. 9/11 got the US to act highly unilaterally which ultimately did some real damage to friendly relations (and continues to severely destabilize the southern and southeastern flank of the EU). It also drastically increased CONUS security spending and focused even US external ops largely around that rather than a larger, more holistic geopolitical stance. The Cuban missile crisis also caused the US to step back part of its European deterrence and arguably helped the soviets to cement the partition of Europe and geopolitical "buffer zones of influence" (for as long as it lasted).

Floating a trial balloon (or in this case submerging an AUV into media) as to the reaction of the US to an immediate homeland threat seems more likely than an actual project having been given the full go-ahead. Russians, after all, are mostly leveraging old refurbished equipment at the moment and even their psyops aren't that unprecedented. And with all due respect to the Free Beacon, it is some way to the obscure end of the spectrum as far as general visibility goes. But reactions do matter, for russian tactics are, if anything, opportunistic and they do like to gamble. Confronting a possible nuclear armed AUV, even if it were only in terms of imagery and not much beyond that ("Nothing is Real and Everything is Possible", a very enlightening book by Peter Pomerantsev about current Russia), must necessarily involve a steadfast, joint and resolute commitment to a common defense of the transatlantic alliance and a thorough, unmistakable dimension of acting as a true global power.

These sorts of things (a vague report of an AUV) may not require an escalation as such, it might even be detrimental. This is not a symmetric struggle. The current russian leadership of authoritarian siloviki and cronies are probing our weak points from an economy the size of Italy based on endemic graft, fundamental disrespect of personal property and informal patronage (collectively known as "sistema" which has lived on in different guises through Imperial Russia, Soviet Union and current Russia) while not really minding terribly of incurring costs on the majority of their own citizens and on people living under other authoritarian regimes or failed states, i.e. "allies".

Whatever pain, worry or inconvenience they may occasionally manage to cause must not deter us from acting with confidence and determination commensurate with our much greater prowess and capacity to act. The current Russian leadership has tended to complain loudly whenever NATO and the US have considered installing missile defense systems in, say, Poland as if Russia should be free to incinerate Europe on some whim. Given the ridiclousness of their argument perhaps we should start there, unilaterally and in a comprehensive way. Russia has completely depleted any remaining mutual trust anyway by their actions in Ukraine so there's really no excuse not to do this.

That would at least give out the message that we reserve a right to deploy any purely defensive system against any nuclear threat anywhere and use them (this would also come handy as Russia has its "de-escalatory" strike doctrine) at any time. AUVs included, speculative or otherwise.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 09, 2015, 02:02:23 am
I see a great deal of conjecture, of the usual paranoid variety, being posted.

I can see several reasons why the Russians would not deploy such a weapon - primarily the hated political/strategic  ones which we are supposedly forbidden to mention. 

If spouting your political opinion is so important why don't you just start your own thread on it instead of trying to ruin this one?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 09, 2015, 02:14:59 am
I just cant believe you are entertaining the plausibility of such an absurd platform. Nobody would put a booby trap on a sub full of nukes. No platform like this, even without nukes, would make it through deployment without having an unforeseen "accident" in extremely deep international waters, where nobody could ever say for certain what exactly happened.  Given the nature of classified programs and espionage, I wouldn't be surprised if they had already deployed some autonomous submersibles and that we'd already had our way with them.

I may or may not be overselling the Navy's capabilities, but they certainly have a spectacular and almost completely classified history of undersea espionage the likes of which wont be fully known for generations to come.

Dismissing what the other guy appears to be doing out of hand seems doesn't seem like the wisest thing to do.  I'm reminded of Bob Gates' infamous "it will take 20 years for China to build a stealth fighter" comment.  History is littered with this kind of thought coming back to bite people hard.  In fact I can't think of a single instance where sticking one's head in the sand has had a positive result.  That said, there is nothing technically impossible with this idea, nor is it necessarily a bad one (depending on what one's goals are).  (Which is not saying it's a wonderful, trouble-free idea.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on September 09, 2015, 05:16:54 am
I see a great deal of conjecture, of the usual paranoid variety, being posted.

I can see several reasons why the Russians would not deploy such a weapon - primarily the hated political/strategic  ones which we are supposedly forbidden to mention. 

If spouting your political opinion is so important why don't you just start your own thread on it instead of trying to ruin this one?

I am not trying to ruin anything.  I am attempting to participate in the discussion.  You appear to believe that only one side of the aisle should be heard here.  I wonder why?

Anyway, that aside, you appear unwilling to participate in any discussion of the realities of the deployment or possible use of WMDs by anybody other than the United States for reasons that you accept.  Why not simply declare Putin, "evil" and be done with the entire thing?   In reality, Putin is attempting to protect his position and his regime from what he perceives - perhaps mistakenly - as Western "aggression".   Your viewpoint appears to reinforce his views.

As far as I am concerned, this entire issue is speculative in the extreme.   You are relying on a tabloid source to reinforce your own views on the issue.  I'll leave you to it, if that is what you want.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 09, 2015, 05:27:56 am
I see a great deal of conjecture, of the usual paranoid variety, being posted.

I can see several reasons why the Russians would not deploy such a weapon - primarily the hated political/strategic  ones which we are supposedly forbidden to mention. 

If spouting your political opinion is so important why don't you just start your own thread on it instead of trying to ruin this one?

I am not trying to ruin anything.  I am attempting to participate in the discussion.  You appear to believe that only one side of the aisle should be heard here.  I wonder why?

Anyway, that aside, you appear unwilling to participate in any discussion of the realities of the deployment or possible use of WMDs by anybody other than the United States for reasons that you accept.  Why not simply declare Putin, "evil" and be done with the entire thing?   In reality, Putin is attempting to protect his position and his regime from what he perceives - perhaps mistakenly - as Western "aggression".   Your viewpoint appears to reinforce his views.

As far as I am concerned, this entire issue is speculative in the extreme.   You are relying on a tabloid source to reinforce your own views on the issue.  I'll leave you to it, if that is what you want.

Three paragraphs of deliberate misinterpretation and sour grapes.  Yes, please, "leave us to it" and start your own thread.  (Predicts he won't go away.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 11:52:56 am
"US report calls for dual-capable F-35C and tactical nukes"
22 June, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-report-calls-for-dual-capable-f-35c-and-tactical-413936/

Quote
Clark Murdock of the Center for Strategic and International Studies floated the idea of a return to carrier-based nuclear weapons in a new report published on 22 June.

The US government has committed to outfitting only the land-based F-35A with nuclear weapons as a “dual-capable aircraft,” namely the Boeing B61-12 thermonuclear guided bomb.

According to Murdock though, the F-35C should also receive nuclear weapons in the future as a “visible manifestation” of the United States’ commitment to protecting its allies.

“While I think bombers are an important hedge capability, what’s really important are nuclear-capable aircraft that can be forward-deployed on the territory of our allies,” he said at a report unveiling in Washington. The report, titled Project Atom, considers alternative nuclear strategies and force postures in the 2025 to 2050 time frame.

Murdock believes the “nuclear umbrella” the United States extends to its allies is more effective and reassuring when it is planted in allied territory instead of relying solely on long-range nuclear bombers, ballistic missiles and submarines.

According to the US Air Force, the first full-up B61-12 nuke will be assembled by 2020 and early aircraft integration activities with the F-35A are due to begin next year. The current time line would see the F-35A achieve dual-capable status by 2024 as part of the Block 4 configuration.

“We had 7,000 nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe at the pinnacle of the Cold War,” says Murdock. “In Asia, we had almost 1,000 deployed on the Korean Peninsula. About 3,000 total were in the Asia Pacific theatre.

“When the Soviets looked out at their borders, they didn’t just see a ring of American men and women in uniform, they saw a ring of nuclear weapons. They knew that any major, conventional aggression on their part would go nuclear because all the weapons were there.”

Murdock’s analysis also concludes that America needs to field range of nuclear weapons, at least one for every rung of the nuclear escalatory ladder, from low-yield, tactical nukes right up to those capable of mass destruction. The current US strategy favours a massive retaliatory response as the primary deterrent against a nuclear attack, leading some to question how the West will respond in the event of a lower-lever crisis.

Murdock as well as contributing author Elbridge Colby of the Center for a New American Security believe America needs a variety of air-delivered tactical nuclear weapons, including low collateral, enhanced radiation, earth penetration, electromagnetic pulse “and others as technology advances”.

“US nuclear weapons should and need to do more than threaten unhindered devastation,” says Colby. “It’s not very credible if the United States threatens to loose apocalyptic destruction that would call forth a matching response over something less than a very central or grave interest. It’s a bad idea.

“I do think the US should reserve the right and the ability to use nuclear weapons first in extreme circumstances to respond to aggression.”

The conversation about the strategic nuclear force structure comes as the US Defense Department embarks on a major recapitalisation of its nuclear triad, which critics and supports alike say is unaffordable.

It also comes as the West’s former Cold War rivals Russia and China invest heavily in their nuclear infrastructure, while America’s nuclear weaponry ages out.

The DOD is requesting billions of additional dollars from Congress to buy a new nuclear-capable bomber, submarine, ballistic missile, cruise missile and nuclear command-and-control apparatus.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 11:56:36 am
Report Release: Project Atom

https://youtu.be/ZzndHOO0qBU

http://csis.org/event/report-release-project-atom
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 12:08:11 pm
"Commentary: Sustaining Nuclear Deterrence Requires New Capabilities"
By Clark Murdock and Thomas Karako 1:18 p.m. EDT July 13, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/07/13/commentary-sustaining-nuclear-deterrence-requires-new-capabilities/30084823/

Quote
US Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently visited Berlin to assure allies that the US would deter aggression. NATO leaders are worried that Russia might invade the Baltics in a Crimea-style fait accompli, and then threaten nuclear escalation unless the alliance backs down.

Moscow's treaty violations and "nuclear sabre rattling," Carter warned, raise "questions about Russia's commitment to strategic stability" and to "the profound caution that world leaders in the nuclear age have shown over decades to the brandishing of nuclear weapons."

This is but the latest confirmation that we've entered a new nuclear age — one characterized by different rules, more actors, less predictability and the paradox that America's conventional superiority may make deterrence harder.

After noting that opponents might be tempted to employ nuclear weapons to overcome conventional inferiority, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review observed that US nuclear forces should deter nuclear-armed adversaries from escalating their way out of failed conventional aggression.

"Escalate to de-escalate" tactics have already been publicly embraced by Russia but could also be used by North Korea or China. Instead of graduated rungs along an "escalation ladder," adversaries may well be tempted to lower their nuclear thresholds to forestall conventional defeat.

Last November, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called nuclear deterrence the department's "highest priority mission." But it is official US policy to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons and pursue a world without nuclear weapons. This may weaken nuclear deterrence because allies and adversaries will wonder how the US might respond to limited nuclear employment.

Plotting to offset US conventional superiority has prompted some states, like North Korea and Iran, to pursue nuclear weapons, and others, like Russia, to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons.

To keep the nuclear threshold elevated in the minds of potential adversaries, the US must have more flexible and credible means to control escalation. The distinction between strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons is long obsolete. Any use of a nuclear weapon could have profound strategic effects.

In a new report, "Project Atom," we recommend that in addition to retaining our traditional strategic deterrent, the US needs to acquire nuclear capabilities that enable it to respond proportionately to employment of a nuclear weapon. Specifically, the US should develop options for more forward-deployed assets and more discriminate weapons.

Proliferation by Iran or others could strain extended deterrence and invite allies to re-evaluate their non-nuclear status. During the Cold War, large-scale conventional aggression was not deterred by US or NATO declaratory policy, but by the significant presence of nuclear weapons in Europe and the Pacific. Establishing credibility may require greater nuclear burden-sharing and forward-basing.

Nuclear submarines and ICBMs should remain the highly survivable foundation of US deterrence. Dual-capable F-35s on land and aboard carriers would provide forward-based or rapidly deployable aircraft. Penetrating bombers remain a visible complement to both missions.

More discriminate weapons may be needed. The future B61 gravity bomb will retain lower-yield options and no longer require a parachute for delivery, catching up to 1990s JDAM-like guidance. Credibility would be further enhanced through low-yield weapons deliverable across the triad, as well as additional nuclear-capable standoff cruise missiles from air, sea and land.

But new thinking from Washington is also required. Both statutory restrictions and policy limitations prevent the US from developing new weapons, components, missions or capabilities. The average weapon in today's stockpile is over 28 years old. Current modernization plans will further limit options, since there is no path to replace the B61-11 earth penetrator. In the near term, the national laboratories could be freed to begin researching new designs for lower cost; more safety, security and reliability; lower yields; and other effects.

After a long procurement holiday, the US deterrent is now entering a bow wave of investment and recapitalization. Over the next two decades, a new set of post-Cold War delivery systems will be built, and many of today's weapons will be life-extended. Infrastructure modernization is also badly overdue; uranium facilities in Tennessee, for instance, date to the Manhattan Project.

Current modernization plans are critical just to retain current capabilities, and avoid disarmament by rust. While requiring 3 to 6 percent of the defense budget over the next decade, these investments should be made with an eye to future geostrategic realities.

Broadening options available to a president would strengthen US extended deterrence, discourage proliferation among allies and communicate that there are no potential gaps for adversaries to exploit. This is not about "war fighting" or making weapons "more usable," but making deterrence more credible. Failure to adapt to new realities could invite nuclear use by creating false perceptions that the US would be self-deterred.

Our conventional superiority tempts our adversaries into lowering their nuclear thresholds. A newer, more flexible and more credible US nuclear deterrent designed for 21st century challenges would raise that threshold and help make nuclear employment less attractive.

Clark Murdock is a senior adviser and Thomas Karako is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. They are respectively the lead and contributing authors of the "Project Atom" report.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 09, 2015, 01:26:16 pm
Delete sorry Mods for the double post
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 01:59:29 pm
"The Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon in America's Arsenal"
by Zachary Keck
July 28, 2015

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-13433

Quote
The United States maintains an extensive nuclear arsenal. According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, in April of this year the United States maintained an arsenal of over 7,200 nuclear bombs. Of those, more than 2,000 were deployed (1,900 strategic nuclear weapons and 180 non-strategic weapons).

America also maintains a plethora of delivery options for its nuclear bombs. As part of its nuclear triad, it maintains some 94 nuclear-capable bombers (B-2s and B-52s), over 400 Minuteman III ICBMs and 12 Ohio-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines. The latter are equipped with modern Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which are drastic improvements over their land-based competitors.

Indeed, as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press have noted, “In 1985, a single U.S. ICBM warhead had less than a 60 percent chance of destroying a typical silo… Today, a multiple-warhead attack on a single silo using a Trident II missile would have a roughly 99 percent chance of destroying it.”

Yet the most dangerous nuclear bomb in America’s arsenal may be the new B61-12.

Much has been written about the B61-12, most of which has focused on its enormous cost. And for good reason—it is the most expensive nuclear bomb project ever.

In terms of sheer destructive capability, the B61-12 is nowhere near America’s most dangerous nuclear weapon. Indeed, the bomb has a maximum yield of just 50-kilotons, the equivalent of 50,000 tons of TNT. By contrast, the B83 nuclear bomb has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons (1,200 kilotons).

What makes the B61-12 bomb the most dangerous nuclear weapon in America’s arsenal is its usability. This usability derives from a combination of its accuracy and low-yield.

In terms of the former, the B61-12 is America’s first nuclear-guided bomb, As Hans Kristensen of FAS notes, “We do not have a nuclear-guided bomb in our arsenal today…. It [the B61-12] is a new weapon.”

Indeed, according to Kristensen, existing U.S. nuclear bombs have circular error probabilities (CEP) of between 110-170 meters. The B61-12’s CEP is just 30 meters.

The B61-12 also has a low-yield. As noted above, the bomb has a maximum yield of 50 kilotons. However, this yield can be lowered as needed for any particular mission. In fact, the bomb’s explosive force can be reduced electronically through a dial-a-yield system.

This combination of accuracy and low-yield make the B61-12 the most usable nuclear bomb in America’s arsenal. That’s because accuracy is the most important determinate of a nuclear weapon’s lethality (Yield of warhead^2/3/ CEP^2).

As one scholar explains: “Making a weapon twice as accurate has the same effect on lethality as making the warhead eight times as powerful. Phrased another way, making the missile twice as precise would only require one-eighth the explosive power to maintain the same lethality.” Furthermore, radiological fallout operates according to Newton’s inverse square law.

In practical terms, all this means that the more accurate the bomb, the lower the yield that is needed to destroy any specific target. A lower-yield and more accurate bomb can therefore be used without having to fear the mass, indiscriminate killing of civilians through explosive force or radioactive fallout.

Lieber and Press have documented this nicely. Indeed, using a Pentagon computer model, they estimated that a U.S. counterforce strike against China’s ICBM silos using high-yield weapons detonated at ground blast would still kill anywhere between 3-4 million people. Using low-yield weapons and airbursts, this figure drops to as little as 700 fatalities!

This makes using nuclear weapons thinkable for the first time since the 1940s. The B61-12 only encourages this trend further.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 02:18:46 pm
"Questioning the case for new nuclear weapons"
Adam Mount
08/21/2015 - 06:37

Source:
http://thebulletin.org/questioning-case-new-nuclear-weapons8671

Quote
Recent developments—Russian aggression in Ukraine, China’s expanding territorial claims, and the need to modernize the US nuclear arsenal—have caused scholars to revisit a labyrinthine world of nuclear strategy largely neglected since the end of the Cold War. But this new wave of theory has resurrected some dubious arguments. In recent months, a number of strategists have argued that the United States needs to develop a new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads to deter its adversaries from a particular scenario of nuclear escalation. Under this concept, a US adversary could employ a small nuclear warhead in an attempt to force the United States to back down from a crisis. Though such a possibility is a serious concern, looking closely at the strategic calculus of nuclear retaliation shows that it is not a reason to develop and forward-deploy new nuclear weapons.

This new concept for nuclear weapons use follows from the principal feature of international security today: With sufficient time and preparation, the United States can apply overwhelming conventional military superiority against any actor on the face of the Earth. This has changed how other countries think about the role of nuclear weapons in their national defense. Today, there are signs that US adversaries, especially Russia, plan to employ nuclear weapons to truncate any escalating conflict with the United States. In a recent article in Survival, I refer to this concept of nuclear use as “offset escalation:” An enemy hopes to offset US conventional superiority by escalating to the nuclear level. Because this is the likeliest scenario for nuclear use today, the question of how to deter or avoid it is a key challenge for defense strategists. For example, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review argues that a primary mission of the US nuclear deterrent is to ensure that adversaries “cannot escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression”—or, to phrase it another way, to make sure that US adversaries can’t cover their crimes with their nuclear arsenal.

Elbridge Colby, the Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, has been instrumental in sounding the warning about the possibility of offset escalation. For Colby and others, offset escalation is made more likely by the structure of the US nuclear arsenal. An arsenal designed for massive retaliation against a Soviet first strike lacks the “discrimination and flexibility” necessary to deter the kinds of lower-yield, electromagnetic pulse, or nonlethal strikes that an adversary might employ to force the United States to back away from a gathering conflict. To fill the gap, Colby argues, “the United States should develop capabilities, options, and doctrine to enable limited and tailored nuclear strikes—including with varying yields, trajectories, and target types…”—in short, the “capabilities needed to fight a limited nuclear war more effectively than plausible adversaries.”

There is much to recommend Colby’s argument. It is incumbent upon all civilian and military officials to ensure that any operation is discriminate and proportional to the original attack; flexibility is a desirable property of any inventory of weapons systems—especially one that can be reconfigured only rarely. It is intuitive and plausible that like weapons are needed to deter a limited offset escalation strike.

However, the US government needs better evidence before it shifts nuclear strategy in potentially destabilizing ways. In the Survival article, I explain the strategic logic of nuclear restraint: If deterrence fails and a US adversary employs a nuclear weapon, the United States has strong reasons to refrain from nuclear retaliation. Prevailing in the conflict at hand, projecting an image that will serve US interests in future conflicts, and creating a stable world over the long run may require Washington to instead press a conventional response. In some circumstances—against a powerful adversary, for example, or in the case of a highly destructive first strike—the case for nuclear restraint may be outweighed by other considerations.

But a close look at hypothetical scenarios of nuclear use suggests that the costs of nuclear retaliation would be even higher in response to cases of offset escalation. As a result, concerns about offset escalation make conventional responses relatively more appealing and nuclear retaliation relatively less so.

For example, it would almost certainly not be in the American interest to reciprocate a nonlethal nuclear blast. An adversary like Russia or China could detonate a nuclear weapon high over a regional battlefield, generating an electromagnetic pulse that damaged electrical equipment but did not produce casualties from its blast effects. If the United States were to respond in kind, this exchange of demonstration strikes would harm the global nonproliferation regime, signal other states that they could provoke a nuclear reaction at will, and dilute the global opprobrium the attacker would face for using a nuclear weapon first. At the same time, in-kind retaliation would do little to dissuade the adversary from continued nuclear use, nor would it ensure a favorable resolution of the crisis. These considerations cast serious doubt on the need to develop “special effects” weapons like ones optimized to produce an electromagnetic pulse. It is not at all clear that possession of such a warhead would deter an adversary from employing one.

The question of how to respond to a low-yield but lethal nuclear strike is more complex. For example, if North Korea detonated a small nuclear weapon at a location chosen to produce limited military casualties and few civilian ones, the pressure to respond in kind might be great. However, many of the costs the United States would incur from employing a nuclear weapon would still apply, regardless of the yield. Certainly, international opprobrium would be greater following a highly destructive strike, but even a lower-yield blast would generate massive disapproval and damage America’s standing as a member of the international community.

In other ways, if the United States employed a new, low-yield nuclear warhead, it could suffer greater costs than it would, if the response involved existing, nonnuclear weapons. A lethal low-yield strike would erode the nuclear taboo at least as much as a larger-yield blast. Such a strike would stand as a moral statement that the United States believed using low-yield nuclear weapons was a legitimate instrument of escalation control. Shattering the nuclear taboo would lead to significantly higher proliferation pressures—on non-nuclear states to launch new programs to build “usable” systems, and on existing nuclear states to update their arsenals to reflect this new reality. It is far safer to maintain that nuclear weapons are not an effective means of controlling escalation, for both the United States and its adversaries.

While proponents of the new, smaller warheads will assert that the US president should have every possible option available in a crisis, the simple fact is that this is not how military planning works. US policymakers would be hesitant to spend money on weapons that are less likely to be useful when there are several large conventional procurement programs for systems that are likely to be useful. As military budgets tighten, it will become more and more important to reject categorical and limitless statements like “we must provide a president with every possible option.”

The costs of building any new nuclear weapons—including low-yield warheads—are not only monetary. A new warhead program would accelerate foreign modernization efforts, increase proliferation pressures, damage the nonproliferation regime, and shatter the nuclear taboo. In short, the cost of building new nuclear weapons not only crowds conventional defense programs; it also distracts from other national priorities, and potentially erodes international security.

Proponents of the new weapons will hasten to point out that we don’t build nuclear weapons with the intention of using them; we build them so that they need not be used—that is, for deterrence. Why, then, should low-yield weapons be subject to different standards?

It is a fair question, but it shifts the tenor of the conversation from the need to build weapons that the United States must have for specific employment scenarios, to the capabilities necessary to maintain deterrence. This in turn shifts the burden of proof to the proponents of new systems. Before, they could rightly claim that opponents of low-yield weapons needed to provide an alternative theory for how to deter offset escalation. But, adding the costs of employing a low yield weapon to the equation raises more pressing questions. For instance: If the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon is not in the American interest, will these weapons’ marginal advantage as credible deterrents really be decisive in shifting an adversary’s calculation about first use? In other words, how confident should we be that a low-yield weapon will suffice to deter an offset escalation strike, where a larger one would not?

Furthermore, the strategic logic of nuclear restraint suggests that conventional deterrence, properly calibrated, may outperform nuclear deterrence as a means of preventing offset escalation. If there is reason to believe that a conventional response will lead to a better resolution of some crises, why should the threat of conventional attack be less effective at deterring the strike in the first place? Are there steps that US policymakers can take to better communicate the devastating consequences of conventional war? Certainly, the tendency in Washington to denigrate the effectiveness of conventional deterrence (like, for instance, many arguments in favor of building low-yield nuclear weapons) decreases its efficacy as a tool of statecraft.

Though much has changed since the end of the Cold War, the effectiveness of a nation’s nuclear deterrent still depends on the credibility of the threat to use those weapons. While the threat to employ a low-yield weapon has greater credibility because it risks fewer casualties, this is not the only consideration that matters. The use of any nuclear weapon will have negative effects that resonate through the international system, and many of these broader costs are indifferent to the yield of the warhead. In other ways, the production and use of a low-yield warhead will incur greater costs than continued reliance on existing US weaponry.

The case for sub-kiloton, low-yield, and special effects weapons depends on them being more usable than high-yield weapons, but the credibility of a nuclear threat depends substantially on whether it would be in the national interest to carry out that strike. There is good reason to doubt that it would be in the US national interest to use a low-yield nuclear weapon, especially in cases in which an enemy hopes to offset US conventional superiority by escalating to the nuclear level. If there is a case to be made for building new, low-yield nuclear weapons, it won’t be convincing unless it accounts for all the costs of employing them. As the debate unfolds, strategists should not assume that the possibility of offset escalation is a reason to develop new warheads. It may be a better reason not to.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 04:54:03 pm
"Beware the Nuclear Experts"
By James Doyle, an independent nuclear security specialist supported by the Ploughshares Fund and non-resident associate of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. 9:15 p.m. EDT August 20, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/08/20/beware-nuclear-experts/32083997/

Quote
In their July 13 Defense News commentary, Clark Murdock and Thomas Karako advocate a mobilization of America’s nuclear weapons industry to build a new generation of forward-deployed, low-yield nuclear weapons.  Their commentary is a summary of recommendations from their “Project Atom” study recently completed at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). America should think twice before heeding the advice of these so-called nuclear experts.

Nuclear deterrence is risky business to be sure, but Murdock and Karako’s recommendations suffer two fundamental flaws: They ignore the lessons of history and neglect a fundamental requirement of nuclear strategy. That requirement is the need to assess how America’s nuclear weapon deployments will be perceived by her potential nuclear-armed adversaries. 

With respect to Murdock and Karako’s recommendation that the United States develop and deploy additional “tactical” nuclear weapons to its NATO allies, it is critical to remember that we have been down this road before. We know that deployments such as those proposed by the CSIS study can increase rather than decrease the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation.

In the early 1980s the United States deployed the stealthy nuclear ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) to the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy, and the highly accurate Pershing II nuclear ballistic missile to Germany. 

These deployments, ostensibly in response to the Soviet Union’s deployment of its SS-20 nuclear ballistic missile, came at a time of high tensions between Washington and Moscow. The GLCMs and Pershing II together provided the US and NATO the theoretical potential to launch a nuclear strike destroying the Soviet political and military leadership in eight to 10 minutes from the time the Pershings were fired.

This led the Soviets to believe that they could only inflict similar nuclear damage on the West if they launched their nuclear forces immediately following the reception of warning of a NATO nuclear attack, but before the incoming NATO and American nuclear weapons detonated on their forces. 

This need to “launch on warning” under extreme time constraints is the classic definition of lowering the nuclear threshold, not raising it, as is desired. In fact, the closest the United States and the Soviet Union came to nuclear war, other than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, was during the “Able Archer” NATO nuclear command exercise in November 1983, following the GLCM deployments and just before the Pershing IIs arrived in Germany. The Soviets believed that the exercise was a deception for a real attack from the West and ordered nuclear-armed bombers to prepare for attacks on Europe. 

Ironically, Murdock and Karako urge the US and NATO to brandish new nuclear weapons in response to what they call Russian “nuclear sabre rattling.” They believe that some particular future combination of nuclear weapons capabilities that they claim the US now lacks will convince potential adversaries that the US can control nuclear escalation in a region like Central Europe. 

The idea of “controlling nuclear escalation” in Europe or any other nuclear-armed region was discredited decades ago. As the authors admit, “the distinction between strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons is long obsolete and any use of a nuclear weapon could have profound strategic effects.”

Still, they worry that the US and NATO lack the capabilities to respond “proportionately” to employment of a nuclear weapon by Russia in Europe or North Korea in East Asia. 

Use of a Russian or North Korean “non-strategic” nuclear weapon would be an unprecedented act of destruction and the United States possesses a full range of nuclear weapons with which to retaliate, should it decide that is the correct response. These capabilities include accurate low-yield nuclear weapons deliverable from aircraft, missiles and submarines.

In short, contrary to what Murdock and Karako claim there are no gaps in US nuclear capabilities that could be reliably exploited by an adversary. A new arsenal of nuclear weapons designed to make our potential adversaries believe our nuclear threats are “more credible” will also make them worry that we may use them first in a crisis to weaken their ability to retaliate.

This lowers the nuclear threshold because potential adversaries are put in a “use them or lose them” situation with respect to their nuclear forces. 

The fundamental basis of nuclear strategy is not only to be prepared to retaliate to a nuclear attack but also to see the balance of nuclear forces through the eyes of your potential nuclear-armed adversaries.   In other words, in the nuclear age your adversaries’ sense of security becomes your concern. 

No side prevails in a nuclear exchange. Both will suffer consequences that far outweigh any advantage that was sought by their initial use. Only the maintenance of a strategic dialog, serious efforts to reduce tensions and the establishment of operational and diplomatic means to resolve periodic crises can avoid nuclear war. These are the essential lessons of the Cold War.

So-called nuclear experts have long conjured arcane, paradoxical “gaps” in nuclear forces or doctrine steeped in jargon for which they offer their pet solutions. In this way they justify their own value and continue the endless spiral of nuclear weapons competition. Murdock and Karako’s fear that the Russians or other potential nuclear foes will “escalate to de-escalate” and the US might be “self-deterred” from responding proportionately to nuclear attack are just the latest examples of this dubious counsel.

The bottom line is that no one has an expert understanding of the requirements of nuclear deterrence because it cannot be known with any precision how national leaders will react in a security crisis. No magic combination of nuclear weapons or other external means have been proved to reliably influence their decisions.  This is why the threat of nuclear miscalculation is ever-present while nuclear arsenals exist.

The real danger is when both sides lack an understanding of the mentality of the other. Deploying another generation of mini-nukes as urged by the “Project Atom” report without seeking to improve this understanding through diplomatic means will make nuclear war more likely.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 09, 2015, 05:09:10 pm
I believe that the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon and a nuclear escalation ladder by an adversary to forestall defeat in a conventional war is of much more serious concern than a nuclear-powered UUV armed with a nuclear weapon in the tens of megatons. I don't know if the response to low-yield nukes should be similar magnitude mini-nukes , the continued application of conventional force, or a high-yield nuclear strike and possible Mutual Assured Destruction. Are we also looking at the potential proliferation of mini-nukes and a low threshold for nuclear weapon use?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 09, 2015, 05:24:18 pm
I believe that the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon and a nuclear escalation ladder by an adversary to forestall defeat in a conventional war is of much more serious concern than a nuclear-powered UUV armed with a nuclear weapon in the tens of megatons. I don't know if the response to low-yield nukes should be similar magnitude mini-nukes , the continued application of conventional force, or a high-yield nuclear strike and possible Mutual Assured Destruction. Are we also looking at the potential proliferation of mini-nukes?
What it tells me is the US needs a whole new family of strategic and tactical warheads from megaton class to sub-Kt in order to affect the broadest deterrent base given the myriad of possible contingencies WHILE at the same time investing in conventional capabilities like CPGS in order to forestall as long as possible the escalation ladder climbing. The key word missing from a lot of deterrence discussions is the use of the word 'credible' over the entire spectrum of warfare and weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Brickmuppet on September 09, 2015, 06:05:43 pm
I believe that the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon and a nuclear escalation ladder by an adversary to forestall defeat in a conventional war is of much more serious concern than a nuclear-powered UUV armed with a nuclear weapon in the tens of megatons. I don't know if the response to low-yield nukes should be similar magnitude mini-nukes , the continued application of conventional force, or a high-yield nuclear strike and possible Mutual Assured Destruction. Are we also looking at the potential proliferation of mini-nukes?
What it tells me is the US needs a whole new family of strategic and tactical warheads from megaton class to sub-Kt in order to affect the broadest deterrent base given the myriad of possible contingencies WHILE at the same time investing in conventional capabilities like CPGS in order to forestall as long as possible the escalation ladder climbing. The key word missing from a lot of deterrence discussions is the use of the word 'credible' over the entire spectrum of warfare and weapons.


I'm not comfortable with this. If someone pops a nuke, it should be clearly understood that our response is going to be nuclear, be painful and involve very little proportionality. Having a wide range of options especially involving sub-kiloton weapons seems to be an invitation to use these things "After all, it's just a little one!" It also would seem to facilitate for tit-for tat brinkmanship that is all the more likely to  give the impression that the aggressive party can win such a situation.

In that vein, downgrading the B-61s to 50kt and getting rid of the megaton class B-83 seems ill advised as it might send a psychological signal that gives some adversaries the idea that they can "win" a war.

Triton, the reason that the multi-megaton robot nuke is a disturbing concept is that it is inherently a first strike weapon. It doesn't deter anything unless its deployed and if its deployed the balloon will go up. It's stupid if one is looking for deterrence rather than destabilization. The Russians aren't stupid. Thus, that such a weapon is even being developed in a country that is rather strapped for cash indicates that such an attack is on the table of some planners desk in the rolodex of options that are actually being considered.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 10, 2015, 04:05:16 am
I'm not comfortable with this. If someone pops a nuke, it should be clearly understood that our response is going to be nuclear, be painful and involve very little proportionality. Having a wide range of options especially involving sub-kiloton weapons seems to be an invitation to use these things "After all, it's just a little one!" It also would seem to facilitate for tit-for tat brinkmanship that is all the more likely to  give the impression that the aggressive party can win such a situation.

It's not about "we'll only use a little one". Small nukes have been around forever.  For most of the time since nuclear weapons were invented, almost every strike weapon came in a nuclear version.  They even had nuclear artillery yet somehow nobody was tempted to release the nuclear genie.  I don't think any country is stupid enough to think that "well, it was only a little one" would prevent an adversary from using nuclear weapons themselves.  What having a varied arsenal does do though is give you options in the event you need them, provides more of a deterrent as you now have a real, usable, force, and allows you to keep your industrial base proficient. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 10, 2015, 12:07:22 pm
China and Indian SSBNs too noisy to provide 2nd strike assurance?

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/how-china-and-indias-noisy-nuclear-subs-contribute-to-instability-in-asia/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 10, 2015, 01:32:52 pm
This is a very sobering report. At the end of the Cold War we underestimated the Soviet arsenal by TENS OF THOUSANDS of warheads so anytime I here claims of "Don't worry about China's [totally opaque and unknown] nuclear weapons programs they only have 300 warheads" I just shake my head at the potential delusion.

Russia has 6 times (China 3-4 times) as many people employed in the nuclear weapons sectors. Russia has the production capacity to produce TODAY 1000 warheads/year TO OUR 40.

Whatever side of the nuclear debate you are on these should present some level of concern about the future of our capacity to affect deterrence.

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2014-december/_assets/doc/NSS-december2014-rethinking_the_unthinkable.pdf

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 10, 2015, 02:16:18 pm
"Report: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become the world’s third-biggest"
By Tim Craig August 27

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/report-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal-could-become-the-worlds-third-biggest/2015/08/26/6098478a-4c0c-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html


Quote
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A new report by two American think tanks asserts that Pakistan may be building 20 nuclear warheads annually and could have the world’s third-largest nuclear stockpile within a decade.

The report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center concludes that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities because of fear of its archrival, India, also a nuclear power. The report, which will be released Thursday, says Pakistan is far outpacing India in the development of nuclear warheads.

Analysts estimate that Pakistan has about 120 nuclear warheads, while India has about 100.

In the coming years, the report states, Pakistan’s advantage could grow dramatically because it has a large stockpile of highly enriched uranium that could be used to quickly produce low-yield nuclear devices.

India has far larger stockpiles of plutonium, which is needed to produce high-yield warheads, than Pakistan does. But the report says India appears to be using most of its plutonium to produce domestic energy.

Pakistan could have at least 350 nuclear weapons within five to 10 years, the report concludes. Pakistan then would probably possess more nuclear weapons than any country except the United States and Russia, which each have thousands of the bombs.

“The growth path of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, enabled by existing infrastructure, goes well beyond the assurances of credible minimal deterrence provided by Pakistani officials and analysts after testing nuclear devices,” the report states.

Pakistani military officials were not available to comment on the report when it was made available to journalists Wednesday.

Western officials and analysts have struggled for years to get an accurate assessment of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. Several Pakistani analysts questioned the findings of the report, saying it is based on a faulty assumption that Pakistan is using all of its existing stockpiles of fissile material to make nuclear weapons.

Mansoor Ahmed, a nuclear expert at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, said he suspects that a more accurate assessment of Pakistan’s capability is that it can develop no more than 40 to 50 new warheads over the next several years.

Ahmed, however, doesn’t dispute that Pakistan’s military is seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities.

“This report is overblown,” said Ahmed, who was recently named a nuclear security fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “However . . . what the world must understand is that nuclear weapons are part of Pakistan’s belief system. It’s a culture that has been built up over the years because [nuclear weapons] have provided a credible deterrence against external aggression.”

France has about 300 warheads and the United Kingdom has about 215, according to the Federation of American Scientists. China has approximately 250.

The report was written by Toby Dalton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, and Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center.

Pakistan is believed to use plutonium as well as highly enriched uranium to create nuclear warheads. Dalton noted that Pakistan recently added a fourth plutonium production reactor at its Khushab Nuclear Complex.

“We assume, maybe correctly, maybe inaccurately, with the fuel coming out of the four reactors, they are processing it as rapidly as possible to get the plutonium out,” Dalton said.

India and Pakistan, which have fought three major wars, became declared nuclear powers in 1998. Since then, Western leaders have been increasingly alarmed about the potential for a nuclear exchange between the rivals.

India has adopted a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Pakistani leaders have repeatedly declined to take a similar stance, saying they might be forced to resort to using the weapons should India’s larger army ever invade Pakistan.

India views nuclear weapons “as a political tool, a prestige item, not something you use on a battlefield,” Krepon said. In Pakistan, he said, nuclear weapons are seen as “things you have to be willing to use” to guarantee stability.

But Krepon and Dalton said there is still time for Pakistan to slow down the development of its nuclear arsenal. If it does, they said, the international community should consider what steps it can take to recognize it as a responsible nuclear state.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 10, 2015, 03:42:41 pm
"B61 LEP: Increasing NATO Nuclear Capability and Precision Low-Yield Strikes"
Posted on Jun.15, 2011 in NATO, Nuclear Weapons, United States by Hans M. Kristensen

Source:
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/06/b61-12/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on September 10, 2015, 03:47:11 pm
"General Confirms Enhanced Targeting Capabilities of B61-12 Nuclear Bomb"
Posted on Jan.23, 2014 in NATO, Nuclear Weapons, United States by Hans M. Kristensen

Source:
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/01/b61capability/

Quote
...General Schwartz’s answer was both clear and blunt: “Without a doubt. Improved accuracy and lower yield is a desired military capability. Without a question.”

When asked whether that would result in a different target set or just make the existing weapon better, General Schwartz said: “It would have both effects.”

General Schwartz said that the B61 tail kit “has benefits from an employment standpoint that many consider stabilizing.” I later asked him what he meant by that and his reply was that critics (myself included) claim that the increased accuracy and lower yield options could make the B61-12 more attractive to use because of reduced collateral damage and radioactive fallout. But he said he believed that the opposite would be the case; that the enhanced capabilities would enhance deterrence and make use less likely because adversaries would be more convinced that the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons if necessary.

Quote
..."Nuclear capable aircraft may have many advantages. Accuracy (as compared to other systems) is not one of them,” the Joint Staff argued in 2004 during drafting of the Doctrine for joint Nuclear Operations. Test drops of U.S. nuclear bombs normally achieve an accuracy of 110-170 meters, which is insufficient to hold underground targets at risk except with very large yield. The designated nuclear earth-penetrator (B61-11) has a 400-kiloton warhead to be effective. Therefore, increasing the accuracy of the B61 to enhance targeting and reduce collateral damage are, as General Schwartz put it at the conference, desired military capabilities.

Increasing the accuracy broadens the type of targets that the B61 can be used to attack. The effect is most profound against underground targets that require ground burst and cratering to be damaged by the chock wave. Against a relatively small, heavy, well-designed, underground structure, severe damage is achieved when the target is within 1.25 the radius of the visible crater created by the nuclear detonation. Light damage is achieved at 2.5 radii. For a yield of 50 kt – the estimated maximum yield of the B61-12, the apparent crater radii vary from 30 meters (hard dry rock) to 68 meters (wet soil). Therefore an improvement in accuracy from 100-plus meter CEP (the current estimated accuracy of the B61) down to 30-plus meter CEP (assuming INS guidance for the B61-12) improves the kill probability against these targets significantly by achieving a greater likelihood of cratering the target during a bombing run. Put simply, the increased accuracy essentially puts the CEP inside the crater.

Cratering targets is dirty business because a nuclear detonation on or near the surface kicks up large amounts of radioactive material. With poor accuracy, strike planners would have to choose a relatively high selectable yield to have sufficient confidence that the target would be damaged. The higher the yield, the greater the radioactive fallout.

With the increased accuracy of the B61-12 the strike planners will be able to select a lower yield and still achieve the same (or even better) damage to the underground target. Using lower yields will significantly reduce collateral damage by reducing the radioactive fallout that civilians would be exposed to after an attack. The difference in fallout from a 360-kiloton B61-7 surface burst compared with a B61-12 using a 10-kiloton selective yield option is significant.

No U.S. president would find it easy to authorize use of nuclear weapon. Apart from the implications of ending nearly 70 years of non-use of nuclear weapons and the international political ramifications, anticipated collateral damage serves as an important constraint on potential use of nuclear weapons. Some analysts have argued that higher yield nuclear weapons are less suitable to deter regional adversaries and that lower yield weapons are needed in today’s security environment. The collateral damage from high-yield weapons could “self-deter” a U.S. president from authorizing an attack.


Quote
... For NATO, the improved accuracy has particularly important implications because the B61-12 is a more effective weapon than the B61-3 and B61-4 currently deployed in Europe.

The United States has never before deployed guided nuclear bombs in Europe but with the increased accuracy of the B61-12 and combined with the future deployment of the F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter-bomber to Europe, it is clear that NATO is up for quite a nuclear facelift.

Once European allies acquire the F-35A Lightning II it will “unlock” the guided tail kit on the B61-12 bomb. The increased military capability of the guided B61-12 and stealthy F-35A will significantly enhance NATO’s nuclear posture in Europe.

Initially the old NATO F-16A/B and Tornado PA-200 aircraft that currently serve in the nuclear strike mission will not be able to make use of the increased accuracy of the B61-12, according to U.S. Air Force officials. The reason is that the aircraft computers are not capable of “talking to” the new digital bomb. As a result, the guided tail kit on the B61-12 for Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian and Turkish F-16s and Tornados will initially be “locked” as a “dumb” bomb. Once these countries transition to the F-35 aircraft, however, the enhanced targeting capability will become operational also in these countries.

The Dutch parliament recently approved purchase of the F-35 to replace the F-16, but a resolution adopted by the lower house stated that the F-35 could not have a capability to deliver nuclear weapons. The Dutch government recently rejected the decision saying the Netherlands cannot unilaterally withdraw from the NATO nuclear strike mission.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on September 10, 2015, 07:40:51 pm

The Dutch parliament recently approved purchase of the F-35 to replace the F-16, but a resolution adopted by the lower house stated that the F-35 could not have a capability to deliver nuclear weapons.

That's silly. A Piper Cub could be used as a nuclear delivery system.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 12, 2015, 07:24:33 am
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-finds-unexpectedly-high-uranium-104622948.html

Unexpectedly. Right. Sure.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 30, 2015, 02:22:36 am
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-close-last/2015/09/28/id/693777/

One would be forgiven for wanting to use very foul language.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 30, 2015, 05:42:08 am
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-close-last/2015/09/28/id/693777/

One would be forgiven for wanting to use very foul language.

x2. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Brickmuppet on September 30, 2015, 08:43:39 am
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-close-last/2015/09/28/id/693777/ (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-close-last/2015/09/28/id/693777/)

One would be forgiven for wanting to use very foul language.

x2.


This report does not give me the warm fuzzies, but I'm not sure that it is crippling.
ISTR that all the enrichment facilities are old and have environmental and safety issues and are expensive to run. This might save some money in the short run and gives us an excellent excuse to build a better facility down the road later. Additionally, we have a lot of "pits", the warhead cores, lying around that can be recycled. It is my understanding that the last generation of U.S. nuclear weapon designs (which were tested but never put into production) were intended to recycle old warhead cores from the Poseidon missile. We should be able to renew the stockpile without an enrichment facility.


I should note that the above is all the polish I have and this buffalo chip still isn't quite buffing out.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 30, 2015, 08:49:20 am
It's not just the facility, you lose your expertise and supply chain.  Of all the poor decisions over the years regarding our defense industrial base, this will be by far the most noticed on the world stage.  You can be sure China and Russia won't be so blind.  And the fact that we're at the same time giving official approval for Iran to go whole hog with uranium enrichment defies belief.  As the saying goes, "you can't make this $hit up".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 30, 2015, 09:35:31 am
It's not just the facility, you lose your expertise and supply chain.  Of all the poor decisions over the years regarding our defense industrial base, this will be by far the most noticed on the world stage.  You can be sure China and Russia won't be so blind.  And the fact that we're at the same time giving official approval for Iran to go whole hog with uranium enrichment defies belief.  As the saying goes, "you can't make this $hit up".
I don't understand how this can be done by administrative fiat by the DOE? Something that can possibly be very impactful on national security should need congressional approval. Could DOE shutter the national labs as well?*

* not saying they will but could they?

Many have said the greatest loss of freedom has come from government being so large Congress has largely given the details of lawmaking to the so-called 'administrative state' (the executive bureaucracy). For example Obamacare had several hundred instances of wording in the legislation of "the Secretary [of HHS] shall or may or must" complete some aspect of implementation of the law. This has resulted in the original 2000 page legislation now has, IIRC, over 70,000 pages of rules and regulation (with much more to come apparently)
===============================================================
Must read article in a truly frightening way;

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security-science/2014-december/rethinking_the_unthinkable.php
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 01, 2015, 04:44:45 pm
Some selected 'snips' from reports I've recently read.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on October 04, 2015, 03:15:35 am
A bit more food for thought, albeit finger food: http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/syria-is-obamas-watergate/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on October 04, 2015, 05:35:09 am
While it is quite possible that insufficient focus has been given to maintaining the US nuclear weapon infrastructure it appears that some contributors going too far in the conspiracy theory/ blinkered Anti-Obama bias direction.

Would I be correct that any alleged lack of focus/ funding for this infrastructure was across Presidents and Congress controlled by both US parties?

Would I be correct that none of these issues have yet impacted the viability of the US deterrent?

Would I be correct that the Russian activity really has more to do with their preceding period of utter neglect and their own perceived weakness versus massively superior conventional capacity?

Don't get me started on the Syria deal; most the rest of the (informed) world considers the anti-deal proponents as lunatics or as a cynical Republican political ploy.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 04, 2015, 06:18:13 am
While it is quite possible that insufficient focus has been given to maintaining the US nuclear weapon infrastructure it appears that some contributors going too far in the conspiracy theory/ blinkered Anti-Obama bias direction.

Would I be correct that any alleged lack of focus/ funding for this infrastructure was across Presidents and Congress controlled by both US parties?

Would I be correct that none of these issues have yet impacted the viability of the US deterrent?

Would I be correct that the Russian activity really has more to do with their preceding period of utter neglect and their own perceived weakness versus massively superior conventional capacity?

Don't get me started on the Syria deal; most the rest of the (informed) world considers the anti-deal proponents as lunatics or as a cynical Republican political ploy.

See post #1 of this topic.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: stealthflanker on October 04, 2015, 01:12:21 pm
Is it possible to build nuclear or thermo nuclear device that smaller than davy crockett ? while still have yield of say 1 Kiloton.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on October 04, 2015, 01:44:05 pm
Apologies if I have not been sufficiently clear in my post above.

I was not looking to be political in my post - however I was referring to the increasing political nature of the comments above referring to Obamacare (how is relevant to this discussion) and to a link to a piece likening the Syria deal, linked to the Iranian deal, to Watergate (grounds for impeaching a President?).

My reference to how the Iran deal (reference to Syria deal in the first text a typo) is perceived in the wider world was not meant to suggest that any of the participants here are "lunatics", are Republicans or are not being genuine about what they believe.
However I thought it useful to give a wider perspective than was being presented by other comments.

I am an Irish citizen and I believe that the US nuclear deterrent has helped keep me, my family, my country, my continent and my world safer in the face of potential Soviet agression.
I equally believe in the need for its continued existence and for the logic of the triad.
The US needs an effective, robust but not excessive nuclear deterrent. I would agree that the maintenance of your nuclear infrastructure has been perhaps too low a priory but there is a need to keep perspective on this. Short of some kind of revolutionary technical development to keep abreast of arbitrary comparisons versus the Russian ongoing revamp of their nuclear forces is not very illuminating.

I also believe that the world would be better off if Iran dosen't have the bomb and that Assad is a mass murdering criminal.

In both issues potential Hawks may need to be more realistic about the limits of US military budgets, US political will (across the board and not just when people trying to win primaries), US power in general, and the limits of military means as an instrument of achieving your desired ends.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 04, 2015, 04:43:46 pm
Apologies if I have not been sufficiently clear in my post above.

I was not looking to be political in my post - however

See post #1 in this thread.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 09, 2015, 10:29:55 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-adds-111-warheads-under-arms-treaty/

Quote
Schneider, now a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, said Russia is now at the highest level of deployed nuclear warheads since the New START treaty went into force.

“For the last three reporting periods—18 months—Russia has moved from below New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles to above them,” said Schneider.

“In all three limited categories—deployed warheads, deployed delivery vehicles and deployed and non-deployed delivery vehicles—Russia is above its entry into force numbers from 2011”.

Quote
But I guess we are under it early because ‘business-like’ implementation of the treaty is a way the administration can appear to be doing something, and they have a base of left-wing support which demands we go lower still, and faster,” Moore said.

Russia has been building up its forces steadily, he added.

“Its raid of Kalibr cruise missiles from the Caspian to targets in Syria is another sign that, along with New START warhead numbers, its nuclear-capable systems, strategic warheads, and overall nuclear capability at all ranges and with all types of weapons is building up, not down.”

Quote
Russia has now deployed more than 100 nuclear warheads in its strategic arsenal above the limits set by the New START arms treaty limits—two years before it must meet treaty arms reduction goals.

New START nuclear warhead and delivery system numbers made public Oct. 1 reveal that since the 2010 arms accord went into force, Moscow increased the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a total of 111 weapons for a total of 1,648 deployed warheads. That number is 98 warheads above the treaty limit of 1,150 warheads that must be reached by the 2018 deadline of the treaty.

At the same time, U.S. nuclear warheads, missiles, and bombers have fallen sharply and remain below the required levels under the New START pact.

The United States during the same period of the Russian increases cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by 250 warheads.

The Russian increases and U.S. cuts bolster claims by critics who say the arms treaty is one-sided in constraining U.S. forces while the Russians appear to be ignoring the treaty limits as part of a major strategic forces buildup of missiles, submarines, and bombers.

Additionally, nuclear analysts say recent actions and statements suggest Russia may be preparing to jettison the New START treaty.

“Russia may pull out of the New START before it requires any Russians reductions,” said former Pentagon nuclear policymaker Mark Schneider. “Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department of security and disarmament issues, Mikhail Ulyanov, said so in 2014 and 2015.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on October 09, 2015, 04:03:56 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-adds-111-warheads-under-arms-treaty/

Quote
Schneider, now a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, said Russia is now at the highest level of deployed nuclear warheads since the New START treaty went into force.

“For the last three reporting periods—18 months—Russia has moved from below New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles to above them,” said Schneider.

“In all three limited categories—deployed warheads, deployed delivery vehicles and deployed and non-deployed delivery vehicles—Russia is above its entry into force numbers from 2011”.

Quote
But I guess we are under it early because ‘business-like’ implementation of the treaty is a way the administration can appear to be doing something, and they have a base of left-wing support which demands we go lower still, and faster,” Moore said.

Russia has been building up its forces steadily, he added.

“Its raid of Kalibr cruise missiles from the Caspian to targets in Syria is another sign that, along with New START warhead numbers, its nuclear-capable systems, strategic warheads, and overall nuclear capability at all ranges and with all types of weapons is building up, not down.”

Quote
Russia has now deployed more than 100 nuclear warheads in its strategic arsenal above the limits set by the New START arms treaty limits—two years before it must meet treaty arms reduction goals.

New START nuclear warhead and delivery system numbers made public Oct. 1 reveal that since the 2010 arms accord went into force, Moscow increased the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a total of 111 weapons for a total of 1,648 deployed warheads. That number is 98 warheads above the treaty limit of 1,150 warheads that must be reached by the 2018 deadline of the treaty.

At the same time, U.S. nuclear warheads, missiles, and bombers have fallen sharply and remain below the required levels under the New START pact.

The United States during the same period of the Russian increases cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by 250 warheads.

The Russian increases and U.S. cuts bolster claims by critics who say the arms treaty is one-sided in constraining U.S. forces while the Russians appear to be ignoring the treaty limits as part of a major strategic forces buildup of missiles, submarines, and bombers.

Additionally, nuclear analysts say recent actions and statements suggest Russia may be preparing to jettison the New START treaty.

“Russia may pull out of the New START before it requires any Russians reductions,” said former Pentagon nuclear policymaker Mark Schneider. “Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department of security and disarmament issues, Mikhail Ulyanov, said so in 2014 and 2015.”

A few points.

My understand that the START treaty specifies maximum not minimum numbers, hence references to "below required numbers" isn't correct and potentially betrays the bias of the article.

Secondly the logic of the various quotes aren't consistent; if US numbers are already below START maximums how is the treaty, and not underlying US policy, constraining US numbers?

To not retread the same argument its still appears facile to get into arbitrary arguments about matching Russian warhead numbers (for example) when the issue is if your nuclear forces are sufficiently robust and effective, or not.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 04, 2015, 09:33:40 pm
US unilateral disarmament continues while Russia continues to modernize with large MIRV capable 5th generation ICBMs, SLBMs building from active warhead production lines next generation warheads.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on November 05, 2015, 04:43:28 am
US unilateral disarmament continues while Russia continues to modernize with large MIRV capable 5th generation ICBMs, SLBMs building from active warhead production lines next generation warheads.

How do the figures quoted represent "US unilateral disarmament"?
Numerically doesn't appear to be much difference in US/Russia capacities, as I've stated above any indication the US nuclear arsenal is no longer sufficient, survivable and effective? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on November 05, 2015, 05:00:23 am
US unilateral disarmament continues while Russia continues to modernize with large MIRV capable 5th generation ICBMs, SLBMs building from active warhead production lines next generation warheads.

How do the figures quoted represent "US unilateral disarmament"?
Numerically doesn't appear to be much difference in US/Russia capacities, as I've stated above any indication the US nuclear arsenal is no longer sufficient, survivable and effective?

The newest US ICBM is about a decade older than the oldest Russian ICBM.  Our newest deployed ICBM was built in 1977.  We don't build ICBMs anymore.  Our newest nuclear bomb, the B61, was designed in 1963.  As soon as we finish trashing the B83s it will be our only nuclear bomb.  We don't build nuclear bombs anymore either.  Our newest nuclear warhead was built in the 80s.  We don't build nuclear warheads anymore.  Our last nuclear warhead production line was shut down in the 80s.  Do you need more? 

The common problem I see amongst the "don't we have enough?" crowd is that they don't understand that missiles, bombs, and warheads, are machines and subject to degradation over time just like any other.  How many are driving cars or watching televisions that were designed in 1963?  They also don't understand that it takes time, an industrial base, and a skilled workforce to replace them.  I doubt there is a single person in the workforce today who has actually helped design a nuclear bomb that made it into service in the US.  Very few have even helped design an ICBM or SLBM in the US, and those numbers get smaller every day.  To not be able to see the HUGE, systemic, problem we have in the area of nuclear forces in the US indicates a complete lack of awareness of the situation. 

Seems to be sadly appropriate.  Russia scrapping 17 of the "outdated" mobile ICBMs.  Topols.  Built in 1988.  More than a decade newer than our newest deployed ICBM.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Set_to_Scrap_17_Outdated_Topol_Missile_Launchers_by_2017_999.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Triton on November 11, 2015, 06:26:58 pm
"Mr. President, kill the new cruise missile"
 by William J. Perry and Andy Weber October 15

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-president-kill-the-new-cruise-missile/2015/10/15/e3e2807c-6ecd-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

Quote
William J. Perry was U.S. secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Andy Weber was assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs from 2009 to 2014.

Because they can be launched without warning and come in both nuclear and conventional variants, cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon. President Obama can lead the world to a stabler and safer future by canceling plans for a new U.S. nuclear-capable cruise missile. Moreover, taking such a step — which would not diminish the formidable U.S. nuclear deterrent in the least — could lay the foundation for a global ban on these dangerous weapons.

Two years ago, when Britain decided not to pursue a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, Philip Hammond, then-British defense secretary and now-foreign secretary, explained the problem well: “A cruise-based deterrent would carry significant risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation. At the point of firing, other states could have no way of knowing whether we had launched a conventional cruise missile or one with a nuclear warhead. Such uncertainty could risk triggering a nuclear war at a time of tension.”

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev recognized the destabilizing nature of nuclear cruise missiles and prioritized the elimination of ground-launched versions in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Similarly, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally ordered all sea-launched Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles taken off surface ships and attack submarines and put into storage. There they sat unused until Obama formally retired and directed their dismantlement in 2011.

The Defense Department’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report stated that a decision would be made “whether and (if so) how” to replace the current air-launched cruise missile. This missile will reach the end of its operational life in about 2030, and the only bomber that can deliver it — the B-52 — dates to 1955. The vastly superior B-2 stealth bomber carries not the cruise missile but two types of nuclear gravity bombs, the B61 and megaton-plus B83.

The Obama administration deserves great credit for increasing investment in B-2 sustainment, command and control, and a costly but vital program to extend the life of the B61 nuclear bomb. The extended B61 will replace four existing models, including the tactical version deployed to Europe in support of NATO, and allow for the retirement of the very high-yield B83. With these efforts, the B-2 and B61 will provide the core capability of the bomber leg of the strategic air-land-and-sea nuclear triad for decades to come. The Air Force has also prioritized procurement of 80 to 100 next-generation stealth bomber aircraft, which will be called the Long-Range Strike Bomber, or B-3.

One of us (William J. Perry) led the Defense Department’s development and procurement of the current air-launched cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At that time, the United States needed the cruise missile to keep the aging B-52, which is quite vulnerable to enemy air defense systems, in the nuclear mission until the more effective B-2 replaced it. The B-52 could safely launch the long-range cruise missile far from Soviet air defenses. We needed large numbers of air-launched nuclear cruise missiles to be able to overwhelm Soviet air defenses and thus help offset NATO’s conventional-force inferiority in Europe, but such a posture no longer reflects the reality of today’s U.S. conventional military dominance.

With the updated B-2 and B61 expected to remain in service for many decades, and the planned deployment of new B-3 penetrating bombers with B61 bombs starting in 2025, there is scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile and related warhead life-extension program. The old Cold War requirement for such a capability no longer exists. We can, and should, maintain an extremely effective bomber leg of the triad without it.

Some have argued that a new nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missile is needed to allow future presidents the “flexibility” to engage Russia or China in limited nuclear war. That is Cold War thinking, and it is dangerous. Such “tactical” use of nuclear weapons would be a grave mistake. As Bush told the nation in 1991 when he announced his path-breaking Presidential Nuclear Initiative: “We can enhance stability and actually reduce the risk of nuclear war. Now is the time to seize the opportunity.”

We therefore urge President Obama to cancel the current plan to develop and buy 1,000 to 1,100 new nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles. Such strong U.S. leadership, coupled with a challenge to the other major nuclear powers to eliminate or, in the cases of China and India, forgo deployment of this extremely destabilizing class of weapons, would reduce the risk of nuclear weapons use and be a historic practical step in the direction of a world without nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on November 12, 2015, 03:52:19 am
Oh for the love of Mike!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on November 12, 2015, 06:05:48 am
US unilateral disarmament continues while Russia continues to modernize with large MIRV capable 5th generation ICBMs, SLBMs building from active warhead production lines next generation warheads.

How do the figures quoted represent "US unilateral disarmament"?
Numerically doesn't appear to be much difference in US/Russia capacities, as I've stated above any indication the US nuclear arsenal is no longer sufficient, survivable and effective?

The newest US ICBM is about a decade older than the oldest Russian ICBM.  Our newest deployed ICBM was built in 1977.  We don't build ICBMs anymore.  Our newest nuclear bomb, the B61, was designed in 1963.  As soon as we finish trashing the B83s it will be our only nuclear bomb.  We don't build nuclear bombs anymore either.  Our newest nuclear warhead was built in the 80s.  We don't build nuclear warheads anymore.  Our last nuclear warhead production line was shut down in the 80s.  Do you need more? 

The common problem I see amongst the "don't we have enough?" crowd is that they don't understand that missiles, bombs, and warheads, are machines and subject to degradation over time just like any other.  How many are driving cars or watching televisions that were designed in 1963?  They also don't understand that it takes time, an industrial base, and a skilled workforce to replace them.  I doubt there is a single person in the workforce today who has actually helped design a nuclear bomb that made it into service in the US.  Very few have even helped design an ICBM or SLBM in the US, and those numbers get smaller every day.  To not be able to see the HUGE, systemic, problem we have in the area of nuclear forces in the US indicates a complete lack of awareness of the situation. 

Seems to be sadly appropriate.  Russia scrapping 17 of the "outdated" mobile ICBMs.  Topols.  Built in 1988.  More than a decade newer than our newest deployed ICBM.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Set_to_Scrap_17_Outdated_Topol_Missile_Launchers_by_2017_999.html

I agree that the US nuclear weapon infrastructure (people, plant, design capabilities etc) have been somewhat neglected. I do recognise that you need to build new and re-build existing nuclear weapons to maintain the capability. I'm not part of the bandwagon you appear to be lumping me in with; clearly the US will have to spend more on this infrastructure and clearly there could be issues re lack of concurrency and experienced staff.

However going back to my central point, why the fixation with number of warheads versus the Russians?
Using that as the end all and be all measure is a bit perplexing; I've already noted my understand of the important measures in my previous comments above.
I repeat where from the warhead numbers quoted above is there any evidence of US unilateral disarmament?

Re: the posted article above with notable individuals proposing cancelling the future stealthy nuclear armed cruise missile I'd be as hawkish as the next guy; a lack of such a weapon would greatly weaken the deterrent role of the future bomber (for the length of its operational life) for a disproportionately small cost saving (always presumed this cruise missle would not necessarily look to be overly ambitious, an equivalent of a nuclear armed JASSM). Such a cruise missile could also extend the deterrent operational effectiveness of the B2 and give greater flexibility to the airborne deterrent. There should also be a lot of scope for commonality and leveraging with contemporary conventionally armed cruise missiles.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 12, 2015, 07:09:39 am
From recent reports you might find interesting.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on November 12, 2015, 04:29:00 pm
"Mr. President, kill the new cruise missile"
 by William J. Perry and Andy Weber October 15

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-president-kill-the-new-cruise-missile/2015/10/15/e3e2807c-6ecd-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html


Incredible!  That Bill Perry is still alive and adjudicted to be of sound mind.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on November 12, 2015, 04:40:58 pm
However going back to my central point, why the fixation with number of warheads versus the Russians?

Because of the deeply flawed New START treaty (which never would have been ratified if Congress hadn't been wilfully deceived on Russia's INF violations)
which focuses on numbers rather than capabilities e.g. mobility, throw-weight. IOW, it's a purely political grandstanding treaty since any technically competent, politically unchained
US negotiators would have made the elimination of mobile missiles a cornerstone of their negotiating stance.

It also highlights the paralyzing effect of treaties; too much political capital invested in them to risk by walking away from them over material and or flagrant violations.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 12, 2015, 09:34:03 pm
However going back to my central point, why the fixation with number of warheads versus the Russians?

Because of the deeply flawed New START treaty (which never would have been ratified if Congress hadn't been wilfully deceived on Russia's INF violations)
which focuses on numbers rather than capabilities e.g. mobility, throw-weight. IOW, it's a purely political grandstanding treaty since any technically competent, politically unchained
US negotiators would have made the elimination of mobile missiles a cornerstone of their negotiating stance.

It also highlights the paralyzing effect of treaties; too much political capital invested in them to risk by walking away from them over material and or flagrant violations.
And a silly continuation of the completely disproven "If we lead the world will follow" disarmament doctrine plus making the Russians feel good as they could no longer afford to maintain their huge arsenal. At the time the US and Russia had 'reset' relations what did it matter if the US had a few hundred more warheads we were 'friends' after all. I mean France and Britain weren't demanding parity with their arsenals. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on November 13, 2015, 09:51:38 am
Incredible!  That Bill Perry is still alive and adjudicted to be of sound mind.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on December 06, 2015, 12:28:03 am
Former Defense Secretary Says Eliminate ICBMs

—Otto Kreisher

12/7/2015

​Former Defense Secretary William Perry urged the elimination of the ground-based ICBM leg of the nuclear deterrent triad and opposed production of the nuclear-armed Long Range Standoff missile, which will replace the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), calling both “uniquely destabilizing.” Speaking at a Dec. 3 defense writers’ breakfast in Washington, D.C., Perry said because of “deteriorating” US-Russian relations, “we are now facing the kinds of dangers we faced in the Cold War,” with the threat of “a nuclear event,” and “we’re now at the precipice, the brink, of a nuclear arms race.” Perry, however, supported buying the Long-Range Strike Bomber and a replacement for the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines to modernize the other two legs of the triad. The Air Force has started development of the LRSO to ensure the continued viability of the bomber leg. Ironically, as Defense Secretary from 1994-97, Perry cancelled the B-1 bomber program and approved production of the original ALCMs to counter the threat to the B-52s from Soviet anti-air missiles. Perry said he opposes the ICBMs because “under any reasonable definition of deterrence, they are not needed,” and they are destabilizing because any threat of an attack triggers the “use it, or lose it” mentality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So no ICBMs, no LRSO. I know how this works. They 'say' they support something, in this case SSBN(X) and LRS-B but are just waiting until any cot overruns and they the "we can't afford it" stories start emerging.

This is unilateral disarmament and its mentality is dangerous IMHO.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on December 17, 2015, 04:21:12 pm
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said previously that the mass of the Sarmat ICBM warhead is 10 tonnes, and the missile is capable of destroying targets flying across both the North and South Pole. The Sarmat ICBM that is to replace the Voyevoda, will be created in several versions, Borisov said.

The Sarmat heavy ICBM was co-developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya in Reutov (Moscow Region) and the Makeyev State Missile Centre in Miass. According to the developers, the advanced Sarmat will weigh within 100 tonnes. According to Yuri Borisov, its range will exceed 11,000 km.
------------------------------------------------------------
Higher payload than the SS-18 and over 2.5X Peacekeeper of around the same weight?  :o The GBSD better match this IMHO.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on December 17, 2015, 04:23:28 pm
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said previously that the mass of the Sarmat ICBM warhead is 10 tonnes, and the missile is capable of destroying targets flying across both the North and South Pole. The Sarmat ICBM that is to replace the Voyevoda, will be created in several versions, Borisov said.

The Sarmat heavy ICBM was co-developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya in Reutov (Moscow Region) and the Makeyev State Missile Centre in Miass. According to the developers, the advanced Sarmat will weigh within 100 tonnes. According to Yuri Borisov, its range will exceed 11,000 km.
------------------------------------------------------------
Higher payload than the SS-18 and over 2.5X Peacekeeper of around the same weight?  :o The GBSD better match this IMHO.

I'll believe those numbers when I see them. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on January 03, 2016, 02:08:42 pm
A pretty apt cartoon, via the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/cartoons/around-world/empire-has-promised-only-use-death-star-civilian-p/):
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwt-thumbs.washtimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F2015%2F12%2F17%2Fmrz121815dAPR_s878x641.jpg%3Fb425d80715410002dbd1c463e61561a2f34f974d&hash=ad482e56879144ff527a1927a04a63be)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Brickmuppet on January 19, 2016, 01:36:32 pm
A question regarding North Korea's recent test;
I've seen some speculation (albeit not from official sources) that it was not necessarily a fizzle and the fact that the last three tests were in the same ballpark indicates that the low yield was deliberate for some reason. One reason for this is the fact that small nukes are hard to do and the consistency of the last three detonations indicates a deliberate choice, which in turn would indicate some level of sophistication.

The rationale for pursuing such small devices is unclear, but three ideas come to mind.
1) They could just be trying to maximize the number of bombs for a given level of fissionables. The down side of this is that such small bombs have limited effectiveness without super precise targeting.

2) Another idea is that they could be pursuing low yield tactical nukes for use in the event of an invasion, perhaps hoping (as the Russians seem to) that a nuke detonated against invaders on their own soil would not necessarily invite a massive retaliation.  This would also allow for something like the SADM for commando raids and (less likely) selling to terrorists. It would be consistent with both the small yield and the claim that fusion was happening if it was something in the ballpark of a W-54 or small artillery round with fusion boosting.

3)Third is the one I've actually seen speculated about and that is that this was a fusion bomb as claimed, but it had a very small secondary and was actually an enhanced radiation weapon intended to maximize EMP. This would give the DPRK a genuine strategic counter-value capability despite the minimal throw weight of their missile force. Additionally, this would retain its effectiveness even if their achievable CEP was measured in states or provinces rather than meters.
There is more on that here in a long, detailed breathless and even more rambly post than this comment.
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2016_01_01_archive.html

There is more on publicly available info regarding maximizing nuclear EMP here:

http://www.futurescience.com/emp/super-EMP.html

I don't know enough to evaluate either link, but I do note that neither of them is attempting to sell me Faraday cages or storable food.

Of course the notion that a nation that can't feed itself and is using slave labor to put together a nuclear bomb might bollox it repeatedly the exact same way should not be utterly dismissed. It would seem logical however, that if the North Koreans wanted to impress us with the size of their 'splodies then building something along the lines of Little Boy would be a risk free way to do so. Yet they're consistently producing these small yields.

Anyway. I'm curious what others here think.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on February 07, 2016, 03:39:25 pm
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/02/04-new-start-turns-five-pifer

Should have stayed at START levels 1200 launchers 6000 strategic warheads IMHO.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on February 07, 2016, 05:24:16 pm
Not much of a "bright spot" considering most of Russia's systems are brand new while ours are decrepit.  (And never mind China's.  We should never enter another nuclear arms treaty with Russia only.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on February 07, 2016, 08:18:31 pm
I've posted these before but needs a repost.

Notice Russia's warhead production capability plus will be completely modernized by 2021. What's the significance of 2021? New START expires expect a Russian 'breakout' as Putin withdraws from treaty increases deployed warheads to 5000. China will announce policy of parity and rapidly increase deployed warhead numbers.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on February 07, 2016, 08:31:40 pm
I've posted these before but needs a repost.

Notice Russia's warhead production capability plus will be completely modernized by 2021. What's the significance of 2021? New START expires expect a Russian 'breakout' as Putin withdraws from treaty increases deployed warheads to 5000. China will announce policy of parity and rapidly increase deployed warhead numbers.

I suspect the US has very little insight (recent defectors notwithstanding) into Chinese nuclear weapons capabilities and intent.
Title: Official unsure of where Iran's enriched uranium is stored
Post by: sferrin on February 11, 2016, 03:22:38 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-11-13-52-35

I. Am. Shocked.  Shocked I tell you. 
Title: Re: Official unsure of where Iran's enriched uranium is stored
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 11, 2016, 10:21:41 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-11-13-52-35

I. Am. Shocked.  Shocked I tell you.

Why? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on February 16, 2016, 09:33:36 pm
Still Time For Debate on Nuclear Deterrent


—John A. Tirpak2/16/2016

​The US nuclear deterrent will run aground in 2022, but there’s “still time” to have a national debate on whether the country needs to replace it on a one-for-one basis, the Air Force’s requirements and planning chief said Friday. Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes told reporters the Air Force already has its hands full recapitalizing the airborne leg of the nuclear triad with a new bomber, cruise missile, and B61 nuclear bomb, but the need to recapitalize the Minuteman III ICBM, as well as what he called the “fourth leg” of the triad—the Nuclear Command and Control system, which USAF also manages—will break the bank. “Our problems really start to get unmanageable in ’22, as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program advances,” he said. “We’d like to have a national debate on, what does 21st century deterrence actually mean? We know there’s still a nuclear component to it, but is it the same?” The cyber and conventional deterrent needs to be considered as well, he said, because Russia’s moves in the Ukraine have illustrated that it’s “hard for us to intervene without triggering a nuclear response.” Fully funding triad replacement will cut deeply into conventional force funds, he said. “That’s a decision the country has to make, what the right number is ... We’ll either have to put more money into it, or accept risk on the conventional side, or decide that 21st century deterrence is different, and make some choices.” (See also: Investing in Deterrence.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on February 24, 2016, 12:10:32 am
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/02/23/u-s-military-is-gutted-as-china-and-russia-prepare-for-war/

Part 3 audio some nuclear discussion
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on February 24, 2016, 10:55:09 pm
Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on February 25, 2016, 01:19:02 am
Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion what we would consider defence spending is not what the officials and politicos in Washington, even those nominally in the Department of Defense, consider to be defence spending. For example, they have no problem spending money like water on things like the various diversity directorates and white elephants like the F-35. But things like decent working hardware? Actual standing forces rather than token deployments or even paper formations? Soldiers pay and benefits? Reversing ongoing cuts in real Research & Development? No way in hell according to their logic. Even at a time when the various foes of the United States are cleaning her clock, so to speak.  ::)

Air Force to start Long-Range Standoff Weapon production by 2026

February 23, 2016

The chief of Air Force Global Strike Command reaffirmed the service's commitment to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon after announcing plans to begin production of the Air-Launched Cruise Missile replacement in 2026 and reach initial operational capability by 2030.

Gen. Robin Rand announced the weapon's time line during a Feb. 9 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing. The IOC and production dates had not been previously available publicly, including in fiscal year 2017 budget justification documents.

The Air Force maintains it is on track for the IOC date, despite a shift in the program's acquisition time line and a funding decrease in the service's proposed FY-17 budget. In that proposal, the Air Force delayed the program's milestone A review from the first quarter of FY-16 to the second quarter, arguing the move would allow the service "a realistic manpower and facilities ramp-up," Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Melissa Milner wrote in a Feb. 12 email to Inside the Air Force. The service also pushed the technology, maturation and risk-reduction phase from the first quarter of FY-16 into the third quarter of FY-17, according to budget documents.

The program's budget also took a hit due to a delay in executing the TMRR phase. Congress removed $20.5 million in FY-16 tied to supporting events in that phase and removed $38.1 million for the specific TMRR contract, budget documents state.

Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters during a Feb. 12 roundtable that the LRSO was funded to the service's estimated cost, which changes from year to year.

"The acquisition decision cycle does not always line up with the budget decision cycle," he said. "So new service cost positions are driven to meet an acquisition [Defense Acquisition Board] that are inconvenient in a budget environment where you already got a budget built and now it goes up or down and you have to make changes."

Despite the decrease, the Air Force says its IOC date has not changed. The service also solidified its commitment to the program in its proposed budget with a major funding request beginning in FY-18. The Air Force expects to ask for $419 million in FY-18 and $649 million in FY-19, according to budget documents.

"In this increasingly contested environment that we will be operating in, we need LRSO," Rand said. "The Air Force is committed to this. It is in our 2017 budget, and it is funded fairly strongly for the [Future Years Defense Program]."

The Long-Range Standoff Weapon would replace the nuclear-armed AGM-86B ALCM. The weapon would be deployed through the 2060s and the Air Force has plans to procure between 1,000 and 1,110 LRSOs, about double the size of the existing ALCM fleet, according to a fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association last May.

The weapon system will be able to penetrate and survive advanced integrated Air Defense Systems from a significant range, according to the Defense Department's FY-17 budget request. The continued funding also confirms that the Air Force has no plans to set aside the new nuclear-armed missile concept, despite calls from some Democrats in Congress to scrap the program. Last December, eight Senate Democrats issued a letter to President Obama urging him to terminate the LRSO plan, arguing the missile could destabilize relations with other nuclear-armed states. 174914

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities Robert Scher pushed back against that criticism from arms control groups during the Feb. 9 Senate hearing.

"I think the LRSO is a continuation of an existing weapon," he said. "So I would argue that it is not inherently destabilizing, as it is a weapon that already has existed."

What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 25, 2016, 01:52:05 am
What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!

And what makes you think they don't?   Are you so scared of the North Koreans or the Chinese that you feel they're about to attack tonight?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on February 25, 2016, 04:12:49 am
Deterrence Costs Could Break the Bank

—Jennifer Hlad

2/25/2016


​The Department of Defense is “headed towards a very serious affordability problem in a few years” because of the cost of maintaining and modernizing the nuclear deterrent, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall said this week. “We’re confronting a really big bill starting in 2021 with the strategic deterrent,” Kendall said at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon. “It’s on the order of $15 billion a year that would have to come out of other accounts … and we do not see any way that we could rationally do the things we’re asked to do in the world, sustain the forces that we need to have for our commitments, and keep our modernization programs reasonable, and do that at the same time.” The five-year plan in the Pentagon’s proposed budget does include about $3 billion to $4 billion of relief in 2021, Kendall said, “but it remains to be seen what is going to happen after that.” (For more from Kendall’s speech see also: RD-180s OK for Now.)
________________________________________________________________________________
So in 2021 the Federal Government will be spending, conservative estimate, $4.5 trillion from $4 trillion for FY17. So the $15 billion additional funds for nuclear modernization is equal to 1/3 of 1% of total spending.

This would be like someone who estimated they will have take home pay of $45,000/annum in 2021 but find out their home security service fees will increase by $150 bucks a year (or $12.50/month or three café lattes) wondering how they will ever afford it.

I wonder if it would cost more than losing a nuclear war?  I'm thinking not.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on February 25, 2016, 04:13:42 am
What makes them think they have ten years to burn?!

And what makes you think they don't?   Are you so scared of the North Koreans or the Chinese that you feel they're about to attack tonight?

Wow. Just. . .wow.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on February 26, 2016, 02:29:23 am
The current occupant of the Oval Office may have a (now much frayed) mantra of 'Hope and Change'; However, hopping that your enemies will not clobber you is not a viable strategy. To put it mildly.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 26, 2016, 03:48:09 am
The current occupant of the Oval Office may have a (now much frayed) mantra of 'Hope and Change'; However, hopping that your enemies will not clobber you is not a viable strategy. To put it mildly.

You don't think the 7,100 nuclear warheads the USA has at it's disposal might influence their thinking somewhat?

Or do you perceive them as mirror images to yourself?

You have heard of the concept of "deterrence" haven't you?   You don't think that other nations might not want to destroy their major trading partner and risk their own nation's destruction (along with a good slice of the world)?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on February 26, 2016, 06:54:41 am
Quite apart from the fact that the 7,100 warhead figure is not what it seems (hint: deployed and/or maintained warheads, not to mention still extant delivery systems), the 'major trading partners won't go to war' theory has long since been debunked. And even during it's heyday in the 1990s, the theory was pretty shaky on historical grounds alone; For example, look at who France's major trading partner was just prior to the outbreak of World War II. Or who the Soviet Union's was before Operation Barbarossa kicked off...

In reality, Russia does arguably have the advantage in both operational warheads and the range of available delivery systems. And that's even before you get to the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. What the United States has is both an extremely rusty saber and a crisis in the current system of command & control, both in it's uniformed and civilian components. The latter problem of course has in turn worsened (and at least in part, directly caused in the first place) already critical problems in R&D and procurement/industrial infrastructure, which all means that a credible US counter to Russia (or China for that matter), deterrence or otherwise, is currently not on the cards in the short term.

The rest of NATO is no better.

So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 26, 2016, 06:35:56 pm
Quite apart from the fact that the 7,100 warhead figure is not what it seems (hint: deployed and/or maintained warheads, not to mention still extant delivery systems), the 'major trading partners won't go to war' theory has long since been debunked. And even during it's heyday in the 1990s, the theory was pretty shaky on historical grounds alone; For example, look at who France's major trading partner was just prior to the outbreak of World War II. Or who the Soviet Union's was before Operation Barbarossa kicked off...

Agreed but and it is a mighty big BUT, today we have economic rationalists in control of the world (for the most part) and they realise that war is bad for business.   As all nations which oppose the USA have fewer warheads and delivery systems than the USA, I rather think they realise that they would be much, much, much, worse off in any nuclear exchange with the USA.

Quote
In reality, Russia does arguably have the advantage in both operational warheads and the range of available delivery systems. And that's even before you get to the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. What the United States has is both an extremely rusty saber and a crisis in the current system of command & control, both in it's uniformed and civilian components. The latter problem of course has in turn worsened (and at least in part, directly caused in the first place) already critical problems in R&D and procurement/industrial infrastructure, which all means that a credible US counter to Russia (or China for that matter), deterrence or otherwise, is currently not on the cards in the short term.

The rest of NATO is no better.

So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.

I don't see why.  Russia is weaker economically and militarily.  When faced with no opposition, Putin might prevail but I simply cannot see ANY American government willing to put up with Putin's shenanigans against it's core interests.   Russia does not have an advantage, its nuclear forces are older and more poorly maintained than the US's.   Russia has also proved that it understands the risks of nuclear war far better than Washington does.   

In reality, you would need a complete madman or woman in charge of either Russia or the PRC or North Korea.   We have no evidence of that.  What we have is evidence of some very hard thinking, hard calculating people who have explored just how far they can go and know the consequences if they go further.

The reality is that the USA is as safe as houses from a nuclear attack from any government as long as it maintains parity with it's largest adversary. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on February 26, 2016, 06:58:26 pm
So, please forgive me if I am a tad bit worried about the current state of affairs.

If we unilaterally disarm I'm sure China and Russia will do the same. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 05, 2016, 02:48:53 pm
HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the nuclear posture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q58h0kUP9w
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 07, 2016, 08:18:02 pm
Air Force: National nuclear modernization fund should support all three legs of the triad

March 07, 2016

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said Monday that any national-level fund to support the Defense Department's nuclear triad modernization should encompass all three legs rather than a single program.

As the department aims to modernize the nuclear triad over the next few decades, some in the department and on Capitol Hill have advocated for a national-level fund to support and protect those efforts. The Navy has already established a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to support its Ohio-class Replacement submarine program, and the Air Force has expressed interest in working with Congress to develop a similar construct to support its new B-21 bomber and an intercontinental ballistic missile replacement effort.

During a March 7 briefing at the Pentagon, James said that if DOD and lawmakers decide that establishing a separate fund for nuclear modernization is the right direction to go, it would make sense that the fund include support for all three replacement efforts.

“Certainly if there is to be a fund for a nuclear modernization, it seems to me appropriate that it be for all three legs of the triad and not just for one leg of the triad,” James said. “So if indeed that is the approach that is selected, it seems to me that ought to be a joint fund.”

James said the deeper question centers around the source of any additional money. Current top-line budgets are too low to support the planned modernization efforts, and the department faces a funding bow wave in the early 2020s.

“It's a question of what kind of a military do the American people want going forward,” James said. “I believe we need these programs. And we're just going to have to get this squared away.”

The service last October awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to develop and produce the B-21 bomber, a program that analysts predict will cost around $100 billion over the course of its life cycle. Many details about the program remain veiled -- including the total contract value -- but James on Monday revealed the names of eight key suppliers.

Most notably, military engine producer Pratt & Whitney will develop the B-21's engine. The company also builds the engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, among other platforms, and is working with the Air Force to mature advanced engine technology.

Airframe and mission systems suppliers include: BAE, GKN Aerospace, Janicki Industries, Orbital ATK, Rockwell Collins and Spirit Aerosystems.

James said the Air Force released the supplier details out of an effort to be more transparent about the program, and she said she expects more details will be released in the future.

The service has taken some heat in recent weeks from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ), who has questioned the Air Force's decision to award a cost-plus contract for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program.

Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force's military deputy for acquisition, told reporters Monday that the contract was structured in this way in order to place great emphasis on cost and performance requirements. Bunch would not disclose information about the amount of the incentive fee that would be available to Northrop, but said it increases as the development program matures.

“The fee early on the schedule will be lower,” he said. “It will be dramatically larger as we get more toward the end and we start really trying to deliver the aircraft and we start doing the test program.”

Bunch noted that the service had planned to award a cost-plus contract for some time and briefed members of Congress on several occasions in classified and open sessions. He said that during those briefings, the service did not receive any information that would cause it to change its course.

“We've been briefing for many years, since the inception of the program, the staffs to keep them in the know -- in a classified environment where we could lay all the cards out on the table,” Bunch said. “We've been transparent with multiple meetings over the last few years where we've outlined our strategy and our way forward, and we've been consistent with our message even before we released the request for proposal.”

Asked if the service would consider opening the B-21 to foreign military sales, Bunch said the Air Force is not discussing such a move at this point in the program, but may explore that option in the future.  :o
____________________________________________________________________________________
I've been an advocate for this for a long time a Nuclear Deterrence Agency like the MDA to fund all things nuclear including the nuke enterprise, existing warhead upgrades and new next generation warheads.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 08, 2016, 03:50:22 pm
Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words.  I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh??  Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 08, 2016, 10:22:02 pm
Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words.  I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh??  Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations. 

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 08, 2016, 11:06:34 pm
http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/nuclear-cruise-missile-opponents-are-pushing-a-dangerous-line/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on March 09, 2016, 12:27:29 am
Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words.  I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh??  Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations. 

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that.  He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991...   ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 09, 2016, 12:46:17 am
Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words.  I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh??  Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations. 

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that.  He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991...   ::)
Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on March 09, 2016, 12:58:13 am
Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!

As the Cold War has been over now for 15 years, no, I didn't "get that".  I don't live in the past.  Today is a completely different, multi-polar world, where nuclear weapons don't rule the thinking of most people.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 09, 2016, 05:09:26 am
Iran threatens to walk away from nuke deal after missile test

"Iran on Tuesday again threatened to walk away from the nuclear agreement reached last year with global powers, hours after the country breached international agreements by test-firing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/08/iran-threatens-to-walk-away-from-nuke-deal-after-missile-test.html?intcmp=hpbt2

This is beyond words.  I mean wow, must be a great deal for the West eh??  Wouldn't want to tarnish anybody's "legacy" by publicizing violations. 

The USSR's most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current Arms Control Agreements, comes a day after the President disclosed that he is prohibited by the treaty from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Soviets.

Imagine............

Imagine that.  He can't comment on a tests by a nation that ceased to exist in 1991...   ::)
Obviously comment based on a hypothetical as if it happened during the Cold War you really didn't get that? Wow!

Shhhh.  He totally slayed you in his own mind.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on March 09, 2016, 05:21:33 am
Shhhh.  He totally slayed you in his own mind.

Must upset you enormously...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 09, 2016, 07:42:26 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/why-bombers-are-key-to-nuke-modernization-think-russia-north-korea-china/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 11, 2016, 11:38:27 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/11/the_nuclear_arms_race_is_alive_and_well_109131.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 12, 2016, 01:09:39 am
AFA-NDIA-ROA: The Benefits of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence: Modernizing the Triad and Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise, March 11, 2016, Bangor, Washington

7:30-8:00 Registration and Buffet breakfast.

8:00-8:10 Welcoming Remarks from Rear Admiral David Kriete, Commander, Submarine Group 9.

8:10-8:15 Introductory Remarks by Peter Huessy, President, Geo-Strategic Analysis, and Senior Defense Consultant, Mitchell Institute, Air Force Association.

8:15-9:00 Brad Roberts, Lawrence Livermore National Lab – “The Case for Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.”

9:00-9:45 Peter Huessy, Senior Defense Consultant, Air Force Association and Mitchell Institute, and President, GeoStrategic Analysis:  "Review of Nuclear Deterrent Modernization Alternatives".

9:45-10:30 Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director, SSP: ORP update; Navy-Air Force collaboration on strategic systems; & UK Trident replacement.

10:30-10:45 Break.

10:45-11:30 Panel: Todd Harrison, Director, Defense Budget Analysis, CSIS; and Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, CSIS.

11:35-12:30  Panel: Matthew Kroenig, Associate Professor, Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; and Tom Karako, Senior Fellow, ISP/CSIS. 

12:30-1:00 Break and Lunch Starts.

1:00-1:45 Luncheon Keynote - Admiral Cecil Haney, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command: "Strategic Deterrence in an Uncertain World"

1:50-2:40 Lt Gen Jack Weinstein, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, USAF Headquarters: "The Value of ICBMs and Bombers: Communicating Strategic Requirements".

2:40-3:10 Rear Admiral Charles A. Richard, Director, Undersea Warfare Division (N97): "Deterrence Update: The State of the Ohio Replacement Program".

3:10 Farewell and thank you by Peter R. Huessy.

Conclusion - Tour participants proceed to buses in front of hotel.

Optional tour of Naval Base and SSBN (Registration for the tour is now closed.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting event.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 12, 2016, 01:24:52 pm
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/03/rethinking-armageddon/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 14, 2016, 07:13:33 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/14/why_do_us_nuclear_force_numbers_matter_for_deterrence_109136.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 15, 2016, 12:48:22 am
Needed Nuclear Investment

—Brian Everstine

3/15/2016

Even though the Defense Department is looking to double the amount it spends on its nuclear arsenal, the total number is still just a fraction of the Pentagon’s overall budget and the funds must be protected, the head of US Strategic Command said. The issue isn’t if the US can afford keeping a nuclear triad, it’s “can we afford not to,” STRATCOM chief Adm. Cecil Haney said March 11 at an Air Force Association-, National Defense Industry Association-, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. The Defense Department currently spends about three percent of its total budget on its nuclear capability, but that number is expected to increase to six or seven percent through 2020 into the 2030s as the Pentagon invests in programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and the Navy’s Ohio-class nuclear submarines. However, those numbers do not reflect the “conventional piece” on top of that, including human capital and support equipment, noted Haney. (See also: Still Time for Debate on Nuclear Deterrent.)

Keeping the Treaties With Russia

—Brian Everstine

3/15/2016

​While Russia has done enough to comply with the New START treaty so far, the country’s approach to other treaties and continued emphasis on its arsenal is “problematic,” said Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of US Strategic Command. The US has had ample access through New START to review Russia’s nuclear arsenal, including conducting Open Skies flights and 18 inspections each year, said Haney on March 11 at an Air Force Association-, National Defense Industry Association-, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. “That transparency is important, inspections are important,” he added. While Russia has kept with New START, it has not kept with demands of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which requires Russia to eliminate medium- to short-range weapons, Haney said. Russia has also been focused on keeping its arsenal updated, and especially keeping it “mobile” and not in fixed sites. “The world’s gone mobile and gone underground,” Haney said, emphasizing that the US needs to “maintain strategic stability.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 17, 2016, 10:33:08 pm
Carter supports creation of national nuclear deterrence fund

Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee he would favor the creation of a national nuclear deterrence fund to address the Defense Department's coming “bow wave” of triad modernization expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16391.msg157554.html#msg157554
 
Been calling for this for years my first post was in 2010.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 17, 2016, 11:01:46 pm
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/17/document-report-to-congress-on-u-s-strategic-nuclear-forces-2

Read the brief history of disarmament since 1991 over 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 20, 2016, 09:35:18 am
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/03/17/validating-sea-based-strategic-deterrence/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 23, 2016, 10:01:41 pm
Russia’s Puzzling Saber Rattling

—Amy McCullough3/23/2016

​Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of state for arms control and security, said she was "disturbed" by Russia's recent "nuclear saber rattling," saying it's "simply unwarranted and doesn't make any sense whatsoever." Former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on March 19 said, "We have less nuclear warheads, but the risk of them being used is growing, " reported Reuters. Ivanov served as Russia's foreign minister from 1998 to 2004 and now leads a Moscow-based, state-run think tank. Gottemoeller told reporters Tuesday in Washington, D.C., that she was "frankly puzzled" by the comments "because we believe that deterrence is stable between our countries." While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Vladimir I'm disturbed and puzzled by your unwarranted nuclear sabre rattling!

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Md0ffe09db20c5e7900b98353207e32d4o1%26amp%3Bw%3D194%26amp%3Bh%3D105%26amp%3Bc%3D7%26amp%3Brs%3D1%26amp%3Bqlt%3D90%26amp%3Bpid%3D3.1%26amp%3Brm%3D2&hash=6aaaff2b5918a93f773ad9439275eaa7)

Early START

—Amy McCullough3/23/2016

​Although the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia doesn’t expire until 2021, a senior State Department official said she already is “urging” her Russian counterparts to think about “what comes next.” The treaty, known as New START, limits both countries to 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on 700 ICBMs, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable bombers. “The value of the New START treaty, especially during this period of bilateral crisis with the Russian federation, is that it lends a considerable level of mutual predictability,” said Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of State for arms control and security. Gottemoeller was the US’ chief negotiator on the treaty, under which Russia must notify the US when it takes an ICBM out of deployed status for maintenance, and the US must notify Russia when one of its nuclear-capable bombers deploys from its home base for more than 24 hours. “We’ve continued to say to the Russians, ‘We need to think about the future,’” she said.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 25, 2016, 07:51:21 am
http://www.thewrap.com/tribeca-film-festival-adds-multimedia-nuclear-weapon-experience-the-bomb/

Of course by the looks of the panel this will be a total one sided hit job but I'd go just to watch nukes go off surrounded by a 360' screen. I would totally wreck the event by cheering each explosion  ;D

But it would also be interesting because when arms control at any cost zealots like Joe Cirincione has a captive, largely ignorant, audience his hyperbole and general levels of obfuscation are almost laughable. I wonder how many times they'll say "Cold War arsenal" despite a close to 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads since 1991.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 25, 2016, 08:05:30 am
http://www.thewrap.com/tribeca-film-festival-adds-multimedia-nuclear-weapon-experience-the-bomb/

Of course by the looks of the panel this will be a total one sided hit job but I'd go just to watch nukes go off surrounded by a 360' screen. I would totally wreck the event by cheering each explosion  ;D

But it would also be interesting because when arms control at any cost zealots like Joe Cirincione has a captive, largely ignorant, audience his hyperbole and general levels of obfuscation are almost laughable. I wonder how many times they'll say "Cold War arsenal" despite a close to 90% reduction in deployed strategic warheads since 1991.

It's depressing how stupidly naive, and ignorant the West is when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 25, 2016, 08:07:03 am
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 25, 2016, 08:08:45 am
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-bad-time-to-cut-u-s-nuclear-capability-1458857659-lMyQjAxMTA2OTIyNTMyNTUwWj

Another National Institute of Public Policy scholar, along with Dr. Keith Payne and Dr. Mark Schneider, strong advocates for maintaining a safe, reliable AND credible nuclear deterrent.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 25, 2016, 08:16:20 am
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 25, 2016, 08:37:29 am
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do.  I mean damn.  Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 25, 2016, 08:42:14 am
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do.  I mean damn.  Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".
Yes, he'd find plenty of it scattered amongst the 'extinct' species of the world.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on March 25, 2016, 10:59:31 am
While the United States has made a point to "de-emphasize the importance of nuclear weapons" in its national security strategy, Russia's most recent military doctrine, released last year, places "a major emphasis on nuclear weapons," she said. However, that does not mean the US should change its policy. Gottemoeller said the US has "a very, very powerful conventional capability deployed world-wide," and its deterrence strategy is based on those conventional forces, "our very capable command and control system, our ability to defend in some cases missile defense capabilities in limited circumstances, and our nuclear weapons." She added, "They are all pieces of the puzzle and all add up to a very strong deterrent force. I frankly don't see any reason why we would re-emphasize nuclear weapons."
:o

Ye Gods, that's some weapons-grade stupidity right there.
It's blind anti-nuke ideology. They want full and complete disarmament so any evidence to the contrary, that might be screaming at them, "We might have to modernize and build our deterrent forces" is simply discarded and ignored because it does not fit the agenda.

I don't know what's scarier, that they actually believe if we got rid of our nukes everybody else would, or that they don't CARE if anybody else does as long as we do.  I mean damn.  Darwin would have a field day with that kind of "thinking".

The STRACOM 2009 Deterrence Symposium where high ranking officials from the other declared nuclear powers gave their perspectives on the utility of nuclear weapons should be required watching. Naturally, I can't find the video ATM.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 28, 2016, 03:14:55 pm
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 28, 2016, 03:25:55 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a20144/doomsday-nuclear-submarines-doomed/

Interesting article and WHY we have a Triad. Maybe we should have 400 GBSD ICBMs and 300 B-21s then you could actually deploy many more that 1550 warheads under New START as bombers count as one regardless of actual payload.  :o
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on March 28, 2016, 05:13:51 pm
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 31, 2016, 03:26:36 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-how-we-can-make-our-vision-of-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-a-reality/2016/03/30/3e156e2c-f693-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-confirms-new-north-korean-icbm/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on March 31, 2016, 03:26:59 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/the-nuclear-bomber-fighting-conflated-deterrence-in-the-21st-century/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 01, 2016, 07:50:48 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Quote
Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

A recent intelligence assessment of the Russian strategic warhead buildup shows that the increase is the result of the addition of multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, on recently deployed road-mobile SS-27 and submarine-launched SS-N-32 missiles, said officials familiar with reports of the buildup.

“The Russians are doubling their warhead output,” said one official. “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

The 2010 treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce deployed warheads to 1,550 warheads by February 2018.

The United States has cut its warhead stockpiles significantly in recent years. Moscow, however, has increased its numbers of deployed warheads and new weapons.

The State Department revealed in January that Russia currently has exceeded the New START warhead limit by 98 warheads, deploying a total number of 1,648 warheads. The U.S. level currently is below the treaty level at 1,538 warheads.

Officials said that in addition to adding warheads to the new missiles, Russian officials have sought to prevent U.S. weapons inspectors from checking warheads as part of the 2010 treaty.

The State Department, however, said it can inspect the new MIRVed missiles.

Disclosure of the doubling of Moscow’s warhead force comes as world leaders gather in Washington this week to discus nuclear security—but without Russian President Vladimir Putin, who skipped the conclave in an apparent snub of the United States.

The Nuclear Security Summit is the latest meeting of world leaders seeking to pursue President Obama’s 2009 declaration of a world without nuclear arms.

Russia, however, is embarked on a major strategic nuclear forces build-up under Putin. Moscow is building new road-mobile, rail-mobile, and silo-based intercontinental-range missiles, along with new submarines equipped with modernized missiles. A new long-range bomber is also being built.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
The Obama administration also has been deceptive about the benefits of New START.

“The administration public affairs talking points on New START reductions border on outright lies,” Schneider said.

“The only reductions that have been made since New START entry into force have been by the United States,” he said. “Instead, Russia has moved from below the New START limits to above the New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Additionally, Moscow is building a new heavy ICBM called Sarmat, code-named SS-X-30 by the Pentagon, that will be equipped with between 10 and 15 warheads per missile. And a new rail-based ICBM is being developed that will also carry multiple warheads.

Another long-range missile, called the SS-X-31, is under development and will carry up to 12 warheads.

Schneider, the former Pentagon official, said senior Russian arms officials have been quoted in press reports discussing Moscow’s withdrawal from the New START arms accord. If that takes place, Russia will have had six and a half years to prepare to violate the treaty limits, at the same time the United States will have reduced its forces to treaty limits.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 02, 2016, 07:08:48 am
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/a-necessary-weapon-the-nuclear-enterprise-strikes-back/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 02, 2016, 07:10:58 am
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-may-send-capable-icbm-that-can-strike-anywhere-in-the-us-ready-this-year-2016-4
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 02, 2016, 07:14:10 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Quote
Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

But, but. . .I was told if we cut back our numbers of nuclear warheads Russia would do the same.  Where's my round of kumbya?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 02, 2016, 07:20:36 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Quote
Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

But, but. . .I was told if we cut back our numbers of nuclear warheads Russia would do the same.  Where's my round of kumbya?

Perhaps if your nation didn't act so provocatively, they might be more willing to cut back on their warheads?  Oh, thats right, you're acting provocatively because you fear every other nation around the world...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 02, 2016, 11:30:04 am
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.

For anyone who would like to read the actual article it was actually quite measured and reasonable argument for not going overboard in developing new specialist ultra-low lead tactical weapons or mirroring too closely Russian doctrine re: their use.

The article wasn't saying that the US doesn't need tactical nukes (rather pro the updates to the B61), it (the article and the people it quotes) doesn't appear to offer any negative opinions or conclusions on any proposed US strategic nuclear weapon systems like the proposed new nuclear armed cruise missile (having a brain freeze on the acronym.....🤔 I'm pro that for what it's worth.).

And while absolutely recognising the seriousness of Russia breaching international treaties (especially nuclear related ones) I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Who really wins in an arbitrary warhead number race? Certainly not the people who have to pay for them....
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 02, 2016, 11:32:52 am
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.

For anyone who would like to read the actual article

I did read it.  I stand by my comment.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 02, 2016, 09:15:33 pm
Don't need tactical nukes, don't need GBSD, don't need LRSO don't need new warheads...............

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/beef-up-conventional-forces-dont-worry-about-a-tactical-nuke-gap/

The degree of oblivious ignorance and naivete on display there is breathtaking.

For anyone who would like to read the actual article it was actually quite measured and reasonable argument for not going overboard in developing new specialist ultra-low lead tactical weapons or mirroring too closely Russian doctrine re: their use.

The article wasn't saying that the US doesn't need tactical nukes (rather pro the updates to the B61), it (the article and the people it quotes) doesn't appear to offer any negative opinions or conclusions on any proposed US strategic nuclear weapon systems like the proposed new nuclear armed cruise missile (having a brain freeze on the acronym.....🤔 I'm pro that for what it's worth.).

And while absolutely recognising the seriousness of Russia breaching international treaties (especially nuclear related ones) I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.
Who really wins in an arbitrary warhead number race? Certainly not the people who have to pay for them....

Hear! Hear!  I have long wondered why some people are fixated on the number of warheads.  What does it matter if you can destroy the world five times over compared to four times?   It's still destroyed.   Nuclear weapons are weapons of last, not first resort.   Even the Russians recognise that and that the nuclear exchange rate won't matter a damn when your society has been destroyed.  Time for some people to wake up and smell the coffee.   So, the Russians have some more nuclear warheads than you have, it doesn't mean they have lost their fear of using them.   It's a shame that some people haven't acquired that fear as well.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 02, 2016, 11:41:37 pm
I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.


That's because some of us have done the math.

First, how many nukes successfully delivered to the target *and* properly detonated do you need to have to serve as a proper deterrent? Back in the USSR days, I'm sure the Pentagon assumed that they'd need to nuke several hundred Soviet targets... and the Soviets knew that. So, do you need several hundred nukes? No, you need several *thousand.*

Pulling numbers directly out of the same dark hole that Bernie Sanders pulls his economic projections from, let's do some armwavy math. Let's say the US has 1,000  ICBM-deliverable nukes, and Da Enemy has 250 targets that would need to be destroyed. Great! You can destroy them twice, and stir the ashes twice again!

Well, lessee. Start with 1000.

Let's say the enemy first strike takes out 25% of the ICBMs. You now have 750 nukes.
Let's say when you give the order, 95% of the surviving launch crews hit the button. You have 712 nukes.
10% of the ICBMs fail to launch. Down to 640.
10% of the ICBMs fail in flight. Down to 576.
10% of the warheads are mis-targeted. Down to 518
25% of the warheads are taken out by anti-missile systems. Down to 388 warheads.
10% of the warheads fail to survive re-entry. Down to 349.
10% of the warheads fail to detonate. Down to 314.
10% of the targets were more hardened, or more mobile, than expected and survive. Down to 282.

Hmm. Looks like you've just *barely* got enough to get the job done once. But wait! Of the initial 1000 warheads, 25% were laid up for maintenance in the first place (because they were made thirty years ago from materials with a twenty-year shelf life), and were never getting off the ground. So you really only deliver 211 nukes. Da Enemy survives, and since they not only stockpiled more than you did, and you're a smaller nation with fewer targets, and their nukes are more modern and less buggy... they successfully nuke all *your* targets three times. Then they wait a few weeks to see who pops out of what holes, then nuke *them.* And they *still* have enough of a stockpile of nukes and delivery system to tell the rest of the world to shut the hell up and toe the new line.

You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Arjen on April 03, 2016, 12:35:41 am
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 03, 2016, 01:12:15 am
I would again flag my utter lack of comprehension of the apparent obsession with US warhead numbers (ultimately does the difference of just over 1,500 to just under 1,600 actually materially impact the US deterrent?) shown by some contributors.


That's because some of us have done the math.

First, how many nukes successfully delivered to the target *and* properly detonated do you need to have to serve as a proper deterrent? Back in the USSR days, I'm sure the Pentagon assumed that they'd need to nuke several hundred Soviet targets... and the Soviets knew that. So, do you need several hundred nukes? No, you need several *thousand.*

Pulling numbers directly out of the same dark hole that Bernie Sanders pulls his economic projections from, let's do some armwavy math. Let's say the US has 1,000  ICBM-deliverable nukes, and Da Enemy has 250 targets that would need to be destroyed. Great! You can destroy them twice, and stir the ashes twice again!

Well, lessee. Start with 1000.

Let's say the enemy first strike takes out 25% of the ICBMs. You now have 750 nukes.
Let's say when you give the order, 95% of the surviving launch crews hit the button. You have 712 nukes.
10% of the ICBMs fail to launch. Down to 640.
10% of the ICBMs fail in flight. Down to 576.
10% of the warheads are mis-targeted. Down to 518
25% of the warheads are taken out by anti-missile systems. Down to 388 warheads.
10% of the warheads fail to survive re-entry. Down to 349.
10% of the warheads fail to detonate. Down to 314.
10% of the targets were more hardened, or more mobile, than expected and survive. Down to 282.

Hmm. Looks like you've just *barely* got enough to get the job done once. But wait! Of the initial 1000 warheads, 25% were laid up for maintenance in the first place (because they were made thirty years ago from materials with a twenty-year shelf life), and were never getting off the ground. So you really only deliver 211 nukes. Da Enemy survives, and since they not only stockpiled more than you did, and you're a smaller nation with fewer targets, and their nukes are more modern and less buggy... they successfully nuke all *your* targets three times. Then they wait a few weeks to see who pops out of what holes, then nuke *them.* And they *still* have enough of a stockpile of nukes and delivery system to tell the rest of the world to shut the hell up and toe the new line.

You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.

Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?
I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.

And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers? Again this may involve swapping out older delivery systems for newer ones and/or new or upgraded warheads for older ones, but not an arbitrary race for higher overall numbers.

Ultimately Russia will badly struggle to pay for all of their new shopping list of nuclear related weapon systems (terrible strain on a not particularly robust economy) while the political realty is that neither US party can or will deliver the scale of sustained defence spending increases to fund a massive increase in the US nuclear forces (and your cherished desire for thousands more warheads).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 03, 2016, 02:16:21 am
You have an arsenal of a whole lot of nukes for the same reason you give snipers more than one bullet.

Yet each sniper would claim they only need one bullet to kill their target.

You are assuming that you need many, many bullets to kill one target.

You are ignoring the reality that your nation has the means to kill the entire world's population multiple times as a consequence.  You do not need that many warheads.   It is overkill. 

Neither do the Russians.  However, only you have a vote in the USA and hence you control your government's will on the issue.   If you believe you should take the world down with you, if the unthinkable should ever happen, then where does that leave you morally?

Are you concerned about the question of the morality of your actions and your beliefs or do you simply ignore them?

Your ratio of losses to successes assumes that each level of your opponent's defences are effective and your own missile's motors/guidance/launch systems are not.  You also assume that the only way to fix that is to have even more warheads.  The US military has said it does not believe in a "wargasm" of all warheads being launched at once in response (I note you assume the US will not engage in a first strike, why?).   So you would never even more warheads yet again.   How many warheads is enough?   Do you issue a nuke to every infantryman?  Where do you stop?  1,000 or 100,000?   Who's going to pay for all those warheads?  You?   I doubt it, considering your attitude towards Government and taxation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on April 03, 2016, 02:26:47 am
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.

In nuclear  strategy - the practice of which has kept the world safe from nuclear war for 70 odd years and counting - SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack. Because if that happens then the enemy can take out 16-24 of your missiles with only one of theirs or even a non strategic asset with some super SSK(N). The Soviets/Russians facing the dilema of vulnerable SLBMs deployed them as first strike weapons or bastion based assets of limited survivability and deployed mobile land based ICBMs to try  and achieve survivability parity.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 03, 2016, 04:21:23 am
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons. Much harder to target, enough of them around to threaten the continued existence of opposing states as functioning entities.

In nuclear  strategy - the practice of which has kept the world safe from nuclear war for 70 odd years and counting - SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack. Because if that happens then the enemy can take out 16-24 of your missiles with only one of theirs or even a non strategic asset with some super SSK(N). The Soviets/Russians facing the dilema of vulnerable SLBMs deployed them as first strike weapons or bastion based assets of limited survivability and deployed mobile land based ICBMs to try  and achieve survivability parity.

Which system was considered how risky evolved over time. Missile silos deep in continental USA or deep in the Soviet Union would have been considered safe for most of the Cold War but increased accuracy and range of weapons like the evolutions of Trident rendered them more vulnerable to first strikes.
The USSR would have felt a lot of its land based nuclear forces to be more vulnerable following the prospect of the fielding of the ATB/ B-2 in significant numbers. At the same time its missile subs evolved to become quieter and more survivable with longer range missiles based closer to home and easier to defend including by improving quality SSNs.
In that context of all aspects of the nuclear triad being in some way vulnerable the submarine based deterrent looks relatively safe, reflected in the priority given to missile subs by the secondary nuclear powers like the UK, France (and Israel).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Arjen on April 03, 2016, 07:59:27 am
[...]
SLBMs are actually a risky proposition. Because they rely on no technical surprise to be survivable. That is that the other guy hasn't introduced some tech that reveals their position within the lethal radius of a MIRV depth charge attack.
[...]
The boomers will have to be found first. Following that, their position must be tracked in something very close to real time. I doubt the Russians or Chinese have the assets to achieve that with a few US, UK or French boomers - never mind most of them.

Firing ICBMs at moving targets? Good luck.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 08:11:50 am
Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?

He just pointed out to you that it wouldn't BE 1500 warheads. 


I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.

Lots of hand wavy stuff there.  It's not black and white, either you deter or you may as well not fight, as you seem to be implying.  While one might not "win" a nuclear war there are certainly varying degrees of how bad you can lose one.  Do you really want to be in a situation where Russia almost kills the US, all of your warheads are gone, and China decides it would a be perfect opportunity to finish the job?

And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers?

Uhm WUT?  "Since the likelihood of a warhead getting to it's target is so low wouldn't it make sense to reduce the number of warheads you have?"   In what kind of bizarro world does that make sense?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 03, 2016, 09:10:59 am
Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?

He just pointed out to you that it wouldn't BE 1500 warheads. 


I appreciate that there are issues like maintenance and possible enemy first strikes to take into account but if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.

Lots of hand wavy stuff there.  It's not black and white, either you deter or you may as well not fight, as you seem to be implying.  While one might not "win" a nuclear war there are certainly varying degrees of how bad you can lose one.  Do you really want to be in a situation where Russia almost kills the US, all of your warheads are gone, and China decides it would a be perfect opportunity to finish the job?

And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers?

Uhm WUT?  "Since the likelihood of a warhead getting to it's target is so low wouldn't it make sense to reduce the number of warheads you have?"   In what kind of bizarro world does that make sense?
I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 09:18:43 am

I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?

No kidding.  And the best way to NOT have to fight at all is to have more nuclear weapons.  It's when the other guy thinks he might have a chance, or thinks the losses will be acceptable, that a nuclear war becomes more likely.  This is just common sense.  I mean seriously, you see it in every aspect of life.  Who gets picked on in school, the weakling or the kid who will destroy you?  Which animal gets singled out for dinner, the one who looks like he could stomp a lion into the dirt, or the slower, sickly specimen?  Which house gets broken into, the one with no security and the owner out of town, or the house with security cameras , motion-activated lighting, and a gun nut inside?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 03, 2016, 09:51:43 am
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons.


It also left out bomber-carried cruise missiles, fighter-carried gravity bombs, donkey-carried suitcase nukes. Only so many hours in the day.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 09:55:09 am
Your story leaves out submarine-based nuclear weapons.


It also left out bomber-carried cruise missiles, fighter-carried gravity bombs, donkey-carried suitcase nukes. Only so many hours in the day.

ICBM warheads were at 450 and are headed down.  MMIII missiles were offloaded to 1 RV each, and the US is still removing ICBMs from service on it's way down to 400.  Since it's common practice to target each target with multiple warheads that means you'll have to use multiple ICBMs (from a much smaller fleet) for each target whereas before you could cover a target with one missile.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 03, 2016, 10:08:34 am

Are you saying that approx 1,500 warheads aren't enough to kill millions of (say) Russians if it came to it?

The job of warfare isn't just to kill millions of the enemy... it's to kill 'em enough that they stop. The Nazis killed millions of Russians, and looked how well 8that* worked for 'em. Stalin killed millions of Russians. Hell, according to YouTube, more than fifty million Russians are killed annually by drunk drivers.

Look at if from the other direction. Assume ISIS got hold of a couple Soviet citybusters and snuck them into the US, a few megatons in NYC and Chicago could kill millions of Americans. Would that be enough to defeat the US?

Quote
if the whole point is to still have spare a significant weapons in hand after a major exchange (and tens of millions of deaths of your own people, and your adversaries) then you've missed the whole point of deterrence.


I think you misunderstand proper deterrence. It needs to be obvious to your enemy that if they do the worst they can, you will still be able to utterly defeat them, plus you will survive to go on.  Your enemy has to know that they cannot defeat you.

Quote
And re: your "wastage" percentages above - wouldn't be more cost effective to concentrate spend on making meaningful reductions in these rather than spending concentrated on boasting overall warhead numbers? Again this may involve swapping out older delivery systems for newer ones and/or new or upgraded warheads for older ones, but not an arbitrary race for higher overall numbers.

Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

Quote
(and your cherished desire for thousands more warheads).

You can't send a ten thousand ton Orion to Ganymede with only a few dozen nukes, son.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 10:16:11 am
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 03, 2016, 11:45:11 am
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 03, 2016, 01:19:39 pm
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.
You could gut spending on US conventional forces and still run up short in the bill to pay for that plan.
 
Russian nuclear doctrine is based on the Russian military and Putin regimes conviction of their own relative conventional weapon weakness and their own perceived vulnerability (combined with their own lack of accountability and appeals to Russian ultra nationalism). The US doctrine should not be driven by same paranoia and even if was no one is willing or able to foot the bill (in the context of having the largest, most capable and most expensive military in the world).

You deter the Russian doctrine better by not buying into its lunacy of various stages of "low level" nuclear weapon use. In the real world any use of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US on each other or each other's close allies would rapidly escalate to a full exchange - all sides need to recognise this inescapable fact; any other approach just tempts a Putin (or Trump for all we know) to push their luck.

And going back to other contributors comments above deterrence has one key assumption; that all sides are somewhat rational. Hence the ability to kill tens of millions of your potential adversaries is sufficient, and the idea that you need to convince your opponent you can win a nuclear war is lunacy; you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win.
In truth it may not be possible to fully deter a true sociopath like a Hitler, Stalin or Mao unless they believe they can be personally targeted or that their own apparatus would strike them down before or after such an event.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 03, 2016, 02:03:06 pm

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.

Here. This. This, right here. I'd like you to take a look at the two sentences you wrote... one right after the other.

In the second sentence, you reference the scale of nuclear systems we *used* to have, when we were a smaller, poorer nation with a lower tech level and smaller economy. That follows a sentence that says that you seem to not understand how we could, today, with a bigger economy and vastly bigger government, afford what we once had.

Ponder that a bit.

It's a common and bizarre refrain. "It's impossible to do, because we did it once before, we're much richer today, and now we can't afford it."
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 02:35:21 pm
Let me know when the US starts fielding an ICBM of more recent vintage than the 1966-era Minuteman III. Close to 15 years ago I was involved in a tiny way with the Minuteman IV project, which at the time we were told would take at least 20 years... and it was cancelled shortly after.

I've worked with engineers who've been involved with trying to keep the MMIII fleet viable and the horror stories I've heard. . .suffice it to say (as I'm sure you're aware) the situation is far more dire than Joe Blow is ever likely to read about on MSNBC.
And no matter what is happening it is always the US's fault. We've basically stopped all development since 1991 while other nuclear adversaries have embarked on full modernization, why? Why does Russia and China employ close to 10X as many as the US in their nuclear enterprise? Why is Russia building systems that can carry 5 to 14 warheads each given New START limitations? What is in the 3000kn of tunnels run by China's nuclear force? Why does Russia have an active warhead production lines capable of 1000 pits/year to our 10/pits per year? Why does Russian nuclear modernization peak in 2021 right when New START expires, while Russian generals say the treaty is dead when it expires? Why does Russia maintain 10X as many tactical nukes as the US? Russian treaty violations? Russian military doctrine of de-escalation of conventional conflicts with tactical nukes?

These questions are concerning NOT because I want war it's because I hope to avoid war at all cost, absent surrender of course, now and 50 years from now, for my children's and grandchildren's future.

Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

Even if I agreed with your analysis (which I don't) it begs the question of how is the US supposed to pay for the modernisation of infrastructure, warheads and deliver systems (which broadly speaking I agree is necessary) and massively expanding the numbers of warheads (which I think isn't necessary).
Your argument appears to be that the US needs to have nuclear forces of a scale and expense approaching and potentially exceeding their all time zenith back in the Cold War.
You could gut spending on US conventional forces and still run up short in the bill to pay for that plan.
 
Russian nuclear doctrine is based on the Russian military and Putin regimes conviction of their own relative conventional weapon weakness and their own perceived vulnerability (combined with their own lack of accountability and appeals to Russian ultra nationalism). The US doctrine should not be driven by same paranoia and even if was no one is willing or able to foot the bill (in the context of having the largest, most capable and most expensive military in the world).

You deter the Russian doctrine better by not buying into its lunacy of various stages of "low level" nuclear weapon use. In the real world any use of nuclear weapons by Russia or the US on each other or each other's close allies would rapidly escalate to a full exchange - all sides need to recognise this inescapable fact; any other approach just tempts a Putin (or Trump for all we know) to push their luck.

And going back to other contributors comments above deterrence has one key assumption; that all sides are somewhat rational. Hence the ability to kill tens of millions of your potential adversaries is sufficient, and the idea that you need to convince your opponent you can win a nuclear war is lunacy; you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win.
In truth it may not be possible to fully deter a true sociopath like a Hitler, Stalin or Mao unless they believe they can be personally targeted or that their own apparatus would strike them down before or after such an event.

More handy wavy, emotional, rhetoric. Russia and China aren't going to behave and think like you want them to just because you say they "need" to. That's not how the real world works. 

" you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win."

Helloooo, that's what we've been saying. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 03, 2016, 03:50:21 pm
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

As I have repeatedly stated deep and extensive modernisation of US nuclear forces looks to be necessary; massive expansion remains an unachievable unnecessary niche fantasy.

It is politically and economically unachievable for the US to turn your dream into reality.
Your Cold War build up of nuclear weapons occurred during a period of signicantly higher taxation, lower government spending on non-defence areas, and was initially at the expense of spending on conventional forces. It also contributed to a massive increase in your deficit.

What coalition of Republicans and/or Democrats do you see very significantly raising taxes, cutting non-defence government spending, slashing non-nuclear defense spending and/or further massive increases in your deficit, all to fuel what to many will appear to be an arbitrary nuclear warhead race.

You appear intent to invent "peaceniks" to argue with; I am no such thing, I simply felt the duty to challenge some absurd assumptions; I think I've now done my duty :)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 03, 2016, 04:02:56 pm
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

As I have repeatedly stated deep and extensive modernisation of US nuclear forces looks to be necessary; massive expansion remains an unachievable unnecessary niche fantasy.

It is politically and economically unachievable for the US to turn your dream into reality.
Your Cold War build up of nuclear weapons occurred during a period of signicantly higher taxation, lower government spending on non-defence areas, and was initially at the expense of spending on conventional forces. It also contributed to a massive increase in your deficit.

What coalition of Republicans and/or Democrats do you see very significantly raising taxes, cutting non-defence government spending, slashing non-nuclear defense spending and/or further massive increases in your deficit, all to fuel what to many will appear to be an arbitrary nuclear warhead race.

You appear intent to invent "peaceniks" to argue with; I am no such thing, I simply felt the duty to challenge some absurd assumptions; I think I've now done my duty :)
You really haven't been paying attention the goal is actually to kill no one through effective deterrence. You could easily accomplish my nuclear modernization program with $20 extra billion per year or 1/2 of 1% of current government spending. During the Reagan build up nuke spending approached .80% of GDP or equal to $145B/annum today my program would peak around $45B/annum less than 1/3.

Of course no where do I describe what 'force levels' I feel are adequate you made up a number and associated it with my and others posts. So you basically just were debating your own strawman accomplishing nothing.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 03, 2016, 05:24:14 pm
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 03, 2016, 05:52:04 pm
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.

It's suppose to invoke an emotional response. The equivalent of "think of the children".  Logic has no part of it.  I doubt he's even aware he's doing it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 03, 2016, 09:03:48 pm
North Korea Launches Missile During Nuclear Summit

—Will Skowronski4/4/2016

Hours after President Barack Obama discussed deterring North Korean aggression with Japan’s and South Korea’s presidents, North Korea appeared to launch a missile into the sea, Reuters reported. North Korea has actively attempted to showcase its nuclear ambition recently, purportedly detonating its first thermonuclear weapon in January and conducting a nuclear missile test March 17. The three leaders met on March 31 as they and leaders from more than 50 other countries and international organizations gathered in Washington, D.C., for the fourth and final planned Nuclear Security Summit to discuss how to prevent nuclear proliferation. “It's not surprising that one of the topics most on our minds is the issue of North Korea,” Obama said after the trilateral meeting. “And we are united in our efforts to deter and defend against North Korean provocations.” Obama also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on March 31. “Of great importance to both of us is North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, which threatens the security and stability of the region,” he said before that meeting. The United States and China, as well as a number of other​ countries, issued separate joint statements last week affirming their plans to continue working together on nuclear security after the final summit ends.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 03, 2016, 09:16:31 pm
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.

It's suppose to invoke an emotional response. The equivalent of "think of the children".  Logic has no part of it.  I doubt he's even aware he's doing it.

Perhaps. Whatever the reasoning, it's clearly wrong:
"The US has the ability to kill millions of Chinese via genetically engineered smallpox. Thus we don't need to spend all this money on soldiers and tanks and Marines and whatnot."
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 04, 2016, 02:16:45 am
I've always found it quite vexing that those who want a strong deterrent so as to NEVER have to fight a war are immoral but those who advocate further warhead cuts and/or so-called minimum deterrence argue it's OK because we'd still have enough to kill millions of civilians call themselves moral?

The problem is how you define and maintain a "strong deterrent" as against an adequate deterrent.   Deterrence works on the belief that your opponent will not attack you because the cost to his society will be sufficient to destroy it.   Destroying it many times over is overkill.   It comes from a desire, I suspect for revenge, rather than because of a rational choice about what constitutes deterrence.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 04, 2016, 02:19:06 am
You can't send a ten thousand ton Orion to Ganymede with only a few dozen nukes, son.

And how many deaths will be caused by it's launch?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 04, 2016, 02:23:01 am
Our arsenal should be sized not in relation to Russia, that is Cold War thinking, but to the rest of the globe and the threats of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc.

Neither Iran nor Pakistan possess nuclear weapons that constitute a direct threat to the United States.   Russia?  Perhaps, particularly if you keep pushing them.  China?  Perhaps, particularly if you keep pushing them.   Cold War thinking has gone out the window when the Cold War ended.    You appear to be sorry that you no longer live under the threat of constant nuclear annihilation.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 04, 2016, 02:32:08 am
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.

Did you, yourself just state:
The job of warfare isn't just to kill millions of the enemy... it's to kill 'em enough that they stop.

What is being disputed is how many millions have to be killed.   You and your Cold War Warrior compatriots appear to believe it needs to be every Russian in Russia or ever Chinese in China or both of the combined.  The rationalists say, "hey, don't you think that is a bit excessive?"  Which you immediately pooh-pooh.   The reality is that deterrence is founded on the fear of the numbers that would be killed in a nuclear exchange.   If your opponents fear that 50% of their population and 90% if their industries will be destroyed, don't you think they'll stop before pushing their button?  Or do you really believe someone like Putin or Hu don't care about their own populations and their own countries?   They are rational men, despite all your propaganda to the contrary.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 04, 2016, 02:38:20 am
More handy wavy, emotional, rhetoric. Russia and China aren't going to behave and think like you want them to just because you say they "need" to. That's not how the real world works. 

Actually it is how the real world works.   You appear to live in a fantasy one where Russians and Chinese aren't human beings who care about their families and their societies.    Always remember, the Russians have been the ones which have blinked everytime your national leader has decided to play nuclear blind-man's buff with them.  Something we should truly be thankful for.

Russia was deeply traumatised by the events of World War II.  The US wasn't.   The US was barely scratched.  Only it's overseas territories were attacked.   The US lost a pittance in casualties, the fUSSR lost millions.   How many giant memorials are there in the US to the dead of World War II? How many in Russia?   Time you woke up, I think.

Quote
" you only have to convince them that the price to pay is too high and that they can't win."

Helloooo, that's what we've been saying.

The difference is that you say that price has to be 100% whereas we say the price has to be only what we consider sufficient to wound their society, not destroy it and the rest of the world as well.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on April 04, 2016, 03:08:32 am
You can't send a ten thousand ton Orion to Ganymede with only a few dozen nukes, son.

And how many deaths will be caused by it's launch?

Zero: Engineers of course came up with a solution to the problem of increasing radiation inside the magnetosphere of launching such a ship. You use conventional explosives for your first blast and launch the ship from those parts of the globe where the magnetosphere doesn't trap the radiation: near the poles. They haven't come up with a solution to the hundreds who die each year from radiation emitted into the atmosphere from natural spring water. But I guess that does not keep the knowledge poor whining class up at night.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 04, 2016, 07:09:28 am
So the US at current numbers of warheads isn't able to kill millions apon millions of Russians and/or Chinese now and for the foreseeable future?

You seem obsessed with the clearly flawed notion that the ability to kill millions = the ability to win wars so decisively that the other side won't start one.

It's suppose to invoke an emotional response. The equivalent of "think of the children".  Logic has no part of it.  I doubt he's even aware he's doing it.


Perhaps. Whatever the reasoning, it's clearly wrong:
"The US has the ability to kill millions of Chinese via genetically engineered smallpox. Thus we don't need to spend all this money on soldiers and tanks and Marines and whatnot."

I think you've carried your biasis in and miss understood me.
I'm not making any moral judgement or argument re: the rights and wrongs of killing millions in a nuclear exchange.
I'm merely pointing out that's the point of deterrence - effectively your enemies civilian population become your hostages. Hence my contention that current numbers of US warheads (modernised/ replaced one-for-one or whatever) is sufficient for this task and why your desire for far more is unnecessary, unaffordable and relates more to your own personal obsessions.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on April 04, 2016, 09:48:27 am


I'm merely pointing out that's the point of deterrence - effectively your enemies civilian population become your hostages.

That assumes that your enemy cares.

The purpose of deterrence is to pose such a threat to the enemy that that don't dare start a war.  History has shown that the risk of loss of millions of civilians has not been enough to stop imperial ambition. And when you're in a situation, such as we seem to be heading into, where "they" have overwhelming superiority in terms of numbers to "us," your deterrent force isn't terribly deterring, especially if they think, not unreasonably, that if they launch a massive first strike they can take out enough of your nukes so that your response will leave them still standing and functioning. And if "they" have enough nukes that they think that they can take you down in one shot, *and* at the end of it *still* have enough nukes to lord it over the rest of the world... you are really asking for trouble by not trying to match them.

And once again you trot out "unaffordable," even though you know that the sort of force people want is the sort of force that the US had decades ago, when such things were objectively more expensive and our economy was objectively much smaller. Keep saying things that are obviously and objectively false, and people might start wondering...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Jemiba on April 04, 2016, 11:23:53 am
Principally, this thread runs not really bad, I think. It's already more than a half year old, and still
isn't closed, kudos ! When started, I gave him not more than about 4 weeks ...
If there weren't those persistent side blows... Often they are quite funny to read, really good for
a laughter, but please remember: We aren't here just for our enjoyment !
Maybe sometimes stingers are just meant ironical, but that's not always obvious and may be
taken as an insult.
And I cannot help the feeling, that some arguments are somehow based on  personal animosity.
But we all (most of us ?) are grown persons, aren't we ? And if you can't stand the opinion of
someone at all, the solution is just 3 mouse clicks away ( profile -> Buddies/ignore list -> Edit ignore
list) and you can type in the members name, you don't want to be molested. On the other hand,
the opponents in such quarrels are nearly always the same and I cannot remember, that I've ever
saw a compromise in the end, but just too often closed threads.
Perhaps sometimes reticence is not only the better part of valour, but could avoid useless and
endless debates, that in the end come to nothing ?
Did I say endless ? Of course I meant ".. until the thread is closed" !
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 04, 2016, 05:34:25 pm
Credit: Grey Havoc form the New Weapons News Only thread

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-slashing-u-s-nuclear-stockpiles/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 04, 2016, 06:20:33 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/04/03/fallout-from-the-nuclear-security-summit/#698c338a72ab

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 04, 2016, 06:26:16 pm
http://time.com/4280169/russia-nuclear-security-summit/

Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 04, 2016, 07:07:56 pm
http://time.com/4280169/russia-nuclear-security-summit/

Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance

The rewards of weakness and naivete.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 05, 2016, 04:55:14 am


I'm merely pointing out that's the point of deterrence - effectively your enemies civilian population become your hostages.

That assumes that your enemy cares.

On what basis do you come to the conclusion that they don't care?

I rather think the results of the various nuclear war scares during the Cold War demonstrated otherwise, don't you?

Quote
The purpose of deterrence is to pose such a threat to the enemy that that don't dare start a war.  History has shown that the risk of loss of millions of civilians has not been enough to stop imperial ambition.

Really?   I haven't noticed any such imperial ambitions since WWII, have you?

Quote
And when you're in a situation, such as we seem to be heading into, where "they" have overwhelming superiority in terms of numbers to "us," your deterrent force isn't terribly deterring, especially if they think, not unreasonably, that if they launch a massive first strike they can take out enough of your nukes so that your response will leave them still standing and functioning. And if "they" have enough nukes that they think that they can take you down in one shot, *and* at the end of it *still* have enough nukes to lord it over the rest of the world... you are really asking for trouble by not trying to match them.

So, invest in missile systems which are difficult to detect.  Invest in submarine launched nuclear missiles.  Hide them under the ocean.

Quote
And once again you trot out "unaffordable," even though you know that the sort of force people want is the sort of force that the US had decades ago, when such things were objectively more expensive and our economy was objectively much smaller. Keep saying things that are obviously and objectively false, and people might start wondering...

You appear to forget, nuclear weapons are expensive, substantially more expensive than those which you had decades ago.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 05, 2016, 05:20:30 pm
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/the-bow-wave-and-the-military-balance/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 06, 2016, 02:35:11 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-deployed-150-new-warheads-past-year/

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 06, 2016, 05:07:19 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-deployed-150-new-warheads-past-year/

And we don't even know how to design them anymore, and don't have the infrastructure to build them even if we did.  We're like the cavemen worshipping an ancient computer on a Star Trek episode when it comes to nukes.  The acolytes do their best to keep things running but they could never build a new one once the old breaks down.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on April 07, 2016, 01:42:30 pm
Par for the course...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/06/obamas-sneaky-concession-to-iran/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/john-kerry-on-iran-no-path-to-the-nuclear-weapon/article/2001871
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-its-planning-to-produce-explosives-used-in-missile-warheads/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 07, 2016, 06:58:48 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/07/there_are_going_to_be_more_cold_wars_109234.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 07, 2016, 10:42:08 pm
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/gordon_Chang.pdf

China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.

We are vulnerable.

We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.

An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.

Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.

And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.

These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.

We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.

We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 07, 2016, 10:48:45 pm
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/052215afamillerfinal.pdf

The Putin government has not demonstrated good faith. Rather, it has displayed
outrageously bad faith. And I’d ask you to consider the following list.
The Helsinki Final Act, Russia is in violation of at least articles one, two, three,
four and six. The Istanbul Commitments of 1999, Russia is in violation of its
commitments to remove its military forces from the occupied portions of Moldova and
Georgia. The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992, Russia is in violation by
continuing to deploy nuclear short-range ballistic missiles and by continuing to deploy
nuclear-tipped naval cruise missiles on general purpose submarines.

The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, Russia is in violation. The Budapest
Memorandum, Russia violated its commitments to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The Chemical Weapons Convention of which Russia is in violation of the intent of the
treaty by inventing and deploying fourth generation chemical agents which evade the
treaty’s specific restrictions but which are, nevertheless, chemical agents. And last but
not least, the INF Treaty, Russia is in violation by testing extensively a ground-launched
cruise missile of INF range and possibly deploying that system operationally.

We cannot afford to enter into agreements which we respect and Russia violates.
And that, put simply, is why there should be no future arms control with Russia until
Russia decides to respect the agreements it has signed previously and return to
compliance with them.

And as long as Peter allows me the luxury of calling things as I see them, I want
to point out there was in 2010 a sort of a treaty between hawks and doves in this city
regarding the New START Treaty. Ratification hung in the balance, and so there was a
deal. In exchange for the security minded supporting ratification, the arms control
community agreed to support the modernization of the aging U.S. strategic triad.

That deal lasted until New START was ratified, and immediately thereafter all of
the usual suspects in the arms control community began decrying the administration’s
plans to replace the missile and bomber legs of our strategic forces. Deals are supposed
to be entered into in good faith, and as in the international arena, shame on those who
renege on their commitments. Their actions have profound consequences. They
destroyed the political middle here in Washington on those issues.

It’s also worth mentioning, as long as I’m talking about the arms control
community, that despite years of outrageous Russian behavior in the nuclear policy and
operations world, and after a particularly dangerous 2014 in this regard, I have yet to see
high profile speeches and articles and op-eds from the Arms Control Association, the
Ploughshares Fund, the Federation of American Scientists or Global Zero Inc.
condemning what the Russians are doing. A joint piece by all of them in the Washington
Post or the New York Times would have been appropriate. It would have been nice.

What would be the reaction of these organizations if the president of the United States
stated publicly, quote, “I want to remind you that we are one of the leading nuclear
powers. It’s best not to mess with us.” close quote.

What would be their reaction if a senior DOD official stated, made explicit
nuclear threats, to peaceful non-nuclear states or proclaimed, quote, “In my view, our
primary enemy is Russia,” close quote? What would they say and write if Strategic
Command conducted nuclear exercises designed to intimidate Russian allies? And how
would they react if B-52s and B-2s repeatedly ran mock attacks against Russia and other
potential adversaries, intruding on their air defense identification zones, and in so doing
turning off their transponders, thereby creating a hazard to commercial aviation?

Well perhaps they just haven’t been paying attention to what Moscow is up to,
because they’re so concerned about trying to block the recapitalization of the SSBN force
or a replacement for Minuteman III. Thankfully, Keith Payne and his team at NIPP have
prepared a pamphlet detailing not only the Khrushchev-like nuclear saber-rattling and
dangerous Russian military activities, but also the Russian Federation nuclear building
programs. I’ve given Peter Hussy a couple of copies of these, but these are actually
terrific pieces of work.

So while we continue to debate funding R&D on replacement strategic systems,
Moscow is fielding, not debating new ones. Russia is currently deploying two new types
of ICBMs, two new types of SLBMs, a new class of SSBNs, two of which are in
commission and the third of which will commission this year, a new long-range airlaunched
cruise missile along with upgrades to its TU-95 and Blackjack strategic
bombers. Additionally, at least two new types of ICBMs are in development, including a
heavy ICBM follow-on to the highly destabilizing SS-18, as is reportedly a new strategic
bomber. And then, of course, there is the new treaty shattering ground-launched cruise
missile.

In contrast, I might point out we are still debating the funding of our
modernization programs and have yet to bend metal on any of them.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 08, 2016, 06:07:55 pm
http://thecipherbrief.com/article/europe/russian-military-modernization-1090

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 08, 2016, 06:51:24 pm
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/gordon_Chang.pdf

China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.

We are vulnerable.

We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.

An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.

Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.

And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.

These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.

We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.

We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.

Didn't you get the memo?  Apparently the way forward is to cut even more. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 08, 2016, 07:02:25 pm


Didn't you get the memo?  Apparently the way forward is to cut even more. 
[/quote]
I've been throwing that memo away since 1991  ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 08, 2016, 07:22:00 pm


Didn't you get the memo?  Apparently the way forward is to cut even more. 
I've been throwing that memo away since 1991  ;D
[/quote]

Right there with ya.  ;)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 09, 2016, 01:12:57 am
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/gordon_Chang.pdf

China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.

We are vulnerable.

We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.

An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.

Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.

And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.

These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.

We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.

We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.

Didn't you get the memo?  Apparently the way forward is to cut even more.

Your argument appears to be that you need as least as many nuclear weapons as Russia, China & North Korea combined (you also made reference to a number of other nuclear powers , many of whom are allies of the US). All at the same time as (the necessary) recapitalising the existing US nuclear weapon infrastructure?

As you said yourself above the US is now in a multi-polar nuclear world. Going forward equivalent treaties to START involving the big 2 but also bringing in the likes of China, India, Pakistan, UK, France and Israel would be a good idea if hard to achieve.
But ultimately long term do you really see the US being able to win a new nuclear arms race versus all of the rest of the world combined (which is how you appear to see it)?

The US clearly needs an adequate nuclear deterrent to deter potential adversaries; you seem to hanker for clear nuclear weapon superiority that hasn't been seen since the late fifties when the USSR first developed the capability to reliably reach the continental US.
Those days of "safety" are never coming back.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 11, 2016, 01:11:13 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/john-kerry-calls-nuclear-weapons-hiroshima-article-1.2595793
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 11, 2016, 05:14:52 am
Your argument appears to be that you need as least as many nuclear weapons as Russia, China & North Korea combined

Oh, here we go again.  Go back and read the last time this was debated.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 11, 2016, 05:38:17 am
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AFA/6379b747-7730-4f82-9b45-a1c80d6c8fdb/UploadedImages/Events/Heussy/gordon_Chang.pdf

China’s and North Korea’s Nukes Tip Balance Against U.S.

We are vulnerable.

We have, with New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, agreed to parity with
the Russian Federation in deployed nuclear weapons and platforms from which to launch
or drop them.

An agreement of this sort might have made sense in the Cold War, a time of two
superpowers squaring off against each other, but not now.

Why not? Because we no longer live in a bipolar world. There are now nine nuclear
powers. In addition to the United States and Russia, there are Britain, France, India,
Pakistan, and Israel.

And there are two more, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea.

These last two are especially dangerous. They are especially dangerous because they tip
the balance against the United States. China and North Korea are rapidly increasing the
size of their arsenals, and they are hostile.

We start with the Kim regime. For years, analysts counted only the North’s plutonium
when trying to assess the number of its nukes. Now, they have finally realized that
Pyongyang has a second source of fissile material, uranium.

We have a good indication of the size of its stockpile of plutonium—there is after all only
one North Korean reactor to churn out the stuff. We do not know, however, how many
uranium enrichment facilities it has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point I made up the thread, sizing our arsenal vs. Russia with arms control agreements further shrinking the arsenal is the height of folly. Should have stopped at START I.

Didn't you get the memo?  Apparently the way forward is to cut even more.

Your argument appears to be that you need as least as many nuclear weapons as Russia, China & North Korea combined (you also made reference to a number of other nuclear powers , many of whom are allies of the US). All at the same time as (the necessary) recapitalising the existing US nuclear weapon infrastructure?

As you said yourself above the US is now in a multi-polar nuclear world. Going forward equivalent treaties to START involving the big 2 but also bringing in the likes of China, India, Pakistan, UK, France and Israel would be a good idea if hard to achieve.
But ultimately long term do you really see the US being able to win a new nuclear arms race versus all of the rest of the world combined (which is how you appear to see it)?

The US clearly needs an adequate nuclear deterrent to deter potential adversaries; you seem to hanker for clear nuclear weapon superiority that hasn't been seen since the late fifties when the USSR first developed the capability to reliably reach the continental US.
Those days of "safety" are never coming back.

Hear! Hear!  Well said, sir!  Well said.  They hanker it seems for the days when the US was the only nuclear power and as a consequence their arguments ring hollow.  They remind me rather of Jackie Fisher's WRT to the German fleet.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 11, 2016, 06:48:54 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/11/act_now_to_preserve_our_strategic_deterrent_109243.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 11, 2016, 06:53:29 am
Your argument appears to be that you need as least as many nuclear weapons as Russia, China & North Korea combined

Oh, here we go again.  Go back and read the last time this was debated.

Rather than guess or assume what I want, re nuclear modernization,  to me it would be easier to ask, "What given the current strategic environment and treaty obligations do you propose for nuclear modernization and force levels"
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 11, 2016, 03:31:10 pm
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201278/north-korea-tests-a-fancy-new-rocket-engine/?utm_content=buffer0d5f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on April 14, 2016, 02:33:32 am
Pentagon Developing Pre-Launch Cyber Attacks on Missiles (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-developing-pre-launch-cyber-attacks-missiles/) (The Washington Free Beacon)

Rather than "Left-of-launch missile defense", it sounds more like desperation defense to me. What do ye think?

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 14, 2016, 05:09:29 am
Pentagon Developing Pre-Launch Cyber Attacks on Missiles (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-developing-pre-launch-cyber-attacks-missiles/) (The Washington Free Beacon)

Rather than "Left-of-launch missile defense", it sounds more like desperation defense to me. What do ye think?

Agreed.  There's no way of knowing what, if any, effect a so-called "cyber attack" would have on the other guy's systems.  (That's assuming it's even possible to access them.  Not everybody is as stupid as us.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 14, 2016, 06:00:35 pm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/as-pentagon-overhauls-nuclear-triad-critics-advise-caution/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZXUC-nnDIc

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 14, 2016, 06:18:01 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/why-we-still-need-those-nuclear-missile-silos/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 15, 2016, 07:21:51 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/15/how_north_korea_got_its_made_in_china_nukes.html

Quote
GERTZ: China is a major proliferator of nuclear weapons technology.  Back in 2003 when Libya gave up its nuclear programs, among the documents that were discovered were Chinese language documents showing how to make a small nuclear warhead.

CHANG: China transferred all that Pakistan needed for a splendid nuclear weapon; and then the Pakistanis merchandised that around the world, including to the Iranians. We did nothing about it.

KARBER: China stole some of our nuclear designs and helped Pakistan develop its own nuclear weapons in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  And we know that because Pakistan then gave those designs to the Libyans, and we found them in Libya.  It was our designs with Chinese characteristics.

FRIEDBERG: So China perhaps has gotten a little tougher about proliferation than it was 20 years ago.  But most of the major proliferation problems in the world right now track back to China.

GERTZ: So secrets were stolen by China in the 1990’s.  Those secrets were then passed on to China’s ally Pakistan and proliferated around the world, including to the most dangerous rogue states today, Iran and North Korea.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 15, 2016, 07:24:15 am
http://www.koreatimesus.com/n-k-s-kn-08-icbm-capable-of-delivering-nuclear-warhead-to-u-s-northern-commander/

Related;

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/721122/missile-defense-agency-budget-addresses-escalating-north-korea-iran-threats
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 16, 2016, 03:37:42 am
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2F640x480q90%2F923%2FsXbS8X.jpg&hash=3a4adcecf491511f1e6e596d6fa11a7c)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 18, 2016, 06:40:53 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/04/18/chinas_nuclear_weapons_109272.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 12:32:58 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/science/atom-bomb-nuclear-weapons-hgv-arms-race-russia-china.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 06:51:39 am
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/04/both-sides-now-how-us-and-china-can-talk-each-other-out-nuclear-arms-race/127569/?oref=d-river
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 10:52:36 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-multiple-warhead-missile/

IMO, why the GBSD needs to be MIRV/MaRV capable even if initially loaded with single RV under New START total warhead numbers.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 19, 2016, 11:09:55 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-multiple-warhead-missile/

IMO, why the GBSD needs to be MIRV/MaRV capable even if initially loaded with single RV under New START total warhead numbers.

IMO the Minuteman replacement needs to be Peacekeeper sized for maximum flexibility.  Big enough for a variety of payloads (including conventional and/or boost gliders, powered RVs etc.) but not so large as to preclude rail mobility.  Ideally I'd prefer something like 500 Midgetmen and 200 Peacekeepers with maybe 100 Midgetmen and 50 Peacekeepers dedicated to the conventional role. Have all the conventional missiles in silos, as well as the remaining Peacekeepers, with the nuclear Midgetmen mobile.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 11:34:38 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-flight-tests-multiple-warhead-missile/

IMO, why the GBSD needs to be MIRV/MaRV capable even if initially loaded with single RV under New START total warhead numbers.

IMO the Minuteman replacement needs to be Peacekeeper sized for maximum flexibility.  Big enough for a variety of payloads (including conventional and/or boost gliders, powered RVs etc.) but not so large as to preclude rail mobility.  Ideally I'd prefer something like 500 Midgetmen and 200 Peacekeepers with maybe 100 Midgetmen and 50 Peacekeepers dedicated to the conventional role. Have all the conventional missiles in silos, as well as the remaining Peacekeepers, with the nuclear Midgetmen mobile.
No argument here, something like 250 Peacekeeper IIs in new ultra-hard silos and 150 mobile Midgetman missiles(with single W-56 sized warhead) to insure second strike force.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on April 19, 2016, 04:02:36 pm
Sorry guys, accidentally posted this in the NEWS ONLY thread.  :-[  Deleted that to save the mods some time and headache.

Don't visit here enough to notice these things. Sorry.

Anyway...

Why does the GBSD Program Office even exist at all?

Does USAF even talk to USN at all?

Deployment of GBSD is going to begin in 2027...IF things go to plan. Meanwhile, the USN is going to be capable of sea deployment of combat lasers capable of swatting down advanced MARVs at about that period - meaning GBSD is going to have a "moment in the sun" of just a few years before it's obsolete.

Let's not even get into the possibilities of ground-based laser defenses -- even if Baseline Zero 1.0 Megawatt Solid State Laser can only reach about 30 miles on a good day from a ground location; then that means a single defense pyramid located at Andrews AFB can defend the entire District of Columbia area from enemy MARVs all day long; and reduces the enemy to attacking during a blinding snowstorm or heavy thunderstorm.

And that doesn't take into account foreign power deployment of SSLs. The Chinese aren't going to be far behind, while the Russians, for all their money problems, can deploy a Moscow-based laser defense.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 19, 2016, 04:19:25 pm
Sorry guys, accidentally posted this in the NEWS ONLY thread.  :-[  Deleted that to save the mods some time and headache.

Don't visit here enough to notice these things. Sorry.

Anyway...

Why does the GBSD Program Office even exist at all?

Does USAF even talk to USN at all?

Deployment of GBSD is going to begin in 2027...IF things go to plan. Meanwhile, the USN is going to be capable of sea deployment of combat lasers capable of swatting down advanced MARVs at about that period - meaning GBSD is going to have a "moment in the sun" of just a few years before it's obsolete.

I'll believe it when I see it.  BMD killing lasers have been "just around the corner" since the 80s.  Furthermore, it's a WHOLE lot easier to laser harden a MARV than to 10-100x your laser power.  Lasers also require targeting systems which themselves can be attacked with DEWs.  Lastly, having those GBSDs in the ground gives you options.  There's no reason you couldn't swap out RVs for BGRVs to reduce your exposure to these theoretical lasers.  And what's the alternative?  Giving up?  History is full of superweapons that were going to make war obsolete.  So far none of them have lived up to the hype.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on April 19, 2016, 05:41:33 pm
I'll believe it when I see it.

We've hit increment 0.5 in that chart with the IOC of the 30 KW AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System in Mid-Late 2014 on the USS Ponce; and we're working on increment 1.5 with HELLADS.

Quote
Furthermore, it's a WHOLE lot easier to laser harden a MARV than to 10-100x your laser power.

Actually, not really. All you have to do is burn a pit on the MARV surface and hypersonic aerodynamics will do the rest for you, either destroying the vehicle or knocking it so far off course it doesn't hit the target.

Quote
Lasers also require targeting systems which themselves can be attacked with DEWs

Can said DEWs fit within a SS-18 payload/throw envelope and not significantly impact payload/throw weight to CONUS?

Quote
Lastly, having those GBSDs in the ground gives you options.

Like what? All they do is cause the enemy to use incredibly dirty groundbursts to destroy them. And because they're ballistic missiles, it becomes easy to concentrate defenses to counter them; since for example, there are only so many trajectories that a GBSD flying from Minot can fly if it wants to deliver x payload to Outer Loonystan.

There's no reason you couldn't swap out RVs for BGRVs to reduce your exposure to these theoretical lasers.

Congratulations, the laser defenses have shot down a significant portion of incoming RVs by simply existing.

Quote
And what's the alternative?

The manned bomber lives again, thanks to it's large payload enabling physical and electronic countermeasures galore, and it's intercontinental range (fly where enemy defenses aren't)?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 07:55:35 pm
Quote
All they do is cause the enemy to use incredibly dirty groundbursts to destroy them

And the fact the enemy has to do this as well as use roughly 900 out of its 1550 warheads (assuming New START) is a huge problem for any adversary to consider. They HAVE to go nuclear on your homeland.

With SSBNs and bombers you could theoretically kill them with conventional weapons and/or very few nuclear weapons. Plus of course there is their promptness in both retargetability and launchabilitiy, It adds real deterrent value to the Triad given, in reality, their tiny cost in proportion to federal government and defense spending in total.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 20, 2016, 05:32:04 am
I'll believe it when I see it.

We've hit increment 0.5 in that chart with the IOC of the 30 KW AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System in Mid-Late 2014 on the USS Ponce; and we're working on increment 1.5 with HELLADS.

Congratulations.  You're 3% the way to a megawatt (not even ABL, which was cancelled due to ineffectiveness).


Quote
Furthermore, it's a WHOLE lot easier to laser harden a MARV than to 10-100x your laser power.

Actually, not really. All you have to do is burn a pit on the MARV surface and hypersonic aerodynamics will do the rest for you, either destroying the vehicle or knocking it so far off course it doesn't hit the target.

This is far easier said than done.  These lasers aren't focusing on an area the size of a dime so a "pit" isn't going to happen.  Furthermore a maneuvering RV is going to be surrounded in plasma that you're going to have to shoot through.  Then there's dwell time.  Yeah, not so easy.


Quote
Lasers also require targeting systems which themselves can be attacked with DEWs

Can said DEWs fit within a SS-18 payload/throw envelope and not significantly impact payload/throw weight to CONUS?

Why would it need to?  Put them on satellites.  And SS-18s?  GBSD isn't a Soviet Russian program.  And you don't need megawatts to "dazzle" an optical sensor.  Oh, you're going to direct them with radar?  There are these things called "decoys", "chaff", "EMP", etc. etc.

Quote
Lastly, having those GBSDs in the ground gives you options.

Like what? All they do is cause the enemy to use incredibly dirty groundbursts to destroy them. And because they're ballistic missiles, it becomes easy to concentrate defenses to counter them; since for example, there are only so many trajectories that a GBSD flying from Minot can fly if it wants to deliver x payload to Outer Loonystan.

Dirty ground bursts?  Wait, are you seriously quibbling over forcing the enemy to WORK to destroy our weapons?  Easy to concentrate defenses. . .what?  Unless you're planning on having megawatt lasers (and their associated long-range tracking/targeting systems) parked at every potential target there are MANY trajectories that can be taken.  (Especially if you're using BGRVs.)  Furthermore, Minot is not the only place ICBMs are deployed.  They're also in Montana and Wyoming. 

Quote
There's no reason you couldn't swap out RVs for BGRVs to reduce your exposure to these theoretical lasers.

Congratulations, the laser defenses have shot down a significant portion of incoming RVs by simply existing.

Really?  How exactly?  By magic?

Quote
And what's the alternative?

The manned bomber lives again, thanks to it's large payload enabling physical and electronic countermeasures galore, and it's intercontinental range (fly where enemy defenses aren't)?

Wow.  You complain about ICBMs being easy to take out and then propose to replace them by a solution that is pitifully easy to take out, no magic lasers necessary?  One airburst from a depressed trajectory SLBM could knock out the ENTIRE B-2 fleet before it even got off the runway. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on April 20, 2016, 04:14:00 pm
Congratulations.  You're 3% the way to a megawatt (not even ABL, which was cancelled due to ineffectiveness).

Thanks for reminding me of YAL-1A; which means Heavy Laser Air Defense is actually DOD TRL 7, since the drawbacks of chemical lasers (thousands of gallons of 'fuel') and the problems involved in making the laser airborne (withstand flight environment, pass lasing beam into ball turret, which has to be light enough to fit into a plane) disappear if we place it into a giant SENTINEL-esque Pyramid stolen from Stargate SG-1.

Second, ABL was cancelled (along with a bunch of other ABM stuff such as MKV) by the Obama administration; not because of 'ineffectiveness'.

Quote
This is far easier said than done.  These lasers aren't focusing on an area the size of a dime so a "pit" isn't going to happen.  Furthermore a maneuvering RV is going to be surrounded in plasma that you're going to have to shoot through.  Then there's dwell time.  Yeah, not so easy.

That's exactly how the current generation of light anti-artillery lasers under test work to destroy artillery shells -- which have much thicker shell walls, spin a lot faster, and are in the supersonic, not hypersonic regime -- yet the artillery shells come apart nicely, despite being in a much more benign regime than a RV.

Quote
Why would it need to?  Put them on satellites.

So, you're all for space weaponization? At which point why even have ICBM silos in North Dakota. Just put all 900 RVs in orbiting garages -- which if they're attacked, has much less negative effects on CONUS than a fixed ground based deployment.

Quote
And SS-18s?  GBSD isn't a Soviet Russian program.

You were talking about countering laser defenses via attacking the targeting systems. That means what's going to be used is either SS-18 or whatever new doom missile is replacing it in Russian service, or whatever the Chinese cook up for a heavy ICBM.

Quote
And you don't need megawatts to "dazzle" an optical sensor.  Oh, you're going to direct them with radar?  There are these things called "decoys", "chaff", "EMP", etc. etc.

Did someone just replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?

Quote
Dirty ground bursts?  Wait, are you seriously quibbling over forcing the enemy to WORK to destroy our weapons?

I'd like to avoid this scenario as much as possible:

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmodernsurvivalblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Ffallout-wind-map.jpg&hash=a90bbf7dd952c914feadc15ba92946ab)

It made sense -- once -- to put missiles in silos, as opposed to extremely weak above ground coffin launchers; but that moment's passed.

There's a reason the nation who has been spending the most on actual new nuclear missiles has been buying mobile systems by a large margin in their latest round of purchases -- 63 x Mobile RS-24 Yars vs just ten silo based ones; plus the potentiality of train based RS-24 (they announced that in 2013; any news lately?).

Quote
Easy to concentrate defenses. . .what?  Unless you're planning on having megawatt lasers (and their associated long-range tracking/targeting systems) parked at every potential target there are MANY trajectories that can be taken.

Actually, not really. See attached map.

It's for Titan II, not the more recent systems, but it gives you an idea -- if you want to hit Moscow with Titan II, there are only a few generalized trajectories that can be taken with Titan II, particularly if you want to actually use Titan II for what it was made to do -- deliver a 7,500~ lb payload.

If you wanted to defend Moscow against say, US ICBM fields; that would significantly influence site selection for various components of your defense for maximum effectiveness against said US ICBM fields.

Quote
Really?  How exactly?  By magic?

I hate to repeat myself, but did someone replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?

Virtual Attrition  is the term. If I have 200 weapons capable of going BOOM on the enemy's territory, and the enemy introduces new defenses that force me to replace the older 200 weapons with 100 new weapons capable of penetrating the new defenses; his defenses have effectively erased 100 weapons by simply existing.

It's how the Soviet Union reduced the British nuclear deterrent from vaporizing in excess of 150 targets (V-Force 1962) to 48 (Polaris 1969), to basically about one major urban industrial area (Moscow with Polaris-Chevaline 1982).

Quote
Wow.  You complain about ICBMs being easy to take out and then propose to replace them by a solution that is pitifully easy to take out, no magic lasers necessary?  One airburst from a depressed trajectory SLBM could knock out the ENTIRE B-2 fleet before it even got off the runway.

There's two easy solutions to that:

A.) Put the B-1s back on nuclear alert, along with the rest of the bomber fleet, locked, cocked and ready to go with nukes on board, like George H.W. Bush never happened.

B.) Co-locate heavy laser defense systems next to not-SAC-but-SAC-in-all-but-name bases (you may do the same for ICBM fields, if you are worried about stealthy drones flying over them and dropping rocket boosted precision munitions onto silo doors).

(NOTE: Option #B was what was proposed for the old SENTINEL/SAFEGUARD system back in the day, but was outlawed by the ABM treaty.)

.
.
.

With all that said, I am not stridently opposed to an interim SICBM if it was possible to buy a new single-warhead missile with 500 lbs of payload for "extras", and have it completely deployed in 48 to 60 months (2020-2021) in both existing silos and as a road-mobile missile (leveraging Midgetman technology) to act as an interim bridge between the present kludged together 1960s/1970s/1980s/1990s technology level deterrence force and whatever comes in the future when we have to deal with DEWs as a fact of life.

But taking eleven years to get to a deployed missile? (Current GBSD Program of Record) NOPE.

That also brings me to another point -- SSBN-X is going to enter service in 2031 (fifteen years from now), when DEWs are going to be an established fact of life; and in the process it's going to severely constrain the entire US Navy shipbuilding budget during the time period leading up to and after IOC.

It's not going to be pretty and it's going to make the F-35 mess look positively neat.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 20, 2016, 06:05:10 pm
Congratulations.  You're 3% the way to a megawatt (not even ABL, which was cancelled due to ineffectiveness).

Thanks for reminding me of YAL-1A; which means Heavy Laser Air Defense is actually DOD TRL 7, since the drawbacks of chemical lasers (thousands of gallons of 'fuel') and the problems involved in making the laser airborne (withstand flight environment, pass lasing beam into ball turret, which has to be light enough to fit into a plane) disappear if we place it into a giant SENTINEL-esque Pyramid stolen from Stargate SG-1.

Second, ABL was cancelled (along with a bunch of other ABM stuff such as MKV) by the Obama administration; not because of 'ineffectiveness'.

They took a shot at what, ONE missile and then benched it.  That doesn't strike me as being a resounding success.


Quote
This is far easier said than done.  These lasers aren't focusing on an area the size of a dime so a "pit" isn't going to happen.  Furthermore a maneuvering RV is going to be surrounded in plasma that you're going to have to shoot through.  Then there's dwell time.  Yeah, not so easy.

That's exactly how the current generation of light anti-artillery lasers under test work to destroy artillery shells -- which have much thicker shell walls, spin a lot faster, and are in the supersonic, not hypersonic regime -- yet the artillery shells come apart nicely, despite being in a much more benign regime than a RV.


Hmmm, I'm thinking shooting at a non-reflective, steel target in direct contact with high explosives from maybe a mile away might have something to do with that. Those aren't aerodynamic forces tearing those rounds apart.  Also mortars are not spin-stabilized.


Quote
Why would it need to?  Put them on satellites.

So, you're all for space weaponization?

Where did I say anything like that?  I'm not talking about dozens of Zenith Stars up there.  Hell it could be something as simple as a 1kw laser on the PBV. 

At which point why even have ICBM silos in North Dakota. Just put all 900 RVs in orbiting garages -- which if they're attacked, has much less negative effects on CONUS than a fixed ground based deployment.

Even a dozen Zenith Stars in orbit is a far, FAR cry from "900 RVs in orbiting garages".

Quote
And SS-18s?  GBSD isn't a Soviet Russian program.

You were talking about countering laser defenses via attacking the targeting systems. That means what's going to be used is either SS-18 or whatever new doom missile is replacing it in Russian service, or whatever the Chinese cook up for a heavy ICBM.

GBSD is a US program.  You're talking about Chinese or Russian strategic laser batteries blowing them away like confetti.  Where do SS-18s come into play with that?


Quote
And you don't need megawatts to "dazzle" an optical sensor.  Oh, you're going to direct them with radar?  There are these things called "decoys", "chaff", "EMP", etc. etc.

Did someone just replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?

Nope.  But you might want to ask yourself why every US system that might attack a system in space uses IIR instead of radar. 



Quote
Dirty ground bursts?  Wait, are you seriously quibbling over forcing the enemy to WORK to destroy our weapons?

I'd like to avoid this scenario as much as possible:

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmodernsurvivalblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Ffallout-wind-map.jpg&hash=a90bbf7dd952c914feadc15ba92946ab)

Wait, I thought you said ICBMs were obsolete?  So how would that ever happen?  Besides, if there is a general nuclear exchange fallout will be the least of our problems.


It made sense -- once -- to put missiles in silos, as opposed to extremely weak above ground coffin launchers; but that moment's passed.

Yeah, not so much.  The idea is to deter an attack and make it difficult for the other guy.  Silos work wonderfully for that.  (Deterence value goes FAR beyond, "how difficult is it to kill on paper".)


There's a reason the nation who has been spending the most on actual new nuclear missiles has been buying mobile systems by a large margin in their latest round of purchases -- 63 x Mobile RS-24 Yars vs just ten silo based ones; plus the potentiality of train based RS-24 (they announced that in 2013; any news lately?).

I'd prefer a fully mobile ICBM force but that'll never happen.  (You'll note the Russians don't have mobile SS-18s.)

Quote
Easy to concentrate defenses. . .what?  Unless you're planning on having megawatt lasers (and their associated long-range tracking/targeting systems) parked at every potential target there are MANY trajectories that can be taken.

Actually, not really. See attached map.

Actually, yes really.  It's not as simple as, "there's only one direction, from one side of the planet to the other".  BGRVs complicate that even further.  Any US ICBM could be headed anywhere from Kaliningrad to the Sea of Okhotsk.  That's a metric fookton of possible trajectories.

It's for Titan II, not the more recent systems, but it gives you an idea -- if you want to hit Moscow with Titan II, there are only a few generalized trajectories that can be taken with Titan II, particularly if you want to actually use Titan II for what it was made to do -- deliver a 7,500~ lb payload.

Sure, if I want to hit Moscow.  There are more targets in Russia than Moscow.

If you wanted to defend Moscow against say, US ICBM fields; that would significantly influence site selection for various components of your defense for maximum effectiveness against said US ICBM fields.

Sure.  Now you have to do the same around every other target that might qualify for a nuke. BGRVs change that equation though.


I hate to repeat myself, but did someone replace you with Ted Postol while we were asleep?

Virtual Attrition  is the term. If I have 200 weapons capable of going BOOM on the enemy's territory, and the enemy introduces new defenses that force me to replace the older 200 weapons with 100 new weapons capable of penetrating the new defenses; his defenses have effectively erased 100 weapons by simply existing.

Except the other guy hasn't actually demonstrated he can do so.  (Though he certainly has many, MANY defenses capable of easily dealing with cruise missiles.)  Speaking of "virtual attrition" though:

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi847.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab35%2Fbobro15%2FLoADS_zps8566649a.jpg%7Eoriginal&hash=05aa7c0f0b18dd9b8925623f397625a6) (http://s847.photobucket.com/user/bobro15/media/LoADS_zps8566649a.jpg.html)

It's how the Soviet Union reduced the British nuclear deterrent from vaporizing in excess of 150 targets (V-Force 1962) to 48 (Polaris 1969), to basically about one major urban industrial area (Moscow with Polaris-Chevaline 1982).

What system did they widely deploy that had a 100% effectiveness against Polaris?

Quote
Wow.  You complain about ICBMs being easy to take out and then propose to replace them by a solution that is pitifully easy to take out, no magic lasers necessary?  One airburst from a depressed trajectory SLBM could knock out the ENTIRE B-2 fleet before it even got off the runway.

There's two easy solutions to that:

A.) Put the B-1s back on nuclear alert, along with the rest of the bomber fleet, locked, cocked and ready to go with nukes on board, like George H.W. Bush never happened.

Realistically, those days are gone.  For one thing the B-1B is forbidden from nukes.  For another your average left-of-center citizen would crap metric tons of bricks at the very thought of bombers on nuclear alert.  Lastly any S-300/400 would make short work of those bombers or any cruise missile they might carry.  And there are many of those systems.  Not to mention, by the time your bombers got there pretty much anything worth hitting would be long gone.

B.) Co-locate heavy laser defense systems next to not-SAC-but-SAC-in-all-but-name bases (you may do the same for ICBM fields, if you are worried about stealthy drones flying over them and dropping rocket boosted precision munitions onto silo doors).

Not worried even a little bit about that last bit.  If that managed the miracle of actually GETTING to the ICBM fields they'd be dropping on empty silos.

(NOTE: Option #B was what was proposed for the old SENTINEL/SAFEGUARD system back in the day, but was outlawed by the ABM treaty.)

Don't recall ever hearing of massive laser turrets proposed as part of the Safeguard system.

.
.
.

With all that said, I am not stridently opposed to an interim SICBM if it was possible to buy a new single-warhead missile with 500 lbs of payload for "extras", and have it completely deployed in 48 to 60 months (2020-2021) in both existing silos and as a road-mobile missile (leveraging Midgetman technology) to act as an interim bridge between the present kludged together 1960s/1970s/1980s/1990s technology level deterrence force and whatever comes in the future when we have to deal with DEWs as a fact of life.

Agreed for the most part.  I'd still want some heavy ICBMs in silos for BGRVs (I'd think a small ICBM wouldn't have the throw for that.)

But taking eleven years to get to a deployed missile? (Current GBSD Program of Record) NOPE.

You and me both, but it's better than nothing.

That also brings me to another point -- SSBN-X is going to enter service in 2031 (fifteen years from now), when DEWs are going to be an established fact of life; and in the process it's going to severely constrain the entire US Navy shipbuilding budget during the time period leading up to and after IOC.

It's not going to be pretty and it's going to make the F-35 mess look positively neat.

I don't disagree that the procurement trainwreck coming in shipbuilding isn't going to be pretty (the real kicker is anybody paying attention saw it coming decades ago).  I'm less convinced we'll see ICBM-capable DEWs widely deployed in the next 15 years.



I'd recommend starting a different post as this is getting long enough to be a PITA to edit.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on April 20, 2016, 06:52:22 pm
What system did they widely deploy that had a 100% effectiveness against Polaris?

The British basically mirror imaged what the loss of London would mean to them when imagining the loss of Moscow to the USSR -- so they designed Chevaline to make sure they blew Moscow off the map through both technical means (loss of 1 RV and shorter missile range to accommodate all sorts of decoys etc on a small spacecraft that also happened to be a post-boost vehicle.) and by overtargeting the Polaris-Chevaline force onto Moscow to be assured of penetration of the Moscow ABM system.

I don't know how long the British stuck to either aspects of Polaris-Chevaline (loss of range through technical means / missile overtargeting) during it's operational lifetime before it was replaced by Trident.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 21, 2016, 06:29:49 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-confirms-multiple-warhead-missile-test-south-china-sea/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 22, 2016, 11:41:08 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-chinese-plans-nuke-america-14952
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on April 23, 2016, 01:35:40 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-chinese-plans-nuke-america-14952

I wonder if there is a mirror image click-bait article on a Chinese website somewhere; "US plans to nuke China".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on April 23, 2016, 07:12:41 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-chinese-plans-nuke-america-14952

I wonder if there is a mirror image click-bait article on a Chinese website somewhere; "US plans to nuke China".

I wonder if there are people in China with their heads so far up their own backsides that they think the concept of defense is worthy of mockery.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 26, 2016, 04:08:30 pm
Heritage Foundation NDAA17 recommendations for nukes.

Strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. A modern, flexible, and capable nuclear weapons posture is essential to keeping the U.S. safe, its allies assured, and its enemies deterred. In order to improve the U.S. strategic posture, Congress and the Pentagon should:

◦Oppose misguided arms reductions. Congress should not provide funding for implementation of agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage and that do not benefit U.S. national security—agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia is violating. Congress should not provide funding for unilateral nuclear weapons–reduction efforts while all other nuclear players are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.

◦Modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems are aging and in need of investment. If they are not modernized, the U.S. will soon have inadequate nuclear weapons infrastructure and inadequate nuclear delivery platforms. Further delays increase the overall costs of the programs and leave the U.S. less capable of responding to unexpected developments in the nuclear programs of other nations.

◦Consider the benefits of yield-producing experiments for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Conducting very-small-scale, yield-producing experiments would benefit the science that underpins the program, and the U.S. could gain important benefits; indeed, China and Russia are already conducting such experiments.[21]

◦Advance a “protect-and-defend” strategic posture. At the core of today’s world is a fundamental asymmetry between the values of the U.S. and the values of its adversaries. While the U.S. values the lives of its citizens, economic prosperity, and institutions, U.S. adversaries value leadership survival above all. The U.S. should develop precise means to credibly threaten that which its adversaries value, and deploy both passive and active defenses to remove the benefits that adversaries might gain by attacking the U.S. or its allies.

◦Re-evaluate U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon currently bases its nuclear posture on the notion that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”[22] In light of Russia’s demonstrated recklessness in Ukraine and its nuclear weapons modernization steps, this posture is no longer valid.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on April 27, 2016, 06:25:18 am
Obama Admin Withholding Details of ‘Potentially Illegal’ Deal to Buy Iranian Nuke Materials (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-withholding-deal-iran-nuclear/) (The Washington Free Beacon)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 27, 2016, 05:44:50 pm
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-deterrence-still-relevant-against-russia-15961
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on April 28, 2016, 10:06:11 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on April 28, 2016, 11:15:17 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

Why must it be one reason or another?  Why cannot be a combination of all the reasons?  No one knew the effects of Atomic weapons.  Only one had been exploded, few had witnessed it and few understood the philosophical and moral reasoning about their use.   America's high command appeared intent on one thing - the defeat of Japan and of course, the primacy of the USA in the world.  The quickest way to achieve both, without question was to shock the Japanese and the world.   That the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command.   They apparently weren't interested in the simplistic Casablanca formula of "unconditional surrender" therefore they had to be defeated.  That the Soviets were fulfilling their requirements under the Tehran conference was dangerous to US primacy in the Pacific.  They had to be stopped before they invaded the Japanese home islands.  The instrument by which all that could be achieved was the Atomic bomb.   So they dropped it.  That they saved lives - American, British, Australian, Indian, Soviet as well as Japanese was beneficial to all involved.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 01, 2016, 12:00:20 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

Why must it be one reason or another?  Why cannot be a combination of all the reasons?  No one knew the effects of Atomic weapons.  Only one had been exploded, few had witnessed it and few understood the philosophical and moral reasoning about their use.   America's high command appeared intent on one thing - the defeat of Japan and of course, the primacy of the USA in the world.  The quickest way to achieve both, without question was to shock the Japanese and the world.   That the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command.   They apparently weren't interested in the simplistic Casablanca formula of "unconditional surrender" therefore they had to be defeated.  That the Soviets were fulfilling their requirements under the Tehran conference was dangerous to US primacy in the Pacific.  They had to be stopped before they invaded the Japanese home islands.  The instrument by which all that could be achieved was the Atomic bomb.   So they dropped it.  That they saved lives - American, British, Australian, Indian, Soviet as well as Japanese was beneficial to all involved.

Speaking historically not quite true to say Japan was looking to surrender - peace feelers were being put out via the Soviets (who were about to enter against Japan) but internal Japanesse strategic decision making was drifting in inertia before the A bombs and Russian entry (striping them of their Chinese empire) weakened the Hawks that wanted to get better terms by fighting on and galivanized those looking to surrender. Revisionist history stating A-bomb use wasn't necessary a bit off the truth in this regard (as Kajida Man said above ultimately even saved Japanese lives).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 01, 2016, 12:13:09 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-chinese-plans-nuke-america-14952

I wonder if there is a mirror image click-bait article on a Chinese website somewhere; "US plans to nuke China".

I wonder if there are people in China with their heads so far up their own backsides that they think the concept of defense is worthy of mockery.

I refer you to my comments addresses to you in another topic discussion yesterday.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 01, 2016, 12:36:10 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

I'm surprised this is even a thing anymore.  WWII wasn't a "police action" or "nation building" (at least not on our part).  It was all-out war.  Survival of the nation stuff.  Not only do the gloves come off but if you can find a broken bottle in the street you use that too.  You use whatever you can get your hands on.  It's oh so easy to criticize and second guess from 70 years after the fact. 

Wow. . .some people actually think it was "racist"?  Hate to burst their bubble but if we'd had them earlier we'd have been dropping them on Adolf's head too. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 01, 2016, 03:23:24 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

I'm surprised this is even a thing anymore.  WWII wasn't a "police action" or "nation building" (at least not on our part).  It was all-out war.  Survival of the nation stuff.  Not only do the gloves come off but if you can find a broken bottle in the street you use that too.  You use whatever you can get your hands on.  It's oh so easy to criticize and second guess from 70 years after the fact. 

Wow. . .some people actually think it was "racist"?  Hate to burst their bubble but if we'd had them earlier we'd have been dropping them on Adolf's head too.


Typically, the article presents an ahistorical false dichotomy; the question at the time wasn't whether to use WMD or not but what types to use and where and how to employ them.

OLYMPIC and CORONET were always going to be supported by large scale tactical and strategic use of chemical weapons as the US had the world's largest stockpiles and after May 1945 had access to large quantities of the German nerve agents Sarin and Tabun.

And there were plans to use the weaponized biological agents developed under the Merck effort against Japanese crops and livestock with secondary attacks on population centers.

As to Truman being racist he was acutely aware of Japanese racism and how the invasion of the home islands by white men would galvanize the defenders all the more.
 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 01, 2016, 11:12:58 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-america-needs-the-lethal-long-range-standoff-cruise-15820

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 02, 2016, 03:13:42 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

I'm surprised this is even a thing anymore.  WWII wasn't a "police action" or "nation building" (at least not on our part).  It was all-out war.  Survival of the nation stuff.  Not only do the gloves come off but if you can find a broken bottle in the street you use that too.  You use whatever you can get your hands on.  It's oh so easy to criticize and second guess from 70 years after the fact. 

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between
Title: US Discloses Senior Official Sold Nuclear Secrets to China
Post by: sferrin on May 02, 2016, 05:41:35 am


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173478/us-discloses-senior-official-sold-nuclear-secrets-to-china.html


"A Taiwan-born American citizen has admitted selling nuclear information to China while he was a senior manager at the U.S. government's Tennessee Valley Authority, federal officials say.

 Court records unsealed Friday show that Ching Ning Guey admitted traveling to China and receiving payments in return for handing over restricted information about U.S. nuclear technology. Federal officials who discussed the case indicated China is suspected of running a spy program to evade U.S. security precautions and collect high-tech information. "

It really is a shame they don't execute people for this kind of crap anymore.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 02, 2016, 05:49:56 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

Why must it be one reason or another?  Why cannot be a combination of all the reasons?  No one knew the effects of Atomic weapons.  Only one had been exploded, few had witnessed it and few understood the philosophical and moral reasoning about their use.   America's high command appeared intent on one thing - the defeat of Japan and of course, the primacy of the USA in the world.  The quickest way to achieve both, without question was to shock the Japanese and the world.   That the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command.   They apparently weren't interested in the simplistic Casablanca formula of "unconditional surrender" therefore they had to be defeated.  That the Soviets were fulfilling their requirements under the Tehran conference was dangerous to US primacy in the Pacific.  They had to be stopped before they invaded the Japanese home islands.  The instrument by which all that could be achieved was the Atomic bomb.   So they dropped it.  That they saved lives - American, British, Australian, Indian, Soviet as well as Japanese was beneficial to all involved.

A question and several observations...

1.  Please support your statement in bold above.

2.  Back at post #28 you stated "I'll leave you to it".  Yet you didn't. 

3.  I lived on Okinawa where at least 100,000 died and there were 50k wounded.  After living the battles of the Pacific it would have been illogical to presume any less lethality on the home islands.  IMHO invasion by the US would likely have been exponentially more catastrophic for the Japanese people.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the "primacy of the USA in the world". 

4.  The Japanese were not seeking to surrender.  There was no Japanese word for surrender.  On June 22, the Japanese decided to send an envoy to Russia to seek a "diplomatic solution."  That plan was for a mediated solution which kept in place the "old order".  The recklessness of the Japanese leadership in sacrificing its troops and subjects is documented in the defense planned for the home islands.  We know that defense included 5500 kamikaze planes, 1300 suicide submarines, hundreds of piloted bombs, suicide frogmen using underwater bunkers and 900,000 men on Kyushu.  The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

5.  The PRC has contributed significantly to nuclear proliferation which resulted in programs in Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea at the very least.  So yes, the US must have a nuclear deterrent large enough to address these capabilities.

6.  The PRC, Russia, Iran and N Korea are not behaving as good neighbors.  Begin by looking at the relations they have with countries on their borders.  The US is forced to respond to these behavior problems.

7.  This is not a peaceful world.  There are those for whom the rights of an individual human being mean little or absolutely nothing.  The State is more important.  We should work to change those minds.  But in the meantime, the US and its triad of nuclear deterrent the best chance the world has to continue the level of stability that has allowed..

Poverty reduction worldwide from 60% in 1950 to 20% today.
Poverty reduction in China from over 80% in 1980 to ~15% today.
Reduction in combat deaths from 240 per million in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.
Deaths by famine have dropped from over 18 million in the 1960's to less than 4 million in the 1990's
Increases in male height (evidence of malnutrition reductions) by ~10cm on all continents except Africa.

But, maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps some other country for whom the rights of an individual human being are paramount will step into this position to continue the positive results we've seen since the 1950's.

China?
Russia?
Iran?
North Korea?
the United Kingdom?
France?
India?
Israel?

Do nuclear weapons offer a risk reduction calculus for the United States and the world against totalitarian governments using theirs?  Yes
Is it expensive?  Yes

I guess we better hope that the US is willing to continue to pay for this deterrent. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 02, 2016, 08:50:50 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/simply-no-other-choice-why-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-15756

Why must it be one reason or another?  Why cannot be a combination of all the reasons?  No one knew the effects of Atomic weapons.  Only one had been exploded, few had witnessed it and few understood the philosophical and moral reasoning about their use.   America's high command appeared intent on one thing - the defeat of Japan and of course, the primacy of the USA in the world.  The quickest way to achieve both, without question was to shock the Japanese and the world.   That the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command.   They apparently weren't interested in the simplistic Casablanca formula of "unconditional surrender" therefore they had to be defeated.  That the Soviets were fulfilling their requirements under the Tehran conference was dangerous to US primacy in the Pacific.  They had to be stopped before they invaded the Japanese home islands.  The instrument by which all that could be achieved was the Atomic bomb.   So they dropped it.  That they saved lives - American, British, Australian, Indian, Soviet as well as Japanese was beneficial to all involved.

A question and several observations...

1.  Please support your statement in bold above.

2.  Back at post #28 you stated "I'll leave you to it".  Yet you didn't. 

3.  I lived on Okinawa where at least 100,000 died and there were 50k wounded.  After living the battles of the Pacific it would have been illogical to presume any less lethality on the home islands.  IMHO invasion by the US would likely have been exponentially more catastrophic for the Japanese people.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the "primacy of the USA in the world". 

4.  The Japanese were not seeking to surrender.  There was no Japanese word for surrender.  On June 22, the Japanese decided to send an envoy to Russia to seek a "diplomatic solution."  That plan was for a mediated solution which kept in place the "old order".  The recklessness of the Japanese leadership in sacrificing its troops and subjects is documented in the defense planned for the home islands.  We know that defense included 5500 kamikaze planes, 1300 suicide submarines, hundreds of piloted bombs, suicide frogmen using underwater bunkers and 900,000 men on Kyushu.  The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

5.  The PRC has contributed significantly to nuclear proliferation which resulted in programs in Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea at the very least.  So yes, the US must have a nuclear deterrent large enough to address these capabilities.

6.  The PRC, Russia, Iran and N Korea are not behaving as good neighbors.  Begin by looking at the relations they have with countries on their borders.  The US is forced to respond to these behavior problems.

7.  This is not a peaceful world.  There are those for whom the rights of an individual human being mean little or absolutely nothing.  The State is more important.  We should work to change those minds.  But in the meantime, the US and its triad of nuclear deterrent the best chance the world has to continue the level of stability that has allowed..

Poverty reduction worldwide from 60% in 1950 to 20% today.
Poverty reduction in China from over 80% in 1980 to ~15% today.
Reduction in combat deaths from 240 per million in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.
Deaths by famine have dropped from over 18 million in the 1960's to less than 4 million in the 1990's
Increases in male height (evidence of malnutrition reductions) by ~10cm on all continents except Africa.

But, maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps some other country for whom the rights of an individual human being are paramount will step into this position to continue the positive results we've seen since the 1950's.

China?
Russia?
Iran?
North Korea?
the United Kingdom?
France?
India?
Israel?

Do nuclear weapons offer a risk reduction calculus for the United States and the world against totalitarian governments using theirs?  Yes
Is it expensive?  Yes

I guess we better hope that the US is willing to continue to pay for this deterrent. 

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommitnesstofitness.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Fapplause.gif&hash=425902d553964557cdd8c99b09fbbe48)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 02, 2016, 09:38:30 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-the-third-nuclear-age-16020
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 03, 2016, 02:41:06 am
A question and several observations...

1.  Please support your statement in bold above.

This is obvious from the policies adopted progressively by the US High Command during the war.  Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.  US Government agencies were created and took control of the world's economy.  American attitudes increasingly became and remain amongst some Americans a case of "Well we're doing all the fighting, so we should reap all the rewards..."

Quote
2.  Back at post #28 you stated "I'll leave you to it".  Yet you didn't. 

Yeah, you got me there...

Quote
3.  I lived on Okinawa where at least 100,000 died and there were 50k wounded.  After living the battles of the Pacific it would have been illogical to presume any less lethality on the home islands.  IMHO invasion by the US would likely have been exponentially more catastrophic for the Japanese people.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the "primacy of the USA in the world". 

Alternatively the Japanese might have just surrendered and everybody might have lived a happy life.

Doubtful, I agree but there was always the chance.   Particularly if the Allies and in particular the US had not stuck with the simplistic formula of, "unconditional surrender".  The Japanese wanted to keep their emperor.  They had no assurance that would be the case, so obviously they were going to keep on fighting.

Quote
4.  The Japanese were not seeking to surrender.  There was no Japanese word for surrender.  On June 22, the Japanese decided to send an envoy to Russia to seek a "diplomatic solution."  That plan was for a mediated solution which kept in place the "old order".  The recklessness of the Japanese leadership in sacrificing its troops and subjects is documented in the defense planned for the home islands.  We know that defense included 5500 kamikaze planes, 1300 suicide submarines, hundreds of piloted bombs, suicide frogmen using underwater bunkers and 900,000 men on Kyushu.  The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Unfortunate, I don't doubt.  The Japanese were quite willing to sacrifice equal or greater numbers I also don't doubt, defending their homeland from the invading Allies (you are aware that there were going to be Indian and Australian troops involved as well?)   The Japanese were crazy I'm quite willing to admit but I must also admit I admire their commitment to ensure that the "Old Order" would remain.   Yet, at the same time, the civilian Japanese bureaucracy were planning for their defeat...

Quote
5.  The PRC has contributed significantly to nuclear proliferation which resulted in programs in Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea at the very least.  So yes, the US must have a nuclear deterrent large enough to address these capabilities.

I find it interesting that you're willing to blame the PRC for nuclear proliferation (and I must admit they must carry that burden) but ignore that the Pakistani nuclear programme was funded largely by the US Government.  That the US Government ignored the Israeli nuclear programme as well and of course, helped the French and British ones.  It appears that the US has to bear some of the blame for proliferation as well.

As to whether your nation needs to deter other nations from attacking it is a question that I feel is being ignored here.  What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody.

Quote
6.  The PRC, Russia, Iran and N Korea are not behaving as good neighbors.  Begin by looking at the relations they have with countries on their borders.  The US is forced to respond to these behavior problems.

In part I agree however, being "good" or "bad" as far as neighbours are concerned, often is dependent upon the viewpoint.  The PRC is acting badly in the South China Sea but it's acting good in other areas.  Iran ditto.  Russia?  The same again.  Only the DPRK is distinctly badly behaved, all the time.   Understandable considering it's history and it's internal politics.  Doesn't excuse it but it makes it understandable to a degree IMO.

Quote
7.  This is not a peaceful world.  There are those for whom the rights of an individual human being mean little or absolutely nothing.  The State is more important.  We should work to change those minds.  But in the meantime, the US and its triad of nuclear deterrent the best chance the world has to continue the level of stability that has allowed..

Poverty reduction worldwide from 60% in 1950 to 20% today.
Poverty reduction in China from over 80% in 1980 to ~15% today.
Reduction in combat deaths from 240 per million in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.
Deaths by famine have dropped from over 18 million in the 1960's to less than 4 million in the 1990's
Increases in male height (evidence of malnutrition reductions) by ~10cm on all continents except Africa.

But, maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps some other country for whom the rights of an individual human being are paramount will step into this position to continue the positive results we've seen since the 1950's.

China?
Russia?
Iran?
North Korea?
the United Kingdom?
France?
India?
Israel?

Do nuclear weapons offer a risk reduction calculus for the United States and the world against totalitarian governments using theirs?  Yes
Is it expensive?  Yes

I guess we better hope that the US is willing to continue to pay for this deterrent.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's basis is incorrect.  The US has contributed to both stability and chaos over the decades since WWII.   It is not completely blameless, just as no other nation is completely blameless.   I find it not unusual that you ignore the role of the UNO in these matters.   Does the US contribute to international stability?  Without a doubt.   Does it however, also contribute to international instability?  Without a doubt.   The circumstances of the world has changed.  It is quite a lot less violent than what it was.  Have nuclear weapons contributed to that reduction in violence?   Yes.   Have they also contributed to the violence?   Yes.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 03, 2016, 07:30:54 am
A question and several observations...

1.  Please support your statement in bold above.

This is obvious from the policies adopted progressively by the US High Command during the war.  Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.  US Government agencies were created and took control of the world's economy.  American attitudes increasingly became and remain amongst some Americans a case of "Well we're doing all the fighting, so we should reap all the rewards..."



"It's obvious" is not support for an argument. 
1.  You've accused the United States' intent in joining and prosecuting WWII for the purpose of seeking the "primacy of the USA in the world."
2.  You've accused the United States of seeking to "shock the world" with the dropping of the bombs on Japan as opposed to only seeking the quickest end to the war and the cessation of deaths after years of war and destruction.
3.  You've stated that "the Japanese were seeking surrender was immaterial to the US high command."  You further stated that
4.  the US was not interested in "unconditional surrender" but implied the US was seeking to prolong the war which would result in additional Japanese and allied deaths to "shock the world".

Please defend your viewpoint about the nefarious intent of the United States with supported facts.



5.  The PRC has contributed significantly to nuclear proliferation which resulted in programs in Pakistan, Iran, and N Korea at the very least.  So yes, the US must have a nuclear deterrent large enough to address these capabilities.

1.  As to whether your nation needs to deter other nations from attacking it is a question that I feel is being ignored here.  2.  What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody.

1.  Ignored?  I addressed it head on.
2.  Straw man argument followed by a "victim" statement?  The nations of the world all suffer because of the US victimizes them through threats?  Vitriol, and yet again, you've provided no supported facts.


6.  The PRC, Russia, Iran and N Korea are not behaving as good neighbors.  Begin by looking at the relations they have with countries on their borders.  The US is forced to respond to these behavior problems.

In part I agree however, being "good" or "bad" as far as neighbours are concerned, often is dependent upon the viewpoint.  The PRC is acting badly in the South China Sea but it's acting good in other areas.  Iran ditto.  Russia?  The same again.  Only the DPRK is distinctly badly behaved, all the time.   Understandable considering it's history and it's internal politics.  Doesn't excuse it but it makes it understandable to a degree IMO.


Please provide supported facts as to ways the PRC is acting "good" in your opinion.  By including this statement in your response you're implying that this "good" behavior mitigates the "bad" behavior.  I'd like to make these comparisons myself.


7.  This is not a peaceful world.  There are those for whom the rights of an individual human being mean little or absolutely nothing.  The State is more important.  We should work to change those minds.  But in the meantime, the US and its triad of nuclear deterrent the best chance the world has to continue the level of stability that has allowed..

Poverty reduction worldwide from 60% in 1950 to 20% today.
Poverty reduction in China from over 80% in 1980 to ~15% today.
Reduction in combat deaths from 240 per million in 1950 to less than 10 per million in 2007.
Deaths by famine have dropped from over 18 million in the 1960's to less than 4 million in the 1990's
Increases in male height (evidence of malnutrition reductions) by ~10cm on all continents except Africa.

But, maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps some other country for whom the rights of an individual human being are paramount will step into this position to continue the positive results we've seen since the 1950's.

China?
Russia?
Iran?
North Korea?
the United Kingdom?
France?
India?
Israel?

Do nuclear weapons offer a risk reduction calculus for the United States and the world against totalitarian governments using theirs?  Yes
Is it expensive?  Yes

I guess we better hope that the US is willing to continue to pay for this deterrent.

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it's basis is incorrect.  The US has contributed to both stability and chaos over the decades since WWII.   It is not completely blameless, just as no other nation is completely blameless.   I find it not unusual that you ignore the role of the UNO in these matters.   Does the US contribute to international stability?  Without a doubt.   Does it however, also contribute to international instability?  Without a doubt.   The circumstances of the world has changed.  It is quite a lot less violent than what it was.  Have nuclear weapons contributed to that reduction in violence?   Yes.   Have they also contributed to the violence?   Yes.

There you go again.  Provide supported facts as to how my "basis is incorrect".

You state the circumstances of the world have changed - in it's own sentence.
You state the world is quite a lot less violent than it was - in it's own sentence.
You state that nuclear weapons contributed to that reduction in violence.
You conveniently left out the fact that US nuclear weapons enabled the reduction in violence.
You claim that nuclear weapons contributed to the violence.

You're implying that the marked international stability and reduction in violence, guaranteed by US military power, which has allowed the transformation of the world by the statistics I provided, is not primarily made possible because of the US military power.

Please provide supported facts for your argument. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 08:41:06 am
"What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody."

History disagrees most vehemently with that statement.  Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China.  One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 03, 2016, 09:35:42 am
"What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody."

History disagrees most vehemently with that statement.  Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China.  One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
Barely able to contain myself what I want to post would probably get me suspended.

But they wouldn't have to even have to directly attack the US, the mere threat of mushroom clouds over Seattle and LA, for example, would preclude any intervention in Taiwan or anywhere else in Asia form Chinese hegemony.

Same with the Baltic states or any former Warsaw Pact countries under Russian attack.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 09:57:24 am
"What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody."

History disagrees most vehemently with that statement.  Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China.  One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
Barely able to contain myself what I want to post would probably get me suspended.

But they wouldn't have to even have to directly attack the US, the mere threat of mushroom clouds over Seattle and LA, for example, would preclude any intervention in Taiwan or anywhere else in Asia form Chinese hegemony.

Same with the Baltic states or any former Warsaw Pact countries under Russian attack.

Yep.  I conclude this is simply a troll.  Nobody could be stupid enough to think it would end well. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 03, 2016, 10:34:13 am
"What would happen if the US was to unilaterally destroy all it's nuclear weapons?  Would they suffer destruction at the hands of the Russians/PRC/DPRK/India/Pakistan?   I doubt it.   Perhaps if they learnt to talk rather than threaten, things might be easier for everybody."

History disagrees most vehemently with that statement.  Funny how it's always the US certain people think should unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons and not Russia or China.  One might almost think they had ulterior motives.
Barely able to contain myself what I want to post would probably get me suspended.

But they wouldn't have to even have to directly attack the US, the mere threat of mushroom clouds over Seattle and LA, for example, would preclude any intervention in Taiwan or anywhere else in Asia form Chinese hegemony.

Same with the Baltic states or any former Warsaw Pact countries under Russian attack.

Yep.  I conclude this is simply a troll.  Nobody could be stupid enough to think it would end well.

I don't know if I agree.  There are many that want to believe that governments and individuals will not behave in ways that will be to the detriment of others.  Perhaps that is the understanding of this poster.  I do agree that history does not support this conclusion.

We would all agree that there is no perfect government.  Governments are made up of individuals.  It is precisely for that reason that the US has three branches with checks and balances between each.  It's a messy solution but it has produced the positive results that have been documented.

It is the spirit of the United States that is the "beacon of hope" around the world.  Even folks from North Korea that escape through the PRC do not wish to stay in the PRC.  They want to get to South Korea or the United States.

My point is the same.  The US military might has enabled the largest and prolonged increases in standard of living throughout the world.  This persons pointed attacks will not change that fact.

We do know that there are those that are compensated to encourage the mindset put forward by this poster.  I'm not suggesting that this is the case in this instance.  We have the benefit of being able to look back through this posters comments to see the positions espoused and the methods used.  On this particularly thread, there have been specific, targeted, calculated and, so far, unsupported statements to provide a revisionist history.  It's important that these statements always be identified, examined and "brought into the light." 

Perhaps through the demanding of rigorous, arguments, supported by facts, this poster will eventually come to a different conclusion.  The alternative is that governments and individuals who are bad actors will continue to have people they can sway to encourage continued strife.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 11:06:36 am
Hmmmm.  Maybe.  But I can't think of any examples where intentionally weakening one's self has resulted in everybody else doing the same.  No matter how "enlightened" we might want to think humanity is there are always predators and prey.  One sees that at every level of life, from the animal kingdom, to the playground, to entire countries on the world stage.  To think that, somehow, it would be different this time, when all of human history shows the opposite, displays a dangerous lack of awareness.  If an individual wants to move to a dangerous neighborhood and then take all the locks off their house and throw a "gun free zone" sign in their front yard that's one thing.  To try to impose that on an entire country. . .yeah.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 03, 2016, 11:15:12 am
Hmmmm.  Maybe.  But I can't think of any examples where intentionally weakening one's self has resulted in everybody else doing the same.  No matter how "enlightened" we might want to think humanity is there are always predators and prey.  One sees that at every level of life, from the animal kingdom, to the playground, to entire countries on the world stage.  To think that, somehow, it would be different this time, when all of human history shows the opposite, displays a dangerous lack of awareness.  If an individual wants to move to a dangerous neighborhood and then take all the locks off their house and throw a "gun free zone" sign in their front yard that's one thing.  To try to impose that on an entire country. . .yeah.

Oh, misunderstanding... I just meant that the poster might not be a troll.  I totally agree that it wouldn't end well.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 03, 2016, 11:21:21 am
I don't agree with nearly all of what Kadija Man said but I also don't think it is fair to label him (or her) a troll just because you don't agree with he said.
I also don't think anything he said was particularly offensive or beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

This website needs to be able to accommodate more than one perspective, especially in what are intended as "discussion" topics; just like the outside world a bit of tolerance goes a long way.
Otherwise this just becomes another internet echo chamber.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 03, 2016, 11:25:22 am
I don't agree with nearly all of what Kadija Man said but I also don't think it is fair to label him (or her) a troll just because you don't agree with he said.
I also don't think anything he said was particularly offensive or beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

This website needs to be able to accommodate more than one perspective, especially in what are intended as "discussion" topics; just like the outside world a bit of tolerance goes a long way.
Otherwise this just becomes another internet echo chamber.

I agree that reasoned discussion is the key.  Arguments need to be reasoned and substantiated.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 11:39:44 am
I don't agree with nearly all of what Kadija Man said but I also don't think it is fair to label him (or her) a troll just because you don't agree with he said.

Wasn't labeling them a troll because of their opinion.  I suspect they're trolling because it beggars belief that, considering how Russia and China are treating their neighbors, as well as historical precedent, that anybody could honestly believe that laying one's head on the block could end well.  They would quite literally be putting the life of the country at the mercy of those with a track record of showing anything but.  If they're honestly sincere then I apologize.  I would question what they base their beliefs on though.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on May 03, 2016, 02:29:04 pm
US had the world's largest stockpiles and after May 1945 had access to large quantities of the German nerve agents Sarin and Tabun.

Actually, it was the UK who had the German nerve agents. the CCS/JCS recommended that filled German aerial bombs with nerve agents be held for possible use in the Far East.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on May 03, 2016, 02:33:33 pm
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

 :o

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/canadianarmypacificforce.htm

Quote
The Canadian Army Pacific Force was raised in 1945 as a field force intended to participate in the last phase of The War Against Japan, an anticipated Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in the last phase of the Second World War. The CAPF was based on an infantry division structure, however, to increase operability with the Americans, certain units bore US organizational structures and names. As well, Canadian units went into training with US weapons to ease logistical concerns.

Major General Bert Hoffmeister was named to command the division, and the three Infantry Regiments (the equivalent of a Canadian brigade) had battalions bearing the name of those infantry battalions that had fought with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in Europe.

When the atomic bombings brought the war to a swift close in Aug and Sep 1945, the CAPF was disbanded. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 03, 2016, 02:46:06 pm
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

 :o

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/canadianarmypacificforce.htm

Quote
The Canadian Army Pacific Force was raised in 1945 as a field force intended to participate in the last phase of The War Against Japan, an anticipated Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in the last phase of the Second World War. The CAPF was based on an infantry division structure, however, to increase operability with the Americans, certain units bore US organizational structures and names. As well, Canadian units went into training with US weapons to ease logistical concerns.

Major General Bert Hoffmeister was named to command the division, and the three Infantry Regiments (the equivalent of a Canadian brigade) had battalions bearing the name of those infantry battalions that had fought with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in Europe.

When the atomic bombings brought the war to a swift close in Aug and Sep 1945, the CAPF was disbanded. 

A blogged review of a book about Gen Hoffmeister.

http://madpadre.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-im-reading-soldiers-general-bert.html

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 03, 2016, 03:49:40 pm
US had the world's largest stockpiles and after May 1945 had access to large quantities of the German nerve agents Sarin and Tabun.

Actually, it was the UK who had the German nerve agents. the CCS/JCS recommended that filled German aerial bombs with nerve agents be held for possible use in the Far East.

The US had captured 23,000 tons of GA (Tabun) fill aerial bombs and 6,000 tons of GA fill 105mm artillery projectiles.

20,000 tons of GA fill aerial bombs were immediately allocated for use in the Far East but the artillery projectiles had to be
drained and their contents transferred to 4.2 inch mortar shells which may or may not have been accomplished in time for OLYMPIC.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 03, 2016, 03:59:04 pm
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula)

"Secret Soviet-American Cooperation in the War Against Japan" -> transfer of US landing craft (and other vessels) that helped facilitate  Soviet amphibious operations at Sakhalin and the Kurils.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 04, 2016, 02:18:11 am
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

 :o

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/canadianarmypacificforce.htm

Quote
The Canadian Army Pacific Force was raised in 1945 as a field force intended to participate in the last phase of The War Against Japan, an anticipated Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in the last phase of the Second World War. The CAPF was based on an infantry division structure, however, to increase operability with the Americans, certain units bore US organizational structures and names. As well, Canadian units went into training with US weapons to ease logistical concerns.

Major General Bert Hoffmeister was named to command the division, and the three Infantry Regiments (the equivalent of a Canadian brigade) had battalions bearing the name of those infantry battalions that had fought with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in Europe.

When the atomic bombings brought the war to a swift close in Aug and Sep 1945, the CAPF was disbanded. 

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 04, 2016, 07:08:07 am
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

 :o

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/canadianarmypacificforce.htm

Quote
The Canadian Army Pacific Force was raised in 1945 as a field force intended to participate in the last phase of The War Against Japan, an anticipated Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in the last phase of the Second World War. The CAPF was based on an infantry division structure, however, to increase operability with the Americans, certain units bore US organizational structures and names. As well, Canadian units went into training with US weapons to ease logistical concerns.

Major General Bert Hoffmeister was named to command the division, and the three Infantry Regiments (the equivalent of a Canadian brigade) had battalions bearing the name of those infantry battalions that had fought with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in Europe.

When the atomic bombings brought the war to a swift close in Aug and Sep 1945, the CAPF was disbanded. 

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

There you are.  We were afraid you'd left us.

Are you back to this narrative that the US sidelined Australian troops to seek primacy in the world?  After which...

"     US Government agencies were created and took control of the world's economy.  American attitudes increasingly became and remain amongst some Americans a case of "Well we're doing all the fighting, so we should reap all the rewards..."'

What's it going to take for you to decide the US is not the evil empire you were portraying yesterday?

---

If you'd like I'm willing to PM with you concerning US-Australian relations.  It seems like that's the core of your issue.

We seem to be way off topic from Nuclear Weapons


 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 04, 2016, 11:34:35 am

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

In offensive operations, the Australians were almost completely dependent on US logistical, naval and air support which competed with other (much larger) US operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific theaters. 

Such competition would have been a non-issue for DOWNFALL which would have been the only operation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Bill Walker on May 04, 2016, 05:23:02 pm
Allies were sidelined and prevented from contributing to the defeat of Japan.

 :o

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/canadianarmypacificforce.htm

Quote
The Canadian Army Pacific Force was raised in 1945 as a field force intended to participate in the last phase of The War Against Japan, an anticipated Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in the last phase of the Second World War. The CAPF was based on an infantry division structure, however, to increase operability with the Americans, certain units bore US organizational structures and names. As well, Canadian units went into training with US weapons to ease logistical concerns.

Major General Bert Hoffmeister was named to command the division, and the three Infantry Regiments (the equivalent of a Canadian brigade) had battalions bearing the name of those infantry battalions that had fought with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division in Europe.

When the atomic bombings brought the war to a swift close in Aug and Sep 1945, the CAPF was disbanded. 

And don't forget Tiger Force, a joint RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF Bombing Group, roughly equivalent in size to an RAF Bomber Command Group.  Training of the Canadian squadrons in Canada, recently brought home from the UK, was under way when the war ended.  Canadian Lancaster production was being converted to Lincoln production at this time, in anticipation of another year or more of war.  Also, many RCN assets were being transferred to the Pacific at this time.  All the Canadian contribution were volunteers, and the size of the commitment was much smaller than Canada's contribution in Europe, largely because the Canadian public had little stomach left for war.  Unlike the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand, Canada had little or no history of involvement in Asia or the western Pacific, but the intent was to be involved in the invasion of Japan.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 04, 2016, 07:09:37 pm
In offensive operations, the Australians were almost completely dependent on US logistical, naval and air support which competed with other (much larger) US operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific theaters. 

The logistics and combat support relationship wasn't so simple. It was integrated not dependent. Lend Lease worked in both directions and Australia supplied as much as it gained. The things Australia supplied US forces in the Pacific were not things the US couldn't source from their homeland (food, repair, etc) but since Australia was closer to the action this supply saved shipping. Shipping capacity was one of the main limitations during WW2 for the Allies. The further you have to ship stuff with a finite supply of ships means the longer it takes to build up your forces and logistics for a campaign.

As to combat support (air, amphibs, navy, etc) Australia had most of this stuff and the few things it didn't have (carriers) it had the option of acquiring from the UK but chose not to keep integrated with US forces. So if Australia wanted to conduct independent operations it could have. But we kept our Navy integrated with the USN (the first ship hit by a Kamikaze was HMAS Australia at one of the Phillipines air-sea battles) and the Army/Air Force under MacArthur's SW Pacific Command.

Such competition would have been a non-issue for DOWNFALL which would have been the only operation.

Australia didn't want to compete with US operations we wanted to be a part of them. But we were left out. An Australian division was meant to be landing at Leyte and then later on Okinawa. But US high command kept dropping them from the ORBAT. This was greatly resented and seen as a political move to hog the final victory despite the shared burden and blood of the REAL victory: the turning of the tide.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 04, 2016, 07:24:06 pm
There you are.  We were afraid you'd left us.

Please don't accept that particular source of opinion as represenative of Australian thinking on whatever issue is at question.

Are you back to this narrative that the US sidelined Australian troops to seek primacy in the world?  After which...

The US achieved global primacy in 1916 when all the other great powers or potential great powers became either dependent on its financial sector to survive  (UK, France, Italy, Russia, China) or faced inevitable destruction (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Turkey) from the weapons (built in America) that American money supplied. Ironically the only country in a similar financial and economic position as the USA in 1916 (though at a much smaller scale) was Japan. Though the Japanese leadership at this time strongly acknowledged the primacy of America's global position. Something the next generation of Japanese leadership would bet against to their eventual dismay.

What's it going to take for you to decide the US is not the evil empire you were portraying yesterday?

Unfortunately this phenomon is only countered through an actual  objective understanding of analysis of history and the contemporary state of the world. But most people are bombarded with a simplistic, post-modern inspired (ie the strong are always evil), subjective understandings of history and the world via the mass media (including the Big Bull Shit (BBS) Industry: the liberal arts communities of most high education) that preaches the "evil empire" nonsense (as part of a wide catalogue of other nonsense).

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 04, 2016, 07:48:32 pm
Hmmmm.  Maybe.  But I can't think of any examples where intentionally weakening one's self has resulted in everybody else doing the same.  No matter how "enlightened" we might want to think humanity is there are always predators and prey.  One sees that at every level of life, from the animal kingdom, to the playground, to entire countries on the world stage.  To think that, somehow, it would be different this time, when all of human history shows the opposite, displays a dangerous lack of awareness.  If an individual wants to move to a dangerous neighborhood and then take all the locks off their house and throw a "gun free zone" sign in their front yard that's one thing.  To try to impose that on an entire country. . .yeah.

The practice of applying the scientific method to the study of society is only very new but it is already providing startling confirmation of what has been generally held as wise insight for some time. By the scientific method I mean its actual definition including verifiable and repeatable experimentation analysed by mathematics. Most social “science” to date has just been opinion (in many cases very informed opinion) that seems to be a good explanation of why we do the sh#t we do. Of course this scientific understanding of society, Cliodynamics (sure a dumb name but so was Aeroplane until we got used to it), is highly unpopular with the people who have been making a living of using their opinions to influence understanding of human society.

Anyway Cliodynamics is demonstrating that the key issue in the success of human societies over other human societies is cooperation. And that our past 10,000 years of warfare driven human competition has provided the evolutionary razor to develop our highly cooperative societies we have today.

In effect evolution drives out predators from within societies. Because those societies that have high internal predation just can’t succeed against those that do. Which of course should ring huge alarm bells for anyone interested in the long term success of American society. But not in competition with Russia, China, India, Iran or “Arabia”. These societies have even worse internal predation than America.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 04, 2016, 09:26:40 pm
There you are.  We were afraid you'd left us.

Please don't accept that particular source of opinion as represenative of Australian thinking on whatever issue is at question.

I certainly don't.  There is a very deep, long and respectful relationship between the United States and Australia at a political level.  Probably even more so at the personal level. 

I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest of the US.  That same "can do", "get it done", "big sky", "personal responsibility", adventurous attitude is what I've found with most Australians I've had the pleasure of meeting.

This is why that particular source is perplexing.  It almost seems as if this source is not originally from Australia.

Are you back to this narrative that the US sidelined Australian troops to seek primacy in the world?  After which...

The US achieved global primacy in 1916 when all the other great powers or potential great powers became either dependent on its financial sector to survive  (UK, France, Italy, Russia, China) or faced inevitable destruction (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Turkey) from the weapons (built in America) that American money supplied. Ironically the only country in a similar financial and economic position as the USA in 1916 (though at a much smaller scale) was Japan. Though the Japanese leadership at this time strongly acknowledged the primacy of America's global position. Something the next generation of Japanese leadership would bet against to their eventual dismay.


Achieving global primacy, then recognizing and acting in a positive way on the responsibility of that position is much different than the seeking for nafarious purposes as suggested by that source.

What's it going to take for you to decide the US is not the evil empire you were portraying yesterday?

Unfortunately this phenomon is only countered through an actual  objective understanding of analysis of history and the contemporary state of the world. But most people are bombarded with a simplistic, post-modern inspired (ie the strong are always evil), subjective understandings of history and the world via the mass media (including the Big Bull Shit (BBS) Industry: the liberal arts communities of most high education) that preaches the "evil empire" nonsense (as part of a wide catalogue of other nonsense).

Amen brother.

It's important to engage these incorrect conclusions with a reasoned, objective approach.  The goal is to encourage the rejection of subjective understandings to be part of a positive solution to the difficult problems facing us our childrens' futures.

Thank you for your insightful input Abraham.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on May 04, 2016, 09:43:46 pm
Hmmmm.  Maybe.  But I can't think of any examples where intentionally weakening one's self has resulted in everybody else doing the same.  No matter how "enlightened" we might want to think humanity is there are always predators and prey.  One sees that at every level of life, from the animal kingdom, to the playground, to entire countries on the world stage.  To think that, somehow, it would be different this time, when all of human history shows the opposite, displays a dangerous lack of awareness.  If an individual wants to move to a dangerous neighborhood and then take all the locks off their house and throw a "gun free zone" sign in their front yard that's one thing.  To try to impose that on an entire country. . .yeah.

The practice of applying the scientific method to the study of society is only very new but it is already providing startling confirmation of what has been generally held as wise insight for some time. By the scientific method I mean its actual definition including verifiable and repeatable experimentation analysed by mathematics. Most social “science” to date has just been opinion (in many cases very informed opinion) that seems to be a good explanation of why we do the sh#t we do. Of course this scientific understanding of society, Cliodynamics (sure a dumb name but so was Aeroplane until we got used to it), is highly unpopular with the people who have been making a living of using their opinions to influence understanding of human society.

Anyway Cliodynamics is demonstrating that the key issue in the success of human societies over other human societies is cooperation. And that our past 10,000 years of warfare driven human competition has provided the evolutionary razor to develop our highly cooperative societies we have today.

In effect evolution drives out predators from within societies. Because those societies that have high internal predation just can’t succeed against those that do. Which of course should ring huge alarm bells for anyone interested in the long term success of American society. But not in competition with Russia, China, India, Iran or “Arabia”. These societies have even worse internal predation than America.

Interesting concept.  A professors dream - lots of research to undertake.  Thanks for including the article.

It seems like there are a huge number of variables to consider.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 04, 2016, 09:53:49 pm
There you are.  We were afraid you'd left us.

 ::)

Quote
Are you back to this narrative that the US sidelined Australian troops to seek primacy in the world?  After which...

"     US Government agencies were created and took control of the world's economy.  American attitudes increasingly became and remain amongst some Americans a case of "Well we're doing all the fighting, so we should reap all the rewards..."'

What's it going to take for you to decide the US is not the evil empire you were portraying yesterday?

The US is not an "evil empire" and I've never used those words, so, please don't try attempting to erect a strawman characterisation of my attitude towards the USA.   

I don't hate the USA, I find it interesting how blind many Americans are to the motivations behind what the USA does, that's all.   All my life I have read and watched the USA moving consistently to ensure that it is the top most nation in the world's pecking order.  Is that "evil"?  I'm sure from the perspective of most Americans it isn't perceived as such.   The process whereby so much of the world's aspirations and worth is trampled by Washington is quite deplorable IMO but to describe it as "evil" is IMO a bit excessive.    What do you think?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 04, 2016, 10:22:24 pm

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

In offensive operations, the Australians were almost completely dependent on US logistical, naval and air support which competed with other (much larger) US operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific theaters. 

I'd suggest your characterisation of Australia's logistics as being "almost completely dependent on the US" as being non-sensical.  By 1944, Australia had the largest proportion of it's effective manpower in uniform compared to all other combatants (approximately a seventh of the total population - 1 million out of 7 million).  So much so, that the troops had to be demobilised in 1945, to keep the civilian economy going.)  Our industries were producing all the small arms, artillery and aircraft that we required.  What we lacked was ships to carry our troops forward, which the US was not willing to provide because it favoured the use of it's own troops because Australia was not willing to remain acquiescent in the Allied conferences and potential treaty discussions.  Washington (and London) could not accept that Australia was a free and independent nation, not a colony of the British Empire.   We had faced down Churchill in 1941-2 over the misuse of Australian troops in Malaya and Burma.  We had faced down Washington when Australia and New Zealand signed the ANZAC Pact in 1944.   Washington retaliated by sidelining our forces to meaningless campaigns in the Islands to our North against Japanese forces which had been bypassed.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 05, 2016, 07:15:46 am
There you are.  We were afraid you'd left us.

Please don't accept that particular source of opinion as represenative of Australian thinking on whatever issue is at question.

I certainly don't.  There is a very deep, long and respectful relationship between the United States and Australia at a political level.  Probably even more so at the personal level. 

I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest of the US.  That same "can do", "get it done", "big sky", "personal responsibility", adventurous attitude is what I've found with most Australians I've had the pleasure of meeting.

This is why that particular source is perplexing.  It almost seems as if this source is not originally from Australia.

I don't claim to represent anybody other than myself.  I have long studied American politics and foreign policy.  I don't claim to be perfect but I have more knowledge than many here appear to credit me with, yourself included.  I would suggest that your knowledge of Australians is rather limited if you find my viewpoint unusual.

Are you back to this narrative that the US sidelined Australian troops to seek primacy in the world?  After which...

The US achieved global primacy in 1916 when all the other great powers or potential great powers became either dependent on its financial sector to survive  (UK, France, Italy, Russia, China) or faced inevitable destruction (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Turkey) from the weapons (built in America) that American money supplied. Ironically the only country in a similar financial and economic position as the USA in 1916 (though at a much smaller scale) was Japan. Though the Japanese leadership at this time strongly acknowledged the primacy of America's global position. Something the next generation of Japanese leadership would bet against to their eventual dismay.


Achieving global primacy, then recognizing and acting in a positive way on the responsibility of that position is much different than the seeking for nafarious purposes as suggested by that source.
[/quote]

It all depends upon perspective, I would suggest and by the way, the word you're looking for is "nefarious".  A word I have not used and so, again I'd ask you to please not create a strawman argument which I have not used.

The US acts out of self-interest, tempered to some degree by a belief that it's self-interest is what the world needs.   In reality, as experience has shown, US self-interest is not necessary good for the rest of the world.  I am sure the people of Indo-China, Iraq, Afghanistan and most of Latin and Southern America would question that.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 05, 2016, 03:33:47 pm

Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

In offensive operations, the Australians were almost completely dependent on US logistical, naval and air support which competed with other (much larger) US operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific theaters. 

I'd suggest your characterisation of Australia's logistics as being "almost completely dependent on the US" as being non-sensical.  By 1944, Australia had the largest proportion of it's effective manpower in uniform compared to all other combatants (approximately a seventh of the total population - 1 million out of 7 million).  So much so, that the troops had to be demobilised in 1945, to keep the civilian economy going.)  Our industries were producing all the small arms, artillery and aircraft that we required.  What we lacked was ships to carry our troops forward, which the US was not willing to provide because it favoured the use of it's own troops because Australia was not willing to remain acquiescent in the Allied conferences and potential treaty discussions.  Washington (and London) could not accept that Australia was a free and independent nation, not a colony of the British Empire.   We had faced down Churchill in 1941-2 over the misuse of Australian troops in Malaya and Burma.  We had faced down Washington when Australia and New Zealand signed the ANZAC Pact in 1944.   Washington retaliated by sidelining our forces to meaningless campaigns in the Islands to our North against Japanese forces which had been bypassed.

I'm not trying to denigrate the fighting qualities of the Australian armed forces just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters,
long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.
All of the above are rather vital to successful offensive operations in the Pacific.

Given that shipping was in short supply even for the better provisioned Central Pacific Area, there's no conspiracy needed to explain the paucity of shipping available for operations in the Southwest Pacific
Area.

And just to put things in perspective: to support Downfall, the US was deploying, just from the ETO, the equivalent of the entire Australian army at its maximum (1942) size during WWII.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on May 05, 2016, 03:59:43 pm
just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters, long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.

In overall numbers sure. But in a ratio of the above to divisions it was about the same as US forces. Australia was NOT deficient in the kind of enablers needed to launch an amphibious assault in WWII. Which is why were able to successfully conduct a multi division amphibious assault across multiple points on Borneo from national resources.

And just to put things in perspective: to support Downfall, the US was deploying, just from the ETO, the equivalent of the entire Australian army at its maximum (1942) size during WWII.

Yes the USA was and is bigger than Australia. But the point is not that Australia was unable to launch offensive operations in the later part of the war but was not able to deploy land and air forces against the Japanese heartland. This was because the Australian Army and RAAF were not included in the operational orders of battle. The RAN was because it was integrated with the USN and Admiral Nimitz didn’t mind using ships under the White Ensign (even if he had to supply them like the BPF). But General MacArthur in command of air-land forces kept things all Stars & Stripes (only after he had a surplus of forces) even if it meant deploying green American divisions rather than veteran Australian divisions.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 05, 2016, 09:40:15 pm
I'm not trying to denigrate the fighting qualities of the Australian armed forces just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters,

If you look, you'll find the USAAF and USN also lacked those aircraft for most of the Pacific war.  The RAAF was re-equipping with B-24 Liberators.  It had Mosquito recce aircraft and Catalina flying boats.  We were the fifth largest air force in the world in 1945, with several thousand aircraft at our disposal.   What we lacked were bases from which to operate them in range of the Japanese home islands.

Quote
long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.

Most of Macarthur's amphibious forces up until late 1943 were manufactured in Australia.  In 1945, we were able. utilising primarily our own resources to conduct a multi-divisional amphibious assault on Borneo.

You appear to believe that the Australia forces of 1945 were like the Australian forces of 1939.  They weren't.  They were well equipped and extremely capable.  The Japanese feared Australian forces whenever they encountered them.

Quote
All of the above are rather vital to successful offensive operations in the Pacific.

Yes and what we lacked, we lacked not because we couldn't operate them but because they were purposefully denied to us by our Allies.  A fact that many here appear unwilling to understand.

Quote
Given that shipping was in short supply even for the better provisioned Central Pacific Area, there's no conspiracy needed to explain the paucity of shipping available for operations in the Southwest Pacific
Area.

We weren't asking for separate operations.  We were asking to be included in joint operations.

Quote
And just to put things in perspective: to support Downfall, the US was deploying, just from the ETO, the equivalent of the entire Australian army at its maximum (1942) size during WWII.

And why redeploy them from Europe when you had a much larger Australian Army available, already, in the theatre?

Because they were American and denying Australia a place in the operations meant it was possible to deny Australia a place in the treaty negotiations.

Wilson had learnt his lesson in 1918 - keep those rowdy, unruly, Australians out!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 05, 2016, 10:18:49 pm
just pointing out that it had very few long range bombers, long range recon aircraft, long range fighters, long range troop and transport aircraft, LSTs, AKAs, APAs, LCIs, LVTs, destroyers, cruisers, minesweepers, submarines, merchantmen etc.

In overall numbers sure. But in a ratio of the above to divisions it was about the same as US forces. Australia was NOT deficient in the kind of enablers needed to launch an amphibious assault in WWII. Which is why were able to successfully conduct a multi division amphibious assault across multiple points on Borneo from national resources.

Actually, the Borneo Campaign (which had to be drastically scaled back because MacArthur could not secure adequate shipping) proves my point.
Just look at the Naval forces for "Oboe Two", the Balikpapan invasion, which consisted of one USN amphibious task group, one USN covering group and one USN escort carrier group which were augmented by a handful of Australian ships.  "Oboe One" and "Oboe Six" look little different and the composition of the air forces is even more lopsidedly USAAF.



Yes the USA was and is bigger than Australia. But the point is not that Australia was unable to launch offensive operations in the later part of the war but was not able to deploy land and air forces against the Japanese heartland. This was because the Australian Army and RAAF were not included in the operational orders of battle. The RAN was because it was integrated with the USN and Admiral Nimitz didn’t mind using ships under the White Ensign (even if he had to supply them like the BPF). But General MacArthur in command of air-land forces kept things all Stars & Stripes (only after he had a surplus of forces) even if it meant deploying green American divisions rather than veteran Australian divisions.

As Borneo demonstrated, Australian forces were almost completely dependent on USN and USAAF assets for offensive operations with the added and undesirable quirk of using equipment and weaponry that was incompatible  logistically.  For a protracted campaign, like Downfall, that added logistical complexity would tend to undermine the advantage of having more experienced units which is precisely why the Commonwealth Corps were to be outfitted with US equipment.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 05, 2016, 10:49:57 pm
Actual discussion of nuclear weapons - Dr. Mark Schneider of National Institute of Public Policy.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/05/05/russias-nuclear-superiority/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 05, 2016, 11:50:26 pm

And why redeploy them from Europe when you had a much larger Australian Army available, already, in the theatre?

Because they were American and denying Australia a place in the operations meant it was possible to deny Australia a place in the treaty negotiations.

Wilson had learnt his lesson in 1918 - keep those rowdy, unruly, Australians out!

I'm happy to address your individual points about Australia's military contribution and offensive capability but let me return to your central claim:

Quote
Yet, at the same time  Australian troops had steadily been sidelined from 1944.  The US wasn't interested in them going forward to Japan until the realities of the supposed casualty rates for Coronet and Downfall hit home.

From Australia's official Second World War Histories (Volume VI - The New Guinea Offensives) we have this succinct (and non-conspiratorial) estimate of the situation :

Quote
By mid–1944 Australia’s military strength was, for the time being, almost spent, having borne the main burden of the fighting on land in the South–West Pacific from the outset.


Rest, refit, replacement and retraining would preclude major Australian participation in most operations until Borneo.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 06, 2016, 12:48:48 am
Rest, refit, replacement and retraining would preclude major Australian participation in most operations until Borneo.

Date of invasion of Borneo - 1 May - 21 July 1945
Planned date for Operation Olympic and Coronet - October 1945

One significantly predates the other.  Borneo was a sideshow.  Olympic and Coronet was the main event.

Why was the second largest, most experienced force in the Pacific theatre employed on a sideshow instead of the main event?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 06, 2016, 08:53:21 am
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/what-if-israel-didnt-have-nuclear-weapons-15666
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 06, 2016, 09:24:11 am
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-bulletin-us-bankrolls-iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-ambitions

It years past we'd be building a few gibbets
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 06, 2016, 09:29:20 am
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-bulletin-us-bankrolls-iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-ambitions

It years past we'd be building a few gibbets

x2
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 06, 2016, 10:27:57 am
http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

"In an astounding New York Times piece by David Samuels, senior White House officials gleefully confess they use friendly reporters and nonprofits as public relations tools in the selling of President Obama’s foreign policy — and can do it almost at will because these tools are ignorant, will believe what they’re told, will essentially take dictation and are happy to be used just to get the information necessary for a tweet or two.

Their greatest triumph, according to Samuels, was selling a misleading narrative about the nuclear deal with Iran — the parameters of which were set a year before the administration claimed and which had nothing to do with the fact that a supposedly more accommodating government had risen to power.

The mastermind of the Obama machine is Ben Rhodes, a New Yorker who joined the Obama campaign as a speechwriter in 2007 and has risen to become the most influential foreign-policy hand in the White House."

Reminds me of the contempt shown with Obamacare.  Lie to the useful idiots and they lap it up, eager to rubber stamp whatever His Highness decrees. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on May 06, 2016, 01:49:42 pm
Washington (and London) could not accept that Australia was a free and independent nation, not a colony of the British Empire.   We had faced down Churchill in 1941-2 over the misuse of Australian troops in Malaya and Burma.  We had faced down Washington when Australia and New Zealand signed the ANZAC Pact in 1944.   Washington retaliated by sidelining our forces to meaningless campaigns in the Islands to our North against Japanese forces which had been bypassed.

Ahem.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 06, 2016, 04:38:56 pm
http://csis.org/event/us-nuclear-policy-post-2016-conference
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 06, 2016, 10:59:45 pm
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/05/06/us-nuclear-force-must-modernize-deter-russia-and-china-general-says/84022832/

Quote
The Pentagon stopped thinking about nuclear deterrence more than 20 years ago said Lt. Gen. Stephen "Seve" Wilson. The U.S. needs a credible, ready and resilient nuclear force
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Jemiba on May 07, 2016, 07:24:51 am
Please have a look a the title of this thread and then just stay with it !
It's not about the US political system, or the way elections are run there.
Would it be, this thread would be purely a political one ... and then it would be closed!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 08, 2016, 12:41:02 am
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/saudi-israel-officials-talk-nuclear-u-s-/index.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 09, 2016, 09:01:23 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-vs-russia-struggling-undersea-nuclear-supremacy-16116

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/these-russian-nukes-are-better-americas-15926

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/vladimir-putin-shows-off-russias-military-might-de/#disqus_thread
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 09, 2016, 09:19:57 pm
Navy plans to spread lead Ohio Replacement procurement cost over three years

May 09, 2016

The Navy plans to finance the putative procurement cost of the lead ship of the Ohio Replacement Program across three years -- 2021, 2022, and 2023 -- an approach that brings total procurement spending on the first boat in the new ballistic missile submarine class, when advanced procurement beginning in FY-17 is factored in, to seven years.

The Navy, in a draft version of its FY-17 long-range shipbuilding plan, details for the first time in a public document how the service plans to structure its budgets beginning in 2021 to pay for the lead boat. The service also lays out similar plans to incrementally fund the second boat in the fleet over two years.

"To minimize overall impact to other department programs, the Navy is pursuing an incremental funding profile for the lead OR SSBN over the three year period, FY-21 to FY-23, with resources aligned 41 percent (FY-21), 35 percent (FY-22), 24 percent (FY-23)," the draft report states. Inside Defense obtained a copy of the document, first reported by Politico.

In April, the Navy provided Congress a report estimating the lead Ohio replacement submarine would cost $8.8 billion -- excluding non-recurring engineering costs for detail design, the one-time cost to research, design development and test a new product. When these development costs are factored in, the total tab is estimated to be $14.5 billion, according to the Navy report.

The procurement figures in the Navy's draft report account for the lead-ship end cost without non-recurring engineering costs. The service's FY-17 budget proposal includes a $3.6 billion placeholder in FY-21 to pay for the lead boat; a sum equal to 41 percent of $8.8 billion. That would imply plans to spend $3.1 billion in FY-22, 35 percent of $8.8 billion, under a second year of incremental payments and $2.1 billion in FY-22, 24 percent of $8.8 billion, for the third year of incremental payments.

The plan to spread ship procurement cost -- normally budgeted in full the year the vessel is purchased -- over multiple fiscal years appears to have been approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which late last year granted the Navy an increased allowance to budget for the lead boat in FY-21, Navy acquisition executive Sean Stackley told Congress on April 6.

"We don't have a huge spike associated with the first boat in the class," Stackley told the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee last month. "The dollars in '21 with the lead boat -- it's about $3.6 billion in 2021. OMB has provided relief of about two-thirds of that."

The Navy, according to the draft report, plans to again employ incremental funding to finance the second Ohio Replacement boat, spreading the cost for the second submarine across FY-24 and FY-25.

"Once serial production of the OR SSBN begins in FY-26, each successive OR SSBN is planned to be fully funded in the year in which the Navy intends to contract for the vessel," the draft report states.

In addition to the lead ship procurement costs outlined in the draft report, the Ohio Replacement program requires advanced funding. The service's FY-17 budget request includes the first of four years of advanced procurement funding for the new strategic deterrence submarine, including $773 million in FY-17 and $787 million in FY-18 for detailed design work on the new boat.

In FY-19, advanced procurement costs grow to $2.7 billion that include $1.7 billion for nuclear propulsion equipment, $621 million for plans, $215 million for hull, mechanical and electrical work, and $200 million for long-lead items.

In FY-20, the total advanced procurement funding is $1.3 billion, including $514 million for hull, mechanical and electrical work, $100 million for long-lead materials and $613 million for plans.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 11, 2016, 08:53:12 pm
Nukes Are “A Big Bill”

—John A. Tirpak

5/12/2016

Modernizing the nuclear triad is going to cost “$12-$15 billion a year” for a decade or more and will likely crowd out a lot of other crucial programs if the nation doesn’t commit to spending a lot more on defense, Pentagon acquisition, technology, and logistics chief Frank Kendall said Tuesday. Addressing a seminar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Kendall said the nuclear bow wave “really starts to hit” in fiscal year 2021, when virtually all nuclear replacement programs will be underway. They include the new Air Force B-21 bomber and Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile, a new Air Force ICBM to replace the Minuteman, and a replacement for the Ohio-Class nuclear ballistic submarines and their Trident missiles. Kendall said the nuclear modernization effort is one of the top two issues he’ll bequeath upon his successor: the other is “how to do well at acquisition.” Kendall said his slow-and-steady improvements to the acquisition system—codified in the “Better Buying Power” guides, now in their third iteration—have yielded great savings and sharply reduced program slippage and overages. The challenge for his successor, he predicted, will be in accelerating the process without losing the checks and balances necessary to keep things fair, supervised, and on track.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 12, 2016, 12:01:39 am
Could you please provide a link to where you found that information in future.  It would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on May 12, 2016, 04:06:11 pm
Now this is something I can get behind for nuclear modernization.

(found by our good friend FLATERIC, don't know if it's been posted up on SPF yet).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 12, 2016, 04:20:38 pm
As much "cool factor" as it's got it would almost certainly be less efficient than ICBMs in every measurable way.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 12, 2016, 04:37:35 pm
As much "cool factor" as it's got it would almost certainly be less efficient than ICBMs in every measurable way.
And Joe Cirincioni and the Arms Control zealots would be really upset.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 12, 2016, 05:42:03 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-security-dilemma-do-we-need-new-nuclear-tipped-16170
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 13, 2016, 03:44:43 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/washingtons-imaginary-nuclear-arms-race-16190

You want to read some freaks read the comment section on this or almost any military story at this site.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 13, 2016, 03:53:35 pm
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/05/threat-russian-missiles-rise-norad-looks-future/128297/?oref=DefenseOneFB
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 14, 2016, 04:43:22 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-the-kremlin-pullout-the-inf-treaty-16194
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 14, 2016, 06:21:06 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-the-kremlin-pullout-the-inf-treaty-16194

Just don't read the comment section if you value your sanity.

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi847.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab35%2Fbobro15%2F0ad_zpshqynuskw.png%7Eoriginal&hash=239674a177e8885665712f729fda67ce) (http://s847.photobucket.com/user/bobro15/media/0ad_zpshqynuskw.png.html)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 14, 2016, 09:07:09 pm
What a nice way to dismiss those you disagree with.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 15, 2016, 10:19:33 am
STRATCOM Deputy Chief: Air Force Welcomes Protected Fund For Bomber, Nuclear Missile Modernization
 
By Exchange Monitor

Dan Parsons Defense Daily

Both the ground and air legs of the U.S. nuclear triad are in need of replacement and the Air Force would welcome a dedicated fund to pay for their modernization, according to Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy Commander of U.S. Strategic Command.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 15, 2016, 10:51:42 am
STRATCOM Deputy Chief: Air Force Welcomes Protected Fund For Bomber, Nuclear Missile Modernization
 
By Exchange Monitor

Dan Parsons Defense Daily

Both the ground and air legs of the U.S. nuclear triad are in need of replacement and the Air Force would welcome a dedicated fund to pay for their modernization, according to Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy Commander of U.S. Strategic Command.

I'd add the SSBN to that list.  Too important for politicians to be screwing around with the budgets for political points.  *cough* McCain. . .
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 16, 2016, 08:12:15 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/05/16/the_nations_ultimate_insurance_policy_nuclear_weapons_109364.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 16, 2016, 02:52:49 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-encouraging-islamic-republic-keep-illicit-missile-tests-secret/

YGBSM!

"Iran: U.S. Encouraging Islamic Republic to Keep Illicit Missile Tests Secret"

"A senior Iranian military commander claimed that U.S. officials are quietly encouraging the Islamic Republic to keep its illicit ballistic missile tests a secret so as not to raise concerns in the region, according to Persian language comments.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Aerospace and Missile Force, said in recent remarks that the Obama administration does not want Iran to publicize its ongoing missile tests, which have raised questions about the Islamic Republic’s commitment to last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement.

“At this time, the Americans are telling [us]: ‘Don’t talk about missile affairs, and if you conduct a test or maneuver, don’t mention it,’” Hajizadeh was quoted as saying during a recent Persian-language speech that was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute."

This isn't about not rattling Iran's neighbors.  This is ALL about not embarrassing the Obama administration.  That arrogant !@#$!$! rammed this deal down the taxpayer's throat, against the better advice of, well, just about everybody, and now we get to see the results. 

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 16, 2016, 09:39:03 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-encouraging-islamic-republic-keep-illicit-missile-tests-secret/

YGBSM!

"Iran: U.S. Encouraging Islamic Republic to Keep Illicit Missile Tests Secret"

"A senior Iranian military commander claimed that U.S. officials are quietly encouraging the Islamic Republic to keep its illicit ballistic missile tests a secret so as not to raise concerns in the region, according to Persian language comments.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Aerospace and Missile Force, said in recent remarks that the Obama administration does not want Iran to publicize its ongoing missile tests, which have raised questions about the Islamic Republic’s commitment to last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement.

“At this time, the Americans are telling [us]: ‘Don’t talk about missile affairs, and if you conduct a test or maneuver, don’t mention it,’” Hajizadeh was quoted as saying during a recent Persian-language speech that was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute."

This isn't about not rattling Iran's neighbors.  This is ALL about not embarrassing the Obama administration.  That arrogant !@#$!$! rammed this deal down the taxpayer's throat, against the better advice of, well, just about everybody, and now we get to see the results. 


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congressman-classified-details-irans-treatment-u-s-sailors-will-shock-nation/

Quote
Details of the abduction are likely to start an uproar in the nation and call into question the Obama administration’s handling of the incident, which many experts say violated international and maritime law.

“I think that when the details actually come out, most Americans are going to be kind of taken aback by the entire incident, both how Iran handled it and how we handled it,” Forbes disclosed. “I think that’s going to be huge cause for concern for most Americans. That’s why I’ve encouraged members of Congress to get that briefing so they do know exactly what did take place.”

Forbes suggested that Iran’s treatment of the U.S. sailors—which included filming them crying and forcing them to apologize at gunpoint—may have been much worse than what has been publicly reported.

“I think clearly there were violations of international and maritime law that took place here,” Forbes said. “We [the United States] did almost nothing in response, in fact, to have Secretary [of State John] Kerry actually thank them for releasing our sailors after they way they captured them, I think was a slap in the sailors’ face.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 17, 2016, 02:30:55 am
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2016/05/16/shore-up-us-nuclear-program/84320266/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 17, 2016, 09:13:13 pm
http://www.stimson.org/content/lure-and-pitfalls-mirvs-first-second-nuclear-age

We made it easier for China to achieve parity by cutting way below what was necessary. Should have stayed at START I 1200 launchers 6500 warheads, with active warhead research into next generation warheads and 'warm' production lines able to restart production in a short period of time. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 17, 2016, 10:04:53 pm
Electric Boat will submit Ohio-class replacement proposal next week

General Dynamics Electric Boat on May 20 will submit its proposal to the Navy for detailed design of the multimillion-dollar Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine program, according to a service official.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 19, 2016, 03:59:52 pm
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-us-arms-race/27743573.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 19, 2016, 04:19:55 pm
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-us-arms-race/27743573.html

"A new Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. Upgraded U.S. nuclear gravity bombs and air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. "

Whoa, whoa, hold up.  Russia is actually building NEW ICBMs.  The bomb the US is upgrading was designed in the 60s and probably came of the line thereabouts as well.  And we retired our most advanced nuclear cruise missiles, the AGM-129, and haven't even got powerpoints of what we think we maybe might want going forward, at some undefined time.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: lastdingo on May 19, 2016, 05:24:13 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-encouraging-islamic-republic-keep-illicit-missile-tests-secret/

YGBSM!

"Iran: U.S. Encouraging Islamic Republic to Keep Illicit Missile Tests Secret"

Prove that Iran testing missiles is "illicit" in any way.
Iran is a sovereign nation, they didn't even violate the NPT ever, which the USA surely did for many years.

The hatemongering propaganda against Iran is sickening.
It replaced a look at reality for way too many Americans.

Hint: Persia/Iran didn't attack another country for longer than the United States' existence.
The only war of aggression they were involved them saw them as the victim (of Saddam), with the United States helping the aggressor  Iraq to avert defeat by breaking the Iranian naval blockade. Whatever Iran did in 1979 - it's been much more on the receiving end ever since.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 19, 2016, 11:33:32 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-encouraging-islamic-republic-keep-illicit-missile-tests-secret/

YGBSM!

"Iran: U.S. Encouraging Islamic Republic to Keep Illicit Missile Tests Secret"

Prove that Iran testing missiles is "illicit" in any way.
Iran is a sovereign nation, they didn't even violate the NPT ever, which the USA surely did for many years.

The hatemongering propaganda against Iran is sickening.
It replaced a look at reality for way too many Americans.

Hint: Persia/Iran didn't attack another country for longer than the United States' existence.
The only war of aggression they were involved them saw them as the victim (of Saddam), with the United States helping the aggressor  Iraq to avert defeat by breaking the Iranian naval blockade. Whatever Iran did in 1979 - it's been much more on the receiving end ever since.

Oh, dear.   You will now be marked in the eyes of some Americans forever as being a "Terrorist sympathiser" an an "enemy of the United States of America".  You will have joined the "Axis of Evil"(tm).

So, how does it feel to be a rational, thinking, understanding, human being?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 20, 2016, 08:07:05 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-encouraging-islamic-republic-keep-illicit-missile-tests-secret/

YGBSM!

"Iran: U.S. Encouraging Islamic Republic to Keep Illicit Missile Tests Secret"

Prove that Iran testing missiles is "illicit" in any way.
Iran is a sovereign nation, they didn't even violate the NPT ever, which the USA surely did for many years.

The hatemongering propaganda against Iran is sickening.
It replaced a look at reality for way too many Americans.

Hint: Persia/Iran didn't attack another country for longer than the United States' existence.
The only war of aggression they were involved them saw them as the victim (of Saddam), with the United States helping the aggressor  Iraq to avert defeat by breaking the Iranian naval blockade. Whatever Iran did in 1979 - it's been much more on the receiving end ever since.

Oh, dear.   You will now be marked in the eyes of some Americans forever as being a "Terrorist sympathiser" an an "enemy of the United States of America".  You will have joined the "Axis of Evil"(tm).

So, how does it feel to be a rational, thinking, understanding, human being?

From reading through the article the individual quoted doesn't appear to be the most coherent (appears to be a rough translation) and is of somewhat unclear agenda.

As for the wider point lads I don't think anyone seriously thinks Iran is the place of unblemished virtue as is being suggested; it has its own particular rotten aspects like its rampant anti-semitism (Holocast denial isn't legitimate criticism of specific Israeli governments), support for Assad and other highly dubious allies etc. (I could go on and on).

You don't have to be one of the forums resident ultra-right wing US ultra-nationalists not to buy the Iranian regime's bullshit (while still seeing the nuclear deal as ultimately far more effective and far less damaging than the alternative).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on May 20, 2016, 09:27:33 pm
You don't have to be one of the forums resident ultra-right wing US ultra-nationalists not to buy the Iranian regime's bullshit (while still seeing the nuclear deal as ultimately far more effective and far less damaging than the alternative).

It is how that non-acceptance is projected which is IMHO and other's view on the matter.  Iran is no angel, neither is the USA.   Which is worse?  I have no idea because all views are highly subjective I am only too willing to admit.  Iran is though, a sovereign nation, something some here refuse it seems to accept.  Indeed, they seem to refuse to accept it for any other nation than the USA.  All other nations should Kowtow to Washington in their view.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 23, 2016, 12:06:39 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/obama-falls-chinas-hiroshima-trap-16307
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 23, 2016, 12:20:53 pm
http://www.ifcj.org/news/stand-for-israel/iran-we-can-destroy-israel.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 23, 2016, 02:45:55 pm
http://www.ifcj.org/news/stand-for-israel/iran-we-can-destroy-israel.html

I'm SO glad we got that stellar nuclear deal with Iran. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 23, 2016, 03:27:55 pm
http://www.ifcj.org/news/stand-for-israel/iran-we-can-destroy-israel.html

Yeah, but they can't. At the moment that claim is pure bullshit clearly intended for domestic Iranian consumption.

And even if Iran could at some undetermined point in the future have this capability (which the nuclear deal helps push further into the future than any realistic military action would be likely to do) they would certainly know Israeli nuclear forces that survive their attack (submarines based etc) would destroy them in retaliation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on May 23, 2016, 03:45:36 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/obama-falls-chinas-hiroshima-trap-16307

Have you read the article?
It's analysis in it is poor and superficial (the Chinese government doesn't really give a fig about what Obama does or does not say in Hiroshima, despite what spin might be put in the Chinese state media for domestic consumption).
The article comes across as half-hearted Obama-thrashing click bait.

The facts are that the US nuclear bombs killed a lot of Japanese people and left a particularly unpleasant legacy interms of health consequences for the survivors.
Despite my own views that their use was justified it is right that a sitting US president recognise and express regret at the suffering inflicted, especially given the close and relatively warm relationship the US now enjoys with Japan. This is not an apology for their use and clearly does not create a hierarchy of victims such as in regard to Chinese, Korean or other nations victims of the many crimes of the Japanese Empire before the end of WW2.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 23, 2016, 06:43:57 pm
The Iran Deal Wasn’t About Nukes At All

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/the-iran-deal-wasnt-about-nukes-at-all/

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 24, 2016, 07:22:58 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamanei-us-cant-do-a-damn-thing-about-missile-program/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 24, 2016, 07:26:41 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-24/the-secret-history-of-the-iran-deal-echo-chamber

Quote
But the messaging work from Ploughshares on Iran began long before there was any Iran deal and long before Rhodes convened his regular meetings with progressive groups on shaping the Iran narrative.

Beginning in August 2011, Ploughshares and its grantees formed the Iran Strategy Group. Over time this group created a sophisticated campaign to reshape the national narrative on Iran. That campaign sought to portray skeptics of diplomacy as "pro-war," and to play down the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program before formal negotiations started in 2013 only to emphasize those dangers after there was an agreement in 2015.
Been calling Joe "disarm the US at any cost" Cirincione a propagandist hack for years.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 25, 2016, 07:36:55 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-blackmailing-us/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 25, 2016, 07:39:07 am
http://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/asia/nuclear-standoff-south-asia-1095
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 25, 2016, 07:45:21 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-blackmailing-us/

God what a useless puke.  Sorry but I mean, damn. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 25, 2016, 09:50:19 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-north-korea-secretly-build-iranian-bomb-16140
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: quellish on May 25, 2016, 11:18:08 am
Iran is a sovereign nation, they didn't even violate the NPT ever,

Iran was found non-compliant with the Safeguard Agreement and had a history of not reporting nuclear activity. This resulted in resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1929, etc.

which the USA surely did for many years.

Please illustrate out how the United States was in violation of the NPT.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 26, 2016, 01:16:57 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-iranian-human-rights/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 27, 2016, 12:34:36 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-considers-permitting-advanced-russian-arms-sales-iran/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 27, 2016, 02:07:53 am
http://csbaonline.org/2016/05/25/report-release-extended-deterrence-in-the-second-nuclear-age-geopolitics-proliferation-and-the-future-of-u-s-security-commitments/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 27, 2016, 04:09:56 am
Iran is a sovereign nation, they didn't even violate the NPT ever,

Iran was found non-compliant with the Safeguard Agreement and had a history of not reporting nuclear activity. This resulted in resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1929, etc.

which the USA surely did for many years.

Please illustrate out how the United States was in violation of the NPT.

We seem to be hearing nothing but crickets.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 27, 2016, 09:54:43 am
Could be an interesting read:

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Nuclear-Proliferation-Transforming-Modernization/dp/1612348211?ie=UTF8&keywords=nuclear%20weapons&qid=1464367765&ref_=sr_1_70&s=books&sr=1-70

Quote
China is believed to have doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal, making it “the forgotten nuclear power,” as described in Foreign Affairs. Susan Turner Haynes analyzes China’s buildup and its diversification of increasingly mobile, precise, and sophisticated nuclear weapons. Haynes provides context and clarity on this complex global issue through an analysis of extensive primary source research and lends insight into questions about why China is the only nuclear weapon state recognized under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that continues to pursue qualitative and quantitative advancements to its nuclear force.

Through precipitous and unnecessary disarmament we have invited China to pursue parity which, in effect, gives our adversaries the potential for a much larger arsenal than ours. All this at a time our weapons are withering on the vine and our production capacity for new weapons is basically zero. Dangerous times lie ahead.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 27, 2016, 11:02:34 am
Could be an interesting read:

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Nuclear-Proliferation-Transforming-Modernization/dp/1612348211?ie=UTF8&keywords=nuclear%20weapons&qid=1464367765&ref_=sr_1_70&s=books&sr=1-70

Quote
China is believed to have doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal, making it “the forgotten nuclear power,” as described in Foreign Affairs. Susan Turner Haynes analyzes China’s buildup and its diversification of increasingly mobile, precise, and sophisticated nuclear weapons. Haynes provides context and clarity on this complex global issue through an analysis of extensive primary source research and lends insight into questions about why China is the only nuclear weapon state recognized under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that continues to pursue qualitative and quantitative advancements to its nuclear force.

Through precipitous and unnecessary disarmament we have invited China to pursue parity which, in effect, gives our adversaries the potential for a much larger arsenal than ours. All this at a time our weapons are withering on the vine and our production capacity for new weapons is basically zero. Dangerous times lie ahead.

And we only have our corrupt, power hungry, and/or blind politicians to blame.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 27, 2016, 05:26:31 pm
http://www.voanews.com/content/military-looks-toward-replacement-nuclear-submarines/3347658.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 28, 2016, 09:49:37 am
NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on May 28, 2016, 10:09:03 am
A little off topic but interesting read.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/the-ghosts-of-soviet-past-crawling-through-the-decayed-nuclear-missile-bases-of-the-ussr/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on May 28, 2016, 11:50:00 am
NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer

Oh I wish that was open for comments.  Head hurts with all the dumbth expressed therein.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on May 28, 2016, 12:34:09 pm
NO LRSO gives us the quickest upload and flexibility under New START much needed weapon's upgrade.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/05/26-cancel-air-force-nuclear-lrso-pifer

Oh I wish that was open for comments.  Head hurts with all the dumbth expressed therein.

It was also posted on defensenews.com

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2016/05/26/lrso-does-not-make-sense-nor-do-its-proposed-numbers/84969298/ (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2016/05/26/lrso-does-not-make-sense-nor-do-its-proposed-numbers/84969298/)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 01, 2016, 08:41:01 pm
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/05/extended-deterrence-in-the-second-nuclear-age/

What annoys me is that you read articles condemning the current modernization plan as being "a throwback to the Cold War" its proponents as out of touch "Cold Warriors" when we used to have more nukes in Europe than we now have in our entire arsenal.

If we are going down to 700 launchers and 1550 deployed warheads (and maybe 400 tactical nukes) is it too much to ask that we replace our 30+ years old delivery vehicles and keep a modern and robust weapons infrastructure to possibly hedge against future strategic surprises? 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Russian Nuclear Challenge

—Will Skowronski6/1/2016


​Russia’s apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons in more situations could undermine NATO cohesion, a new Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment report found. “While NATO’s been progressively reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been more recently moving in the exact opposite direction,” author Evan Montgomery said Tuesday while introducing the report. Russian analysts, he said, believe the use of small-yield nuclear weapons would actually de-escalate a conflict by causing an adversary to back down. The new doctrine, Montgomery said, is creating an “emerging gap in the escalation ladder” and challenging US commitments in Europe. To deter Russia from engaging in nuclear coercion, the report proposes NATO incorporate additional nations, including Poland, into the nuclear delivery mission. The report notes many NATO members might see the move as too provocative, but might be open to Polish aircraft being stationed at bases where nuclear weapons are already stored. “So long as other NATO members are willing to host [US] nuclear weapons in peacetime and deliver them during a conflict, the unique structure of the alliance will continue to underpin the credibility of [US] extended deterrence,” Montgomery wrote.


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 06, 2016, 11:19:30 pm
From Heritage Foundation

Strengthen U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities. A modern, flexible, and capable nuclear weapons posture is essential to keeping the U.S. safe, its allies assured, and its enemies deterred. In order to improve the U.S. strategic posture, Congress and the Pentagon should:

◦Oppose misguided arms reductions. Congress should not provide funding for implementation of agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage and that do not benefit U.S. national security—agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia is violating. Congress should not provide funding for unilateral nuclear weapons–reduction efforts while all other nuclear players are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.

◦Modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems are aging and in need of investment. If they are not modernized, the U.S. will soon have inadequate nuclear weapons infrastructure and inadequate nuclear delivery platforms. Further delays increase the overall costs of the programs and leave the U.S. less capable of responding to unexpected developments in the nuclear programs of other nations.

◦Consider the benefits of yield-producing experiments for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Conducting very-small-scale, yield-producing experiments would benefit the science that underpins the program, and the U.S. could gain important benefits; indeed, China and Russia are already conducting such experiments.[21]

◦Advance a “protect-and-defend” strategic posture. At the core of today’s world is a fundamental asymmetry between the values of the U.S. and the values of its adversaries. While the U.S. values the lives of its citizens, economic prosperity, and institutions, U.S. adversaries value leadership survival above all. The U.S. should develop precise means to credibly threaten that which its adversaries value, and deploy both passive and active defenses to remove the benefits that adversaries might gain by attacking the U.S. or its allies.

◦Re-evaluate U.S. strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon currently bases its nuclear posture on the notion that “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.”[22] In light of Russia’s demonstrated recklessness in Ukraine and its nuclear weapons modernization steps, this posture is no longer valid.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 07, 2016, 05:56:23 am
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2016/05/extended-deterrence-in-the-second-nuclear-age/

What annoys me is that you read articles condemning the current modernization plan as being "a throwback to the Cold War" its proponents as out of touch "Cold Warriors" when we used to have more nukes in Europe than we now have in our entire arsenal.

Those are generally written by pacifists who would prefer no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power.  It's their way of insulting those who would prefer America remained America.  Just disgusting.  Hell, we used to have more nukes in our air defense forces than we have in our entire inventory today.  Genies, Nike Hercules, Bomarcs. . .between the three we were probably north of 3000 warheads just right there.   Then there were nuclear Talos and Terrier. . .
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 07, 2016, 09:34:19 am
This just ominously popped up on Twitter but Congressional Quarterly is a paid site can't read the full article.

Quote
Nuclear Modernization Plans May Change in Obama's Last Months
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 07, 2016, 09:43:48 am
Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election.  The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on).  If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 07, 2016, 11:17:10 am
Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election.  The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on).  If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump. 
My gut tells me the LRSO and GBSD are toast and all ICBMs will be withdrawn from service.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 07, 2016, 11:46:05 am
http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-nuclear-deterrence-challenge-in-asia-1465318715#livefyre-comment
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 07, 2016, 12:28:54 pm
Would not be at all surprised to see him cancel them all once it can't affect the election.  The current plans take national defense out of the top 3 voting issues (which democrats are always weak on).  If he cancelled them now it would only help Trump. 
My gut tells me the LRSO and GBSD is toast and all ICBMs will be withdrawn from service.

And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border.  What would stop them?  They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 07, 2016, 01:00:36 pm
Segment 2 Russian Nuke Modernization (although it is all interesting IMHO)

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/06/07/putins-neo-imperial-ambitions/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 08, 2016, 07:58:55 am
UK has 'secretly' upgraded Trident arsenal and developed an entirely new warhead, report finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/08/uk-has-secretly-upgraded-trident-nuclear-weapons-and-developed-a/) (Daily Telegraph)

I'm a bit dubious about this report, especially given the timing...
On the nuclear weapons news thread probably at least a couple of years ago there was an article that there were many US scientists seconded to the British weapons program because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc.

The gist of the article was that this work was being done in the UK, maybe this is the fruits of their labor??
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 08, 2016, 08:02:17 am
"because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc."

You can't make this stuff up.  <facepalm>
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: SOC on June 08, 2016, 08:24:00 am
And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border.  What would stop them?  They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence.

I'm not sure they're putting SSNs on our boomers.  An Ohio is still pretty damn hard to find, and if that was our primary deterrent you can bet that we'd have our own SSNs running interference.

They won't take Canada either (although Arctic region shenanigans are likely regardless...), Russia will only invade non-NATO members.  Georgia, Ukraine, sorta Syria, and Kazakhstan may be next.  And China will be happy to exert more influence over the parts of the South China Sea it thinks it owns rather than try and bother Canucks.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 08, 2016, 08:28:14 am
"because of the restrictions on using ANY monies allocated to the Labs by Congress for work on new warhead research, development, designs, etc."

You can't make this stuff up.  <facepalm>
Here are the relevant passage from the NDAA. Notice the conflicting wording however a nuke expert I talk to says it is impossible to do anything that isn't construed at 'new' or 'enhanced' that you don't have to spend money on. A single scientist/engineer allocated to work on a new design's salary has to be accounted for and therefore the Secretary of Energy has to request approval. That was his interpretation and this is what he does for a living.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 08, 2016, 09:33:43 am
And after that we're pretty much toast. I could see China and Russia tag-teaming and grabbing everything down to the US/Canada border.  What would stop them?  They'd have the resources to put three or four SSNs on each of our SSBNs right out of port and nuclear bombers by themselves aren't much of a deterrence.

I'm not sure they're putting SSNs on our boomers.  An Ohio is still pretty damn hard to find, and if that was our primary deterrent you can bet that we'd have our own SSNs running interference.

They won't take Canada either (although Arctic region shenanigans are likely regardless...), Russia will only invade non-NATO members.  Georgia, Ukraine, sorta Syria, and Kazakhstan may be next.  And China will be happy to exert more influence over the parts of the South China Sea it thinks it owns rather than try and bother Canucks.

China has already tried to assert that it has claims to the Arctic Ocean area because (essentially) "we're a big modern country with lots of people and we demand it".   Both Russia and China are in a, "let's see what we can get away with" mode and are pushing it as hard as possible.  The Canada thing was this behavior taken to it's logical conclusion assuming the West continues to do nothing.  Without drastic changes in Washington I don't see the US being willing to risk war with either China or Russia to save one of it's allies. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 08, 2016, 10:02:22 am
This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.

If China actually invades Canada you'l have the right to tell the rest of the World "told you so"; otherwise absolutely no point in trying to refute the fantasist arguments being put forward....

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 08, 2016, 05:06:33 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/08/breedlove-u-s-russia-need-better-communications-tactical-nukes
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 09, 2016, 11:48:22 am
Russians Violating New START Arms Treaty (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-violating-new-start-arms-treaty/) (The Washington Free Beacon)
Verify treaties hold Russia accountable? Sorry we're busy

http://freebeacon.com/issues/intelligence-community-holds-getting-inclusive-boots-rainbow-suits-breakout-sessions/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 11:54:03 am
Russians Violating New START Arms Treaty (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-violating-new-start-arms-treaty/) (The Washington Free Beacon)
Verify treaties hold Russia accountable? Sorry we're busy

http://freebeacon.com/issues/intelligence-community-holds-getting-inclusive-boots-rainbow-suits-breakout-sessions/

Not enough face-palms on the intertubes for that one. What a pathetic joke we've become.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: GTX on June 09, 2016, 02:54:15 pm
This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.


Ain't that the truth!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 03:07:35 pm
This topic discussion is becoming increasingly embarrassing for anyone but a hardcore of holders of extreme views/ lunatic fringe.


Ain't that the truth!

Yeah, god forbid we don't address a problem before it's too big to do anything about.  Where would the fun be in that?   ::)  I mean I know it's fashionable to the self-appointed "intelligentsia"  to fight for the right to lay one's head on the block (as well as their neighbors') but damn.   But I'll bite.  What is objectively unpossible regarding anything that's been mentioned here?  Where is the "lunatic fringe"?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: GTX on June 09, 2016, 03:12:38 pm
When people start talking about modern day USA or Canada being invaded due to an implied lack of weapons (nuclear or otherwise) we are well into this territory:

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemesvault.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FExtreme-Facepalm-Gif-05.png&hash=fed0569acda2ce1fdbaafbf203fa8b6f)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 03:15:20 pm
When people start talking about modern day USA or Canada being invaded due to an implied lack of weapons (nuclear or otherwise) we are well into this territory:

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemesvault.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FExtreme-Facepalm-Gif-05.png&hash=fed0569acda2ce1fdbaafbf203fa8b6f)

Right, right.  Because our current nuclear weapons will last forever and China and Russia are our best buds right?  Sorry but anybody who thinks Canada would remain Canada, with the US stripped of it's nuclear weapons (read the thread), is a fool.  And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded.  (Like I said, read the thread.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: GTX on June 09, 2016, 03:24:16 pm
And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded. 

... no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power...

You were saying?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 03:34:20 pm
And nobody has said anything about the USA being invaded. 

... no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power...

You were saying?

How about we quote the entire sentence shall we?

"Those are generally written by pacifists who would prefer no nuclear weapons even if it meant the US being taken over by a foreign power. "

It's obvious why you didn't quote the entire thing, because it doesn't say what you want it to.  It doesn't say "the US would get taken over without nuclear weapons".  It says the people in question wouldn't care if it did mean that.  Now that we've fixed your little faux pas how about you tell us why the notion of a huge, resource rich country being taken over by two resource-hungry countries, who don't have a history of "live and let live" but instead grab onto anything they can get away with, is "lunacy" when it isn't defended with nuclear weapons.  GO!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: GTX on June 09, 2016, 03:39:49 pm
Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 03:56:41 pm
Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.

What does matter is that it didn't say what you claimed it did.  Now answer the question.  Why is the notion of a huge, resource rich country being taken over by two resource-hungry countries, who don't have a history of "live and let live" but instead grab onto anything they can get away with, "lunacy" when it isn't defended with nuclear weapons?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on June 09, 2016, 04:06:49 pm
Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 09, 2016, 04:17:54 pm
Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).



No idea.  Given that it's just a modification of the current Mk4 (the newest of which rolled off the line almost 30 years ago) I doubt we'd be incredibly impressed with the differences.  Unless they've added terminal guidance I'd be surprised if they could make it a hard target weapon with current technology.  (Most of the precision is due to the bus not the RV, though the RV does contribute.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 09, 2016, 04:40:28 pm
Regardless of whether one quotes part of the sentence or the entire thing, it was still you who raised the subject of the US being taken over by a foreign power and linking it to not having nuclear weapons.
You know you took sferrin's quote out of context so quit digging.

If you have studied the history of the nuclear disarmament movement in the US their unofficial tagline of the extreme/pacifist side (as sferrin said quit clearly) was "Better Red than Dead" they advocated surrender if it got them a nuclear free world. They were also mostly Communists heavily influenced by Moscow as the KGB archives documented opened to historians post Cold War.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 09, 2016, 06:23:04 pm
Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 10, 2016, 04:40:43 am
Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures.  Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China.  Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 10, 2016, 04:51:09 am
Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures.  Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China.  Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)

I take it you believe there would be massive difference to a president who was bankrolled by Haliburton?   ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 10, 2016, 07:12:51 am
Senate amendment would prohibit funding for LRSO and W80 warhead LEP

A small cadre of Democratic senators opposed to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon have re-emerged amid Congress' annual defense policy bill debate, filing an amendment that would prohibit funds for the weapon and its warhead.

Figures.  Wonder how many of them are bank-rolled by China.  Can't wait until we get a President who is. (Again.)

Objectively speaking is ANY of that remotely true or is it just a smear on politicians you happen not to like?

Is there any evidence that these Democratic senators (with whom I wouldn't agree with by the way) are (1) on the Chinese government payroll and (2) this is the basis of their opposition to this particular weapon system?

Is there ANY evidence that Hillary Clinton or her campaign is receiving money from the Chinese government?

Wouldn't it be earth shattering need if any of this was remotely even slightly true?

I'd suggest moderators need to take this topic discussion in hand......
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Hood on June 10, 2016, 07:31:18 am
Getting back to the main topic, what is your collective take on this new Mark 4A warhead that Aldermaston is supposed to be working on. Real project, or yet another phantom project designed to spare a politicians blushes (and mayhap act as a vehicle for funnelling additional funds to causes and projects much more deserving than the national defence, as if more such were needed, gah).

So in my mind its always seemed likely that as long as the Successor continues to use the Trident D5 that some kind of modernised/refurbished warhead would be needed. The story outlined in the article suggests that the warhead is real, Parliament has never been consulted on nuclear deterrent R&D matters before. The hint of a new advanced warhead to follow on probably relates more to longer-term US work on its new Trident missile with the 4A being refurbished and modestly improved to keep the D5 ticking along at least in UK buses. It would be ironic if the US actually had to buy back an "Anglicised" American warhead for its D5s to keep them going into the 2030s.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 10, 2016, 07:32:59 am
It would be ironic if the US actually had to buy back an "Anglicised" American warhead for its D5s to keep them going into the 2030s.

Given the decrepit state of the US nuclear weapons industrial base this would not surprise me in the least.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 10, 2016, 11:13:54 am
It would be ironic if the US actually had to buy back an "Anglicised" American warhead for its D5s to keep them going into the 2030s.

Given the decrepit state of the US nuclear weapons industrial base this would not surprise me in the least.
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 15, 2016, 10:25:07 pm
​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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 16, 2016, 08:32:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 17, 2016, 10:05:14 am
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/16/two-us-nuke-programs-advance/86002468/

Quote
"We expect to put out a request for proposals to industry within the next two weeks,” he said. Also during that time, the service will make a Milestone A decision on the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) weapon, a cruise missile that can be conventionally or nuclear armed.

GBSD is planned to replace the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). In order to save money, the Air Force intends to reuse existing silos, but outfit them with new weapons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on June 17, 2016, 12:18:44 pm
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.  :(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 17, 2016, 12:42:44 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 17, 2016, 05:15:20 pm
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/17/nuclear-missiles-triad-congress-budget/

The incredible duplicity in this article is simply astounding. IMHO they won't be happy unless we are defenceless.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 18, 2016, 09:19:19 am
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?

Quote
But Weber said Obama in his final months in office has an opportunity to leave his mark by slowing down or terminating the more destabilizing portions of the nuclear modernization program such as a new cruise missile.


Quote
The ICBM piece of the force would be relatively easy to streamline, he said. “We’ve already done the work. We know we can retire a wing, go down to 300 without having to impact our nuclear deterrent.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 18, 2016, 10:45:33 am
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?

Quote
But Weber said Obama in his final months in office has an opportunity to leave his mark by slowing down or terminating the more destabilizing portions of the nuclear modernization program such as a new cruise missile.


Quote
The ICBM piece of the force would be relatively easy to streamline, he said. “We’ve already done the work. We know we can retire a wing, go down to 300 without having to impact our nuclear deterrent.”

Whatever it is, of this you can be certain, it will be disastrous for our nuclear forces, and our ability to field a credible deterrent going forward.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 19, 2016, 09:04:57 am
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 19, 2016, 10:03:55 am
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.

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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Arjen on June 19, 2016, 11:20:21 am
Ye gods, has a more clueless politician ever been born?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 20, 2016, 12:16:41 am
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.

All of which were destablising to the established strategic balance...   :o
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 20, 2016, 04:55:42 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/03/18/carter-open-department-wide-nuclear-weapons-fund/81972126/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 20, 2016, 04:58:48 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/03/18/carter-open-department-wide-nuclear-weapons-fund/81972126/
Sounds encouraging.  Will believe it when I see it actually happen though.  :(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 26, 2016, 02:32:01 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 26, 2016, 03:56:28 pm
Hope they make that available on YouTube.  :'(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 26, 2016, 04:28:10 pm
Hope they make that available on YouTube.  :'(
CSIS usually does or posts it later to their website, I'll keep an eye out.

Interesting to see Pavel Podvig's take on the issue. Or as K-man would say "who, never heard of him" LOL!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 27, 2016, 01:43:27 am
http://freebeacon.com/culture/america-needs-nuclear-weapons-world-needs-us/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 27, 2016, 07:30:32 am
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.

All of which were destablising to the established strategic balance...   :o

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 ....
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 27, 2016, 10:10:05 am
http://thebulletin.org/how-new-nuclear-armed-cruise-missile-might-aid-disarmament9579?platform=hootsuite
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 27, 2016, 01:13:43 pm


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 ....

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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 27, 2016, 01:50:54 pm


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 ....

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 27, 2016, 03:49:04 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/27/corker-mccain-dont-quit-nuke-modernization/86439404/

Quote
The Arms Control Association’s Kingston Reif defended the idea of a commission, saying Obama’s pledge to Congress ahead of the New Start Treaty in 2010 “was not intended to be a suicide pact that would be sustained no matter the budget environment, cost of the modernization programs, opportunity costs of the programs, or global strategic landscape.”

“Distorting what happened in 2010 can't hide the fact that the current nuclear weapons spending plans are unnecessary, likely unexecutable, and urgently in need of review,” Reif said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/25/after-nuclear-missile-loss-dems-vow-keep-fighting/86304882/

Quote
“I want to make sure the Pentagon isn’t using the cloak of modernization to hide the fact they are building a new nuclear weapon," Feinstein said in a statement. “The Air Force has not provided a concrete cost estimate for this program nor a description of the military’s need for this new weapon. In our hearing with experts like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, I plan to discover the military and financial justification to build a new nuclear cruise missile.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will non stop until we are defenseless
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 27, 2016, 04:07:04 pm


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 ....

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 27, 2016, 07:09:22 pm


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 ....

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.

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...   ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 28, 2016, 12:20:33 am
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/27/corker-mccain-dont-quit-nuke-modernization/86439404/

Quote
The Arms Control Association’s Kingston Reif defended the idea of a commission, saying Obama’s pledge to Congress ahead of the New Start Treaty in 2010 “was not intended to be a suicide pact that would be sustained no matter the budget environment, cost of the modernization programs, opportunity costs of the programs, or global strategic landscape.”

“Distorting what happened in 2010 can't hide the fact that the current nuclear weapons spending plans are unnecessary, likely unexecutable, and urgently in need of review,” Reif said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/25/after-nuclear-missile-loss-dems-vow-keep-fighting/86304882/

Quote
“I want to make sure the Pentagon isn’t using the cloak of modernization to hide the fact they are building a new nuclear weapon," Feinstein said in a statement. “The Air Force has not provided a concrete cost estimate for this program nor a description of the military’s need for this new weapon. In our hearing with experts like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, I plan to discover the military and financial justification to build a new nuclear cruise missile.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will non stop until we are defenseless

Feinstein is one disgusting human being.

I'm no fan of the man, I'd disagree with him on most things.
But your apparent need to de-humanise him says alot more about you than about him.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 28, 2016, 06:54:56 am
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/27/corker-mccain-dont-quit-nuke-modernization/86439404/

Quote
The Arms Control Association’s Kingston Reif defended the idea of a commission, saying Obama’s pledge to Congress ahead of the New Start Treaty in 2010 “was not intended to be a suicide pact that would be sustained no matter the budget environment, cost of the modernization programs, opportunity costs of the programs, or global strategic landscape.”

“Distorting what happened in 2010 can't hide the fact that the current nuclear weapons spending plans are unnecessary, likely unexecutable, and urgently in need of review,” Reif said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/25/after-nuclear-missile-loss-dems-vow-keep-fighting/86304882/

Quote
“I want to make sure the Pentagon isn’t using the cloak of modernization to hide the fact they are building a new nuclear weapon," Feinstein said in a statement. “The Air Force has not provided a concrete cost estimate for this program nor a description of the military’s need for this new weapon. In our hearing with experts like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, I plan to discover the military and financial justification to build a new nuclear cruise missile.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They will non stop until we are defenseless

Feinstein is one disgusting human being.

I'm no fan of the man, I'd disagree with him on most things.
But your apparent need to de-humanise him says alot more about you than about him.
I know Senator Diane Feinstein may not be the most attractive women but that no reason for your 'gender switching' mocking and cynicism.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 28, 2016, 07:41:26 am
Hope they make that available on YouTube.  :'(

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/28/arms-expert-russia-quick-threaten-nuclear-strikes-regional-conflicts

Includes the CSIS event previously mentioned
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 28, 2016, 09:19:03 am

I know Senator Diane Feinstein may not be the most attractive women but that no reason for your 'gender switching' mocking and cynicism.

LOL!  It really goes to show the level of "knowledge" some are operating on in these discussions.

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: flateric on June 28, 2016, 09:37:20 am
Topic is getting shitty and a candidate for closing
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2016, 09:48:37 am
Topic is getting shitty and a candidate for closing

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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 28, 2016, 10:36:13 am

I know Senator Diane Feinstein may not be the most attractive women but that no reason for your 'gender switching' mocking and cynicism.

LOL!  It really goes to show the level of "knowledge" some are operating on in these discussions.

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.
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" comment

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2016, 11:16:44 am
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.

This.  The thread didn't even make it a whole 2 pages before Kman started in.  I'm guessing their "strategy" is to turn any thread they don't approve of to crap so it'll get locked. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Arjen on June 28, 2016, 11:21:00 am
From page 1:
What a bunch of BS that this topic was going to be a general non-political discussion of nuclear weapons.

Discussion about nuclear weapons tends to be political. Discussion of rumours about scary Russian nuclear robot submarines posted on websites with dubious past records for accuracy is inherently political.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 28, 2016, 11:37:09 am


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 ....

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.

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2016, 12:08:56 pm


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 ....

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.

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.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Colonial-Marine on June 28, 2016, 02:07:08 pm
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 28, 2016, 03:39:12 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on June 28, 2016, 04:06:21 pm

I know Senator Diane Feinstein may not be the most attractive women but that no reason for your 'gender switching' mocking and cynicism.

LOL!  It really goes to show the level of "knowledge" some are operating on in these discussions.

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.
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" comment

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.

You are right the same names show up again & again; your and sferrin's.
Your comments were the shitty ones; perhaps your deeper knowledge of the Senator in question justifies you calling her digesting & ugly/ man-like in appearance but I doubt it.
I read the link, quickly googled her without realising she was a she.
I am not an expert on individual US Senators, sorry about that.

I am all for reasonable discussion and think multiple political perspectives add to the debate.
But too often you & Sferrin (in fairness more often him than you) cross the line versus reasonable discussion and tolerance for views that don't match your perspectives.
Don't be surprised when other contributors pull you up when this occurs.
Honestly I'm sick of being attacked while the unreasonable contributors peddling somewhat extreme views try to present themselves as innocent victims.
I don't want this great forum to be lost to everyone who don't subscribe to your end of the political spectrum.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 28, 2016, 05:05:09 pm
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?

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.

They were fielded. Just not in Europe. The Boron polyethylene liners in Soviet armor of the period were not really able to reduce the amount of penetrating neutrons but could reduce the armor-induced
secondary gammas. So ERWs would still have been effective. Modern armor is a different story.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 28, 2016, 06:10:38 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-213981
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2016, 06:23:46 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-213981

I could live with no first use (provided our forces are large enough and survivable enough). Given today's means of verification of launch (I assume they could actually image the launches) sitting there doing nothing while waiting to die would be lunacy. Definitely no logical reason to get rid of launch on warning.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 28, 2016, 06:42:10 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-213981

I could live with no first use (provided our forces are large enough and survivable enough). Given today's means of verification of launch (I assume they could actually image the launches) sitting there doing nothing while waiting to die would be lunacy. Definitely no logical reason to get rid of launch on warning.
I could live with no first use IF we deploy prompt global strike weapons capable of taking out an Iranian or NORK nuke missile (or at least it is ambiguous whether it may or may not carry a nuke) about to be launched.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 28, 2016, 07:11:46 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-213981

From the article:

Quote
Obama demanded new efforts to reduce U.S. reliance on launch-on-warning (otherwise known as launch-under-attack).

Uh..these are very distinct force employment approaches.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 28, 2016, 07:21:34 pm
Topic is getting shitty and a candidate for closing

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?

Effectively removing the reason why they exist in the first place... 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 28, 2016, 07:24:37 pm


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 ....

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.

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.

Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time.  It went up and down like a yo-yo.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 28, 2016, 07:29:21 pm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/barack-obama-nuclear-weapons-213981

I could live with no first use (provided our forces are large enough and survivable enough). Given today's means of verification of launch (I assume they could actually image the launches) sitting there doing nothing while waiting to die would be lunacy. Definitely no logical reason to get rid of launch on warning.

Assuming that the detection systems are 100% reliable.  As the Soviets showed, theirs' weren't and as the US showed, neither were theirs'.   Launch-on-warning is actually an insane system which removes your highest command from the war making decision process and devolves it down to the lowest level where the information is gathered, often mistakenly...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 29, 2016, 10:46:54 am


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 ....

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.

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.

Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time.  It went up and down like a yo-yo.

I don't recall huge variablitiy in armor force ratios but I think that "Soviet Military Power" tended to err on the upper-bound of capability estimates if I can put it diplomatically. 

Still, I  regard an attacker with a 4-to-1 advantage in armor as a horde since that advantage enables them to pin the defender frontally while enveloping both flanks.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 29, 2016, 11:01:43 am
I don't recall huge variablitiy in armor force ratios but I think that "Soviet Military Power" tended to err on the upper-bound of capability estimates if I can put it diplomatically. 

Thing is, when it comes to procurement one NEVER gets what they ask for.  So they do everything in their power to justify their request.  And even then it doesn't work.  The USAF made the mistake of saying that it needed 750 F-22s to replace the roughly 800 F-15s they bought.  The pols said no.  The USAF said, "342 is the absolute bare-ass minimum we need to replace the F-15C".  What'd they get?  About half that.  (Which is why the F-15C is still around.)  On top of that most politicians wouldn't know an F-15 from a Su-27 so you have to paint a picture they understand.  Thus you get Soviet Military Power. 

Kman
"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."

"Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time. "

The notion Soviet Military Power was written for the electorate is asinine.  Joe 6-pack didn't even know it existed.   But yeah, we get it,  Reagan and his evil Rethuglicans were worse than Goebbels.  ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 29, 2016, 12:01:03 pm
I don't recall huge variablitiy in armor force ratios but I think that "Soviet Military Power" tended to err on the upper-bound of capability estimates if I can put it diplomatically. 

Thing is, when it comes to procurement one NEVER gets what they ask for.  So they do everything in their power to justify their request.  And even then it doesn't work.  The USAF made the mistake of saying that it needed 750 F-22s to replace the roughly 800 F-15s they bought.  The pols said no.  The USAF said, "342 is the absolute bare-ass minimum we need to replace the F-15C".  What'd they get?  About half that.  (Which is why the F-15C is still around.)  On top of that most politicians wouldn't know an F-15 from a Su-27 so you have to paint a picture they understand.  Thus you get Soviet Military Power. 

Kman
"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."

"Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time. "

The notion Soviet Military Power was written for the electorate is asinine.  Joe 6-pack didn't even know it existed.   But yeah, we get it,  Reagan and his evil Rethuglicans were worse than Goebbels.  ::)
I posted an article by Los Alamos historian that showed the US during the 80's to the end of the Cold War UNDERESTIMATED the Soviet nuclear arsenal by 20k warheads, so no everyone wasn't running around trying to distort and lie about the USSR. In fact a lot of patriots were just trying to do as good a job as they could given the obviously opaque nature of a communist regime. But the Kman had two modes 1) Agree with him 2) You are a crazy right winger/liar nut job.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 29, 2016, 12:39:45 pm
Okay, we all get it people.  Some think neutron weapons are "technically sweet", others think they're useless.  Can we please move on to discussion of the weapons themselves rather than what some politician may or may not have been doing 30 years ago?  Thank you. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 29, 2016, 08:53:08 pm


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 ....

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.

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.

Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time.  It went up and down like a yo-yo.

I don't recall huge variablitiy in armor force ratios but I think that "Soviet Military Power" tended to err on the upper-bound of capability estimates if I can put it diplomatically. 

I am not so kind.  There was once published in Armed Forces Review a nice, little worded article which pointed asked what constituted a "horde" and which pointed out the differences in each (up till that point) copy of Soviet Military Power.  I suspect the author wasn't popular in the White House afterwards.

Quote
Still, I  regard an attacker with a 4-to-1 advantage in armor as a horde since that advantage enables them to pin the defender frontally while enveloping both flanks.

It all depends on where they are deployed.   Under Reagan, the estimate changed, with the geographic boundaries being pushed ever further eastward until the Urals were reached, whereas the NATO estimate remained firmly set in Western Europe and wasn't pushed a comparable distance to the East coast of the USA.  "4-to-1" rolls easily off the tongue but without seeing where the Soviet armoured units are actually based and what means they have to deploy them to the Inner-German Border, it is a useless number.    The real problem was in that means of deployment.  In war time, railways and highways are going to be subject to interdiction and once you figure in the difference in NATO versus Warsaw Pact airforces, the numbers become a great deal more even.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 29, 2016, 08:57:57 pm
The notion Soviet Military Power was written for the electorate is asinine.  Joe 6-pack didn't even know it existed.

He didn't need to know it existed.  The Congresspeople and the Senatepeople and the media outlets all knew it existed and relied upon it (rather than more reputable estimates) for how "evil the Soviet Evil Empire was".   It shaped attitudes, along with all the other propaganda.   The US Government is and never has been an honest actor as far as those it opposes and to assume otherwise is foolish indeed.   One only has to look at the lies it told about Iraq/Vietnam/Cuba/etc. to see that in action.

Quote
But yeah, we get it,  Reagan and his evil Rethuglicans were worse than Goebbels.  ::)

Why the continual exaggeration?   Why the erection of a strawman argument?   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 29, 2016, 09:12:44 pm
I don't recall huge variablitiy in armor force ratios but I think that "Soviet Military Power" tended to err on the upper-bound of capability estimates if I can put it diplomatically. 

Thing is, when it comes to procurement one NEVER gets what they ask for.  So they do everything in their power to justify their request.  And even then it doesn't work.  The USAF made the mistake of saying that it needed 750 F-22s to replace the roughly 800 F-15s they bought.  The pols said no.  The USAF said, "342 is the absolute bare-ass minimum we need to replace the F-15C".  What'd they get?  About half that.  (Which is why the F-15C is still around.)  On top of that most politicians wouldn't know an F-15 from a Su-27 so you have to paint a picture they understand.  Thus you get Soviet Military Power. 

Kman
"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."

"Yet it was, as I pointed out, the Reagan administration which made the "disparity" variable and more dependent on how they were manipulating their home electorate than on anything the Kremlin was doing at the time. "

The notion Soviet Military Power was written for the electorate is asinine.  Joe 6-pack didn't even know it existed.   But yeah, we get it,  Reagan and his evil Rethuglicans were worse than Goebbels.  ::)
I posted an article by Los Alamos historian that showed the US during the 80's to the end of the Cold War UNDERESTIMATED the Soviet nuclear arsenal by 20k warheads, so no everyone wasn't running around trying to distort and lie about the USSR. In fact a lot of patriots were just trying to do as good a job as they could given the obviously opaque nature of a communist regime. But the Kman had two modes 1) Agree with him 2) You are a crazy right winger/liar nut job.

No, if you disagree with me, you need reasons to disagree with me, just as I need reasons to disagree with you.    Please stop erecting strawman arguments against me.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 29, 2016, 10:25:56 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/29/pakistans-nuclear-weapons
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
Post by: totoro on June 30, 2016, 03:51:17 am
Can someone explain just how much does development of new icbm cost, and how much does a single missile with its warheads cost later on in production?

The graph above says acquisition costs - so these should not include lifetime cost past the initial delivery.

Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile.

Or the Ohio replacement program. Developing a sub costs 10-30 billion? Building a sub later on costs several billion per sub. So then one is left with say 60-ish billion for almost half as many SLBMs than are ICBMs yet they cost the same?

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bring_it_on on June 30, 2016, 05:47:06 am
Can someone explain just how much does development of new icbm cost, and how much does a single missile with its warheads cost later on in production?

The graph above says acquisition costs - so these should not include lifetime cost past the initial delivery.

Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile.

Or the Ohio replacement program. Developing a sub costs 10-30 billion? Building a sub later on costs several billion per sub. So then one is left with say 60-ish billion for almost half as many SLBMs than are ICBMs yet they cost the same?

Across the FYDP (http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2016/AirForce/0605230F_4_PB_2016.pdf) the RDT&E spend on the Ground Based SD program is just a bit shy of $950 Million. In the FY15-FY24 time frame the DOD estimates to spend a little over $6 Billion on the GBSD. I  assume this is mostly on RDT&E since they don't expect production till  a few years later.

Tod Harrison over at CSBA presented some of their findings a while go: https://www.scribd.com/doc/317132241/Cost-of-Nuclear-Forces-Slides
Title: Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
Post by: bring_it_on on June 30, 2016, 05:48:04 am
Can someone explain just how much does development of new icbm cost, and how much does a single missile with its warheads cost later on in production?

The graph above says acquisition costs - so these should not include lifetime cost past the initial delivery.

Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile.

Or the Ohio replacement program. Developing a sub costs 10-30 billion? Building a sub later on costs several billion per sub. So then one is left with say 60-ish billion for almost half as many SLBMs than are ICBMs yet they cost the same?

Here (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25404.msg285287.html#msg285287)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2016, 06:33:58 am
"Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile. "

We haven't designed an ICBM for 30 years.  Almost anybody who worked on the last design is either retired, working on other projects, and likely not even working for the same company.  The industrial base for ICBMs will need to be built from the ground up.  That costs money.  There will be many delays and overruns due to lack of experience.  That also costs money.  Imagine if Ford hadn't designed a car since 1986, and not only couldn't they just poach some design engineers from Chevy or Jeep, but none of THOSE companies had designed a car for even longer.  That's why it's expensive.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on June 30, 2016, 08:07:45 am
"Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile. "

We haven't designed an ICBM for 30 years.  Almost anybody who worked on the last design is either retired, working on other projects, and likely not even working for the same company.  The industrial base for ICBMs will need to be built from the ground up.  That costs money.  There will be many delays and overruns due to lack of experience.  That also costs money.  Imagine if Ford hadn't designed a car since 1986, and not only couldn't they just poach some design engineers from Chevy or Jeep, but none of THOSE companies had designed a car for even longer.  That's why it's expensive.
IIRC over on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Thread - adding to what sferrin has said - this includes infrastructure refurbishment, possibly new RVs, ICBM C2, etc. not just the missile.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2016, 08:32:02 am
"Still, how can 450 or so new ICBM cost 60 billion to develop and produce? That's 133 million per missile. "

We haven't designed an ICBM for 30 years.  Almost anybody who worked on the last design is either retired, working on other projects, and likely not even working for the same company.  The industrial base for ICBMs will need to be built from the ground up.  That costs money.  There will be many delays and overruns due to lack of experience.  That also costs money.  Imagine if Ford hadn't designed a car since 1986, and not only couldn't they just poach some design engineers from Chevy or Jeep, but none of THOSE companies had designed a car for even longer.  That's why it's expensive.
IIRC over on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Thread - adding to what sferrin has said - this includes infrastructure refurbishment, possibly new RVs, ICBM C2, etc. not just the missile.

And those silos are ancient and the ones that had been rebuilt (for Peacekeeper) were destroyed. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on June 30, 2016, 11:01:01 am
I am not so kind.  There was once published in Armed Forces Review a nice, little worded article which pointed asked what constituted a "horde" and which pointed out the differences in each (up till that point) copy of Soviet Military Power.  I suspect the author wasn't popular in the White House afterwards.

Quote
Still, I  regard an attacker with a 4-to-1 advantage in armor as a horde since that advantage enables them to pin the defender frontally while enveloping both flanks.

It all depends on where they are deployed.   Under Reagan, the estimate changed, with the geographic boundaries being pushed ever further eastward until the Urals were reached, whereas the NATO estimate remained firmly set in Western Europe and wasn't pushed a comparable distance to the East coast of the USA.  "4-to-1" rolls easily off the tongue but without seeing where the Soviet armoured units are actually based and what means they have to deploy them to the Inner-German Border, it is a useless number.    The real problem was in that means of deployment.  In war time, railways and highways are going to be subject to interdiction and once you figure in the difference in NATO versus Warsaw Pact airforces, the numbers become a great deal more even.

Aside from river bridges, railways and highways were generally regarded as too easy to repair to be worth the effort.
The vulnerable chokepoints were the rail transloading complexes along the Russian-Polish border which NATO could not reach until the introduction of GLCM and Pershing II.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on June 30, 2016, 12:01:38 pm
I am not so kind.  There was once published in Armed Forces Review a nice, little worded article which pointed asked what constituted a "horde" and which pointed out the differences in each (up till that point) copy of Soviet Military Power.  I suspect the author wasn't popular in the White House afterwards.

Quote
Still, I  regard an attacker with a 4-to-1 advantage in armor as a horde since that advantage enables them to pin the defender frontally while enveloping both flanks.

It all depends on where they are deployed.   Under Reagan, the estimate changed, with the geographic boundaries being pushed ever further eastward until the Urals were reached, whereas the NATO estimate remained firmly set in Western Europe and wasn't pushed a comparable distance to the East coast of the USA.  "4-to-1" rolls easily off the tongue but without seeing where the Soviet armoured units are actually based and what means they have to deploy them to the Inner-German Border, it is a useless number.    The real problem was in that means of deployment.  In war time, railways and highways are going to be subject to interdiction and once you figure in the difference in NATO versus Warsaw Pact airforces, the numbers become a great deal more even.

Aside from river bridges, railways and highways were generally regarded as too easy to repair to be worth the effort.
The vulnerable chokepoints were the rail transloading complexes along the Russian-Polish border which NATO could not reach until the introduction of GLCM and Pershing II.

And lets not forget that the USSR, knowing it was about to start a war, could easily move a lot of equipment West before kickoff time.  So even if one had the weapons to hit those choke points, they'd already be past them.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 30, 2016, 07:02:29 pm
I am not so kind.  There was once published in Armed Forces Review a nice, little worded article which pointed asked what constituted a "horde" and which pointed out the differences in each (up till that point) copy of Soviet Military Power.  I suspect the author wasn't popular in the White House afterwards.

Quote
Still, I  regard an attacker with a 4-to-1 advantage in armor as a horde since that advantage enables them to pin the defender frontally while enveloping both flanks.

It all depends on where they are deployed.   Under Reagan, the estimate changed, with the geographic boundaries being pushed ever further eastward until the Urals were reached, whereas the NATO estimate remained firmly set in Western Europe and wasn't pushed a comparable distance to the East coast of the USA.  "4-to-1" rolls easily off the tongue but without seeing where the Soviet armoured units are actually based and what means they have to deploy them to the Inner-German Border, it is a useless number.    The real problem was in that means of deployment.  In war time, railways and highways are going to be subject to interdiction and once you figure in the difference in NATO versus Warsaw Pact airforces, the numbers become a great deal more even.

Aside from river bridges, railways and highways were generally regarded as too easy to repair to be worth the effort.
The vulnerable chokepoints were the rail transloading complexes along the Russian-Polish border which NATO could not reach until the introduction of GLCM and Pershing II.

Bridges, "too easy to repair"?  Well, I suppose it all depends on how long you expect the war to last.  Wasn't it a week, usually before nuclear release in most scenarios?

In reality, bridges and railways and roadways are difficult to repair, bridges particularly to the point where they can carry sufficient loads to make it worthwhile.   Once destroyed, their replacements would need to be redestroyed and redestroyed again.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on June 30, 2016, 07:05:47 pm
And lets not forget that the USSR, knowing it was about to start a war, could easily move a lot of equipment West before kickoff time.  So even if one had the weapons to hit those choke points, they'd already be past them.

Except the massive redeployment westward would of course, alert NATO as to their plans, now wouldn't it?

One of the great myths about the Cold War was the predeployed "secret" Warsaw Pact materiale' depots and sites.  After the Wall came down, guess what?  They didn't exist.

Just like the CIA's "secret" Russian missile silos inside the war memorials didn't exist...    ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 02, 2016, 12:33:39 am
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2016/July%202016/0716gb.pdf

GBSD

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2016/July%202016/0716russia.pdf

Russia cheats



Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 02, 2016, 02:52:00 pm
There was a post about the UK's 'new' D5 warhead that included some discussion about US/UK nuke weapons cooperation/collaboration. I knew I had posted something on the topic on the "News Only" thread, anyway found this:

Quote
U.S., U.K. to Deepen Cooperation on Warhead Designs: Report     
 
Official documents show the United States and United Kingdom plan to deepen their cooperation on nuclear warhead designs, the London Guardian reports. Partially censored papers provided through an open-records request reveal the two longtime military allies' plans to increase collaboration on nuclear weapon work and the sharing of materials essential for the production and retention of warheads, the newspaper reported on Thursday. London and Washington are expected to formalize the terms of their enhanced nuclear cooperation in the coming weeks with a quiet signing ceremony in the U.S. capital of an updated Mutual Defense Agreement, according to the Guardian. The U.K. defense ministry said it anticipates the defense pact will be reauthorized before 2014 is over. The defense pact enables the United Kingdom to benefit from research and design work done in U.S. atomic weapon laboratories, much of which focuses on ways to ensure a reliable, safe and credible nuclear arsenal absent a return to testing. The Trident weapons deployed on both U.S. Ohio-class and British Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines have long been assumed to be jointly designed and sustained by the two countries.

 
A paper written in preparation for the visit of a high-ranking U.S. atomic official to the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston mentions "enhanced collaboration" on "nuclear explosive package design and certification," on "maintenance of existing stockpiles," and the "possible development of safer, more secure, warheads," the newspaper reported. A separate document characterizes the bilateral Mutual Defense Agreement as an accord that authorizes the two nations' respective "nuclear warhead communities to collaborate on all aspects of nuclear deterrence including nuclear warhead design and manufacture." A document prepared for senior British department heads asserts that physical "movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or devices" and thus the accord does not violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The papers were released to the Nuclear Information Service -- a nonprofit group that supports nuclear disarmament. Peter Burt, research manager for the organization, in an interview said the agreement was hypocritical and hurt international nonproliferation efforts. "If Iran and North Korea had signed a similar agreement for the transfer of nuclear weapons technology, the U.K. and U.S. would be branding them pariah nations and screaming for the toughest of international sanctions to be imposed," Burt said.
Again, my understanding is that US labs are getting around restrictions at home on new warhead designs working in the UK.

Notice the highlighted section, of interest, arms control zealots compare the US/UK to Iran/North Korea  ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 04, 2016, 04:50:24 pm
Still want to put all your deterrence eggs into the SLBM basket?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sub-spotting-technology-threatens-nuclear-deterence
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 04, 2016, 06:52:50 pm
Still want to put all your deterrence eggs into the SLBM basket?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sub-spotting-technology-threatens-nuclear-deterence

LOL, well that didn't take as long as I thought.  And here I've been told it's unpossible. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 04, 2016, 08:31:28 pm
Bridges, "too easy to repair"?  Well, I suppose it all depends on how long you expect the war to last.  Wasn't it a week, usually before nuclear release in most scenarios?

In reality, bridges and railways and roadways are difficult to repair, bridges particularly to the point where they can carry sufficient loads to make it worthwhile.   Once destroyed, their replacements would need to be redestroyed and redestroyed again.


Please re-read what I wrote: Aside from river bridges railways and roadways are too easy to repair. Laying or repairing track or filling in craters in roadways to make them serviceable was very
doable given the large number of Warsaw Pact independent engineering battalions specifically tasked, equipped and trained for that assignment.


And lets not forget that the USSR, knowing it was about to start a war, could easily move a lot of equipment West before kickoff time.  So even if one had the weapons to hit those choke points, they'd already be past them.

Except the massive redeployment westward would of course, alert NATO as to their plans, now wouldn't it?



I think you are attributing surveillance capabilities to NATO that it didn't have (in fairly limited numbers) until the late 80's.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 04, 2016, 08:37:07 pm
Still want to put all your deterrence eggs into the SLBM basket?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sub-spotting-technology-threatens-nuclear-deterence

LOL, well that didn't take as long as I thought.  And here I've been told it's unpossible.

Actually, I was struck by just how devoid of technical matters the original Holmes paper was but then I saw that Holmes was citing "Daily Beast" and suddenly the target audience made sense.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 04, 2016, 08:45:16 pm
Still want to put all your deterrence eggs into the SLBM basket?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sub-spotting-technology-threatens-nuclear-deterence

LOL, well that didn't take as long as I thought.  And here I've been told it's unpossible.

Actually, I was struck by just how devoid of technical matters the original Holmes paper was but then I saw that Holmes was citing "Daily Beast" and suddenly the target audience made sense.

Actually the original source is from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, not Daily Beast.

http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1194060

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 04, 2016, 08:46:32 pm
Bridges, "too easy to repair"?  Well, I suppose it all depends on how long you expect the war to last.  Wasn't it a week, usually before nuclear release in most scenarios?

In reality, bridges and railways and roadways are difficult to repair, bridges particularly to the point where they can carry sufficient loads to make it worthwhile.   Once destroyed, their replacements would need to be redestroyed and redestroyed again.


Please re-read what I wrote: Aside from river bridges railways and roadways are too easy to repair. Laying or repairing track or filling in craters in roadways to make them serviceable was very
doable given the large number of Warsaw Pact independent engineering battalions specifically tasked, equipped and trained for that assignment.


And lets not forget that the USSR, knowing it was about to start a war, could easily move a lot of equipment West before kickoff time.  So even if one had the weapons to hit those choke points, they'd already be past them.

Except the massive redeployment westward would of course, alert NATO as to their plans, now wouldn't it?



I think you are attributing surveillance capabilities to NATO that it didn't have (in fairly limited numbers) until the late 80's.

Not to mention if there is "no first use" exactly what did Kman plan to do about all that armor headed west for an "exercise". 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 04, 2016, 09:55:38 pm
Still want to put all your deterrence eggs into the SLBM basket?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sub-spotting-technology-threatens-nuclear-deterence

LOL, well that didn't take as long as I thought.  And here I've been told it's unpossible.

Actually, I was struck by just how devoid of technical matters the original Holmes paper was but then I saw that Holmes was citing "Daily Beast" and suddenly the target audience made sense.

Actually the original source is from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, not Daily Beast.

http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1194060




Yep. That's the one I was referring to by James R. Holmes. Check out the references. Not exactly unclassified Submarine Technology Symposium papers; this year's classified agenda is especially
drool worthy.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 06, 2016, 04:16:20 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/06/three_reasons_why_the_us_needs_a_replacement_nuclear_cruise_missile_109521.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 06, 2016, 04:26:48 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/06/once_again_why_a_no-first-use_policy_is_a_bad_very_bad_idea_109520.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 06, 2016, 11:32:53 pm
Smith Supports Triad, But Wants Fewer ICBMs

—Otto Kreisher7/7/2016

​The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agrees there is a need for a nuclear deterrent force and believes the strategic triad “still makes sense,” though he said the nation cannot afford the $1 trillion estimated cost for modernizing all three legs of the triad. “If we save some money there, we could address some of the other threats,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Wednesday. He listed ISIS terrorists as “the biggest threat.” Speaking to defense reporters in Washington, D.C., Smith said the strategic missile submarines are “the easiest to hide and the safest,” and he supports building the new B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber because the current force is aging and bombers have been useful in conventional conflicts, such as Iraq. “I think we can do with less ICBMs,” which are “the least survivable,” he said. The Navy has begun developing a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic submarines. The Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to build at least 100 long-range stealthy B-21s, and is planning a replacement for the 450 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs. Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned up the thread some will focus on LRSO elimination, others on reducing or getting rid of the GBSD and mark my words when the time comes SSBN(X) numbers will be "re-evaluated" in light of "budgetary" issues.

They keep saying $1 trillion for Triad modernization and leave out the "over the next 30 years". Over that same time total government spending will approach $200 trillion with entitlement spending comprising anywhere from $120 trillion to $130 trillion of the total. When the last time a politician said "The $120 trillion we are spending on entitlements over the next 30 years is unaffordable you know 120 TIMES what the Triad will cost"  :o
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on July 07, 2016, 01:12:35 am
Smith Supports Triad, But Wants Fewer ICBMs

—Otto Kreisher7/7/2016

​The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agrees there is a need for a nuclear deterrent force and believes the strategic triad “still makes sense,” though he said the nation cannot afford the $1 trillion estimated cost for modernizing all three legs of the triad. “If we save some money there, we could address some of the other threats,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Wednesday. He listed ISIS terrorists as “the biggest threat.” Speaking to defense reporters in Washington, D.C., Smith said the strategic missile submarines are “the easiest to hide and the safest,” and he supports building the new B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber because the current force is aging and bombers have been useful in conventional conflicts, such as Iraq. “I think we can do with less ICBMs,” which are “the least survivable,” he said. The Navy has begun developing a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic submarines. The Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to build at least 100 long-range stealthy B-21s, and is planning a replacement for the 450 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs. Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned up the thread some will focus on LRSO elimination, others on reducing or getting rid of the GBSD and mark my words when the time comes SSBN(X) numbers will be "re-evaluated" in light of "budgetary" issues.

They keep saying $1 trillion for Triad modernization and leave out the "over the next 30 years". Over that same time total government spending will approach $200 trillion with entitlement spending comprising anywhere from $120 trillion to $130 trillion of the total. When the last time a politician said "The $120 trillion we are spending on entitlements over the next 30 years is unaffordable you know 120 TIMES what the Triad will cost"  :o

Without getting into the politics of it would query why the hatred of entitlements (support for the poorest and most vulnerable in society) that's gets spent in and boasts the wider economy specifically in the context of versus spending on gold-plating each element of the nuclear triad and which associated spending has less of an impact on the wider economy.

The triad (and nuclear weapons in general) ia necessary evil but it makes sense not to overspend on/  get over ambitious with plans for weapons that (hopefully) will never be used.

Having an effective survivable triad is the name of the game, and given no one in US politics is remotely willing to pay for anything beyond this minimal level it is the only game in town.
Renewal of US forces badly needed but will self evidently have to be carefully managed (with difficult decisions to be made) if this is to be afforded
No one in interested in or wishes to fund a new arms race with Russia; perhaps people with your position can convince the US middle-upper class to pay tax increases for the nuclear forces you want?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 07, 2016, 05:12:45 am
Smith Supports Triad, But Wants Fewer ICBMs

—Otto Kreisher7/7/2016

​The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agrees there is a need for a nuclear deterrent force and believes the strategic triad “still makes sense,” though he said the nation cannot afford the $1 trillion estimated cost for modernizing all three legs of the triad. “If we save some money there, we could address some of the other threats,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Wednesday. He listed ISIS terrorists as “the biggest threat.” Speaking to defense reporters in Washington, D.C., Smith said the strategic missile submarines are “the easiest to hide and the safest,” and he supports building the new B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber because the current force is aging and bombers have been useful in conventional conflicts, such as Iraq. “I think we can do with less ICBMs,” which are “the least survivable,” he said. The Navy has begun developing a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic submarines. The Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman a contract to build at least 100 long-range stealthy B-21s, and is planning a replacement for the 450 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs. Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned up the thread some will focus on LRSO elimination, others on reducing or getting rid of the GBSD and mark my words when the time comes SSBN(X) numbers will be "re-evaluated" in light of "budgetary" issues.

They keep saying $1 trillion for Triad modernization and leave out the "over the next 30 years". Over that same time total government spending will approach $200 trillion with entitlement spending comprising anywhere from $120 trillion to $130 trillion of the total. When the last time a politician said "The $120 trillion we are spending on entitlements over the next 30 years is unaffordable you know 120 TIMES what the Triad will cost"  :o

A Democrat- of course.  And using the whole "ISIS" boogie man is disingenuous (to put it politely).  ISIS presents approximately 0.0% of a threat to the continued existence of the US.  The same cannot be said of foreign nuclear forces which must be deterred, and destroyed if necessary. 

"Smith rebutted the Republican arguments that the US needed to match Russia’s nuclear force modernization, calling that “Cold War” thinking."

Ye Gods.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on July 07, 2016, 06:43:24 am
Ye Gods.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 07, 2016, 07:56:18 am
http://www.nti.org/newsroom/news/nato-summit-alliance-must-avoid-escalating-tensions-russia-says-new-nti-report/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 07, 2016, 08:44:41 pm
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Quote
Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 07, 2016, 09:13:42 pm
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Quote
Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.

It's nice to see how well versed this "lawmaker" is in the particulars of nuclear deterence. Why don't we need a new nuclear cruise missle (to replace the by then half-century old AGM-86)? Why because he says so of course.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on July 08, 2016, 12:20:17 am
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/07/air-force-doesnt-need-new-nuclear-cruise-missile-lawmaker-says/

Quote
Smith said the nation’s triad of deterrents consisting of nuclear submarines, long-range bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles “still makes sense.”

But, he added, “I don”t think we need the ability to destroy the world five times over.”

Again the game of "I support the Triad BUT".

This is the level of the debate of the 'other side' hyperbole, scare tactics, name calling when it should be a reasonable and thoughtful look at one of if not the most important element of our military posture.

I am not familiar with this representative and I would disagree with with the suggestion that the new nuclear armed cruise missile isn't needed.

However I would note that the specific comments in this article are not hyperbolic and did not feature scare tactics or name calling. In this the contrast with the tone & content versus many of your & Sfferins posts on this topic are very notable. Your criticisms above far more validly apply to yourself & Sferrin than many of the individuals you are seeking to critique.

To my mind mind the strongest argument for the new nuclear armed cruise missile is that it will strengthen (and hopefully future proof) the bomber part of the triad disproportionately versus the same money spent on X number of additional land based ICBMs (with Y number being funded and fielded).
The nuclear cruise missile will hopefully discourage an opponent from a view that they can develop effective defenses against the new US bomber because the new missile will push up its level of survivability in the nuclear role to a point that isn't cost-effective to seek to fully counter.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 08, 2016, 10:35:26 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-un-idUSKCN0ZN2JV
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: fredymac on July 14, 2016, 08:25:32 am
5 months from lame duck status, Obama pivots back to one final push on nuke cutbacks.   How much damage can be done via executive orders?  Programs can be canceled but can physical assets be destroyed without congressional approval?   Given congressional fecklessness, would that matter?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/obama-plans-major-nuclear-policy-changes-in-his-final-months/2016/07/10/fef3d5ca-4521-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/obama-plans-major-nuclear-policy-changes-in-his-final-months/2016/07/10/fef3d5ca-4521-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html)

"The Obama administration is determined to use its final six months in office to take a series of executive actions to advance the nuclear agenda the president has advocated since his college days."

"President Obama announced his drive to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and eventually rid the world of them in his first major foreign policy speech, in Prague in 2009."

"Now, the president is considering using the freedom afforded a departing administration to cross off several remaining items on his nuclear wish list."

"Many of the options on the table are controversial, but by design none of them require formal congressional approval."
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: UpForce on July 14, 2016, 09:04:18 pm
5 months from lame duck status, Obama pivots back to one final push on nuke cutbacks. How much damage can be done via executive orders? Programs can be canceled but can physical assets be destroyed without congressional approval? Given congressional fecklessness, would that matter?

I read the article as well, but all in all there wasn't much substance.

The Obama administration has resorted to maneuvering within executive powers quite a lot since the gridlock on the Capitol Hill. Thus I'm sure they're well aware of their constraints and possibilities. Over the last seven years they have actually done admirably in securing a lot of risky nuclear material from around the world in (understandably) little advertised operations from various countries, though their policies' total effect on actual weapons proliferation is up for debate (to put it kindly). The latter, wider perspective, is of course much complicated by problems inherited (like the continuing fallout from AQ Khan's network) and Russia's leadership effectively going rogue in causing "hybrid" mischief practically wherever they can (see the kinds of places Rosatom is exporting to). Even superpowers can't rule by decree alone and no one policy's outcome is ever entirely predictable.

All in all I wouldn't view it positively if Obama's "nuclear legacy" were to be stymied by thinking merely within presidential terms, but frankly that's what talk about taking executive action points to. Shortsighted, frustrated, symbolic and costly, probably. Nuclear policy and deterrence in particular are matters which politicians and policies have less control over than they'll generally believe based on the formal definitions of their own powers (apart from "the button" itself). I appreciate the steadfast intent on making this World a safer place, a moral compass is indispensable in navigating such uncharted matters as existential risks are. But the upheavals we're experiencing mean that the powers we wield must remain actionable and believable and any and all symbolism must be based on that.

Just by stating that nukes are useless (e.g. declaring no first use or putting much of the arsenal in "cold storage") won't make them go away neither here or there since uselessness (via MAD) is kinda the point of deterrence. Not ideal but that's what we got until we get much smarter about this than we likely currently can conceive to be.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 18, 2016, 07:42:26 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-defence-idUSKCN0ZX10K

British Trident
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 19, 2016, 07:46:35 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/new-cruise-missile-crucial-to-nuclear-deterrence/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 20, 2016, 11:43:33 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on July 21, 2016, 06:45:45 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html

Not having a go at the writer but perhaps not the most in depth examination of the pro v con of mobile ICBMs (one of main arguments seems to be mobile less boring for service people).
Given the necessary (& detectable) footprint and logistics re: effective security, safety & command to me mobile ICBMs may not be worth while for US circumstances versus fixed silos (and spending on improving early detection/ warning systems).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 21, 2016, 07:38:21 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/21/is_the_no_first_use_policy_the_right_policy_109602.html

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/07/20-nuclear-weapons-northeast-asia-pollack-bush

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-baltic-states-are-where-nuclear-war-most-likely-17044
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 21, 2016, 09:45:54 pm
Pentagon pegs nuclear modernization tab at $350B to $450B over 20 years

The Defense Department estimates the cost to modernize U.S. nuclear forces will be between $350 billion and $450 billion over two decades -- a sum that does not include warhead acquisition nor operations cost -- providing a key data point in a policy debate that until now has been largely framed by cost estimates from think tanks and congressional auditors.

Air Force estimates $20 billion savings with new ICBM compared with Minuteman life extension

The Air Force calculates that modernizing the silo-based missile portion of the nuclear triad will yield as much as $20 billion in cost avoidance over five decades compared with extending the life of the current fleet of Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to a senior service official.

Lt. Gen. Weinstein: Insights on commonality will come with GBSD RFP release

As Congress continues to pressure the Air Force and Navy to make a decision about leveraging commonality between the Air Force's new intercontinental ballistic missile replacement and the Navy's Trident III life-extension program, the Air Force's three-star general in charge of nuclear strategy and integration said this week the benefits of commonality extend beyond partnerships among the services.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 21, 2016, 10:26:50 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/20/why_not_mobile_icbms_109590.html

Not having a go at the writer but perhaps not the most in depth examination of the pro v con of mobile ICBMs (one of main arguments seems to be mobile less boring for service people).
Given the necessary (& detectable) footprint and logistics re: effective security, safety & command to me mobile ICBMs may not be worth while for US circumstances versus fixed silos (and spending on improving early detection/ warning systems).

Or spending money on Overlay/Underlay ABM since the US is not bound by the ABM treaty. Taking a look at DEWS and EMRGs for terminal defenses should be a high priority.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 23, 2016, 03:11:16 pm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/august/Pages/AirForceKicksOffProgramtoReplaceMinutemanIIIMissiles.aspx

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 23, 2016, 11:29:30 pm
Strength through Flexibility

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​The flexibility the nuclear triad provides is the key to deterrence, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va., Weinstein said each leg challenges other nations to account for each capability, and sustaining them is necessary to prevent future massive conflicts like those that killed tens of millions of people during the 20th century. “We need to remember our actions or inactions impact what others do,” Weinstein said. “So, do we need a strategic bomber? Do we need a submarine-based platform? Do we need a Long-Range Standoff weapon? Do we need a gravity bomb? Do we need a ground-based ICBM? And do we need command and control and infrastructure to support all legs of the triad? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes.” Weinstein said the modernization costs, which are projected to reach seven percent of the entire DOD budget in the mid 2020s, are “not historically unreasonable,” noting nuclear enterprise upgrades amounted to about 20 percent of the DOD budget in the 1960s and up to 10 percent of the budget in the 1980s. The total life-cycle cost of upgrading the nuclear enterprise is expected to be $1 trillion, he said. President Barack Obama’s budget requests have funded the modernization programs thus far, but fixes will need to be found for the 2020 bow wave, he acknowledged. As far as development goes, Weinstein said the LRSO Milestone A decision and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent request for proposal are both before Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall. In June, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told lawmakers during his nomination hearing the LRSO milestone A decision was expected within two weeks and the GBSD milestone A decision was expected in August.

A Matter of Perception

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​Equipping the Air Force’s F-35A with nuclear weapons would not lower the threshold of their use, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. “Using nuclear weapons is a decision made by the President of the United States, nobody else,” Weinstein said during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. “I don’t see a potential use of an F-35 [as being] any different than having a dual-capable aircraft now with the F-15E ... or the F-16, so I look at it as continued modernization of our force,” he noted. When asked whether the F-35’s stealth capability changes the equation, Weinstein said the aircraft doesn’t change who authorizes the use of nuclear weapons. He suggested the perception of a dual-capable F-35 will act as a stronger deterrent. Weinstein also said he traveled to Europe a few months ago and that NATO’s commitment to maintaining dual-capable aircraft “is as strong as it’s ever been.” In April, F-35 program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told lawmakers the service anticipates beginning B61 Mod 12 integration on the F-35A in 2018. The first production of B61 Mod 12, which pairs an upgraded warhead with a precision-guided tailkit, is expected by 2020.

Morale Boost

—Will Skowronski

7/22/2016

​The service’s changes to the nuclear force have greatly improved morale, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. “Things are so much better now than they were in the past,” Weinstein said at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. Air Force Global Strike Command launched the Force Improvement Program in February 2014 to prompt a command-wide look at morale after widespread cheating on nuclear proficiency exams and and drug use at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., were uncovered. The investigation revealed low morale across the force. As part of FIP, new career opportunities were created. Since then, the command has investigated drug use at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., but the “vast majority” of the 31,000 airmen who constitute the force are meeting or exceeding Air Force standards, Global Strike Commander Gen. Robin Rand said in March. Weinstein attributed the improvements to giving the airmen more responsibility for their mission. “If you’re going to tell somebody that they have a job of national importance, and you’re going to tell someone that what they do impacts this nation every single day, you need to give them the responsibility,” he said. “To me, when I say what the morale is, it’s really high. And it’s high because we put responsibility where it belongs
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 23, 2016, 11:32:18 pm
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on July 24, 2016, 12:39:19 pm
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/

Gotta love politicians who think the way to reduce the likelihood of being attacked is to appear weak and submissive. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 24, 2016, 11:08:48 pm
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/839087/dod-experts-tell-congress-nuclear-modernization-efforts-crucial

http://www.defense.gov/Video?videoid=474930
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 25, 2016, 07:00:32 am
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lrso-keeps-b-2-relevant-counterstealth-tech-improves#comment-406091
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 25, 2016, 08:10:58 pm
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lrso-keeps-b-2-relevant-counterstealth-tech-improves#comment-406091

Not sure I buy the premise of the headline; LRSO merely restores the nuclear standoff capability that B-2 was always intended to have before SRAM II was cancelled.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 25, 2016, 10:39:16 pm
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/all-cards-on-the-table-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 26, 2016, 03:19:41 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/if-boomers-get-special-account-so-should-b-21-icbms-secaf-james/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 26, 2016, 11:04:33 pm
https://mises.org/blog/decentralize-nuclear-arsenals
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 27, 2016, 01:55:10 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/no-first-use-dont-do-it-mr-president/

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2008/R3765.pdf
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 28, 2016, 06:00:41 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/28/ohio-replacement-sub-class-named-d-c

USS Columbia

I'm still hoping they're called "Neptune Class"
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 28, 2016, 07:11:30 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/07/28/the_true_cost_of_nuclear_deterrence_109635.html

Yup the bill comes due after 25 years of neglect.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 28, 2016, 11:50:50 pm
Rand: US Must Modernize Nuclear Triad

—Otto Kreisher 7/29/2016

​To ensure that they remain ready to perform their critical mission as part of the strategic nuclear deterrent force, the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and the strategic bomber force must be modernized, the Air Force Global Strike Command boss said Thursday. And in addition to fielding the new B-21 bomber and replacing or modernizing the Minuteman III ICBMs, Gen. Robin Rand said he needed to update the nuclear command, control, and communications system, the airborne and land-based network of systems that give the President 24/7 assured control of the nuclear deterrent force. Addressing an AFA Mitchell Institute breakfast audience, Rand also argued for the Long-Range Standoff weapon to replace the Air Launched Cruise Missile, which was supposed to last 10 years but is now 30 years old. The LRSO is essential in the current anti-access, area-denial environment, he said. Rand said the ICMBs are nearly 50-years old and the B-52s are even older and the command is struggling to keep them ready. “We can meet our missions today, but it is time when we need to make some decisions” on how to ensure the reliability and survivability of those two legs of the strategic triad, he said. (Read also: Ground-Based Question Mark from the July issue of Air Force Magazine.)

STRATCOM Boss Stresses Need for Resiliency, Flexibility

—Otto Kreisher 7/29/2016

​​Faced with a global security environment that is “complex, dynamic, and volatile,” the commander of US Strategic Command stressed the need for resiliency and flexibility in “delivering effective deterrence and assurance.” In response to the threats from nuclear-armed and belligerent Russia, China, and North Korea, Iran’s missile and cyber capabilities, and violent extremists, Adm. Cecil Haney said the first priority was to recapitalize the nuclear deterrent enterprise. “This is critical in a global security environment where it is clear that other nuclear-capable nations are placing a high priority” on their nuclear forces, Haney told a STRATCOM-sponsored forum Wednesday. He also urged investments in cyberspace and space “resiliency,” aggressive pursuit of the Third Offset capabilities, and “asymmetric advantages that capitalize on our strengths and exploit our adversaries’ weaknesses.” And, “we must master the speed of information and the strategic narrative,” Haney said. At the end of the day, he said, “our adversaries and potential adversaries must understand that they cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict, that they will not reap the benefits they seek. … Any nation that thinks they can get away with a strategic attack on the United States or our allies, must think again.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on July 29, 2016, 04:32:14 pm
LRSO and GBSD move forward.

Air Force Kicks Off Competitions for Two Critical Nuclear Programs (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/07/29/air-force-competition-nuclear-programs-gbsd-deterrent-lrso-cruise-missile-icbm/87751050/)

Some excerpts:

For the GBSD program, the Air Force plans to award up to two 36-month technology maturation and risk reduction contracts by the end of fiscal year 2017.
After downselecting to a single bidder, it would then deploy the ballistic missile system in the late 2020s.


For the cruise missile competition, the Air Force plans on awarding up to two contract awards for LRSO technology maturation and risk reduction by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017.
By the end of this 54-month stage, contractors will have developed a preliminary design “with demonstrated reliability and manufacturability,” the service said in a news release.

After a competition, the Air Force will downselect a single vendor, with fielding scheduled to kick off by 2030.

LRSO is planned to launch from the B-21, B-2 and B-52
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 30, 2016, 11:20:03 pm

Air Force Launches LRSO
—John A. Tirpak 8/1/2016

        comment

​The Air Force issued a request for proposals Friday for the Long Range Standoff weapon, a nuclear-capable cruise missile meant to succeed the current AGM-86B Air launched Cruise Missile, already 20 years past its planned retirement. The new missile would enter service in 2030. According to a service announcement, USAF is starting the technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) phase of the project. It’s looking to carry one or two prime contractors through a 54-month preliminary design phase, during which the contractors would demonstrate their concepts’ reliability and “manufacturability.” After that, there would be a competition to choose a single contractor to build the weapon. The Air Force has declined to provide any details about the LRSO, and has suggested the program might be run out of the Rapid Capabilities Office, a streamlined and secret organization meant to quickly field needed technologies. It did say the project would be “synchronized” by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, headed by Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson, program executive officer for strategic systems, and by Air Force Materiel Command. USAF leaders have refused to say whether they envision the LRSO as a hypersonic weapon, building on the success of the X-51 project, but the timing may coincide with such a goal. The USAF statement said the LRSO would equip the B-2, B-52, and new B-21 bombers, and is intended to be able to penetrate densely defended targets worldwide, denying any enemy “geographic sanctuary.”

USAF said that while the ALCM remains “safe, secure and effective, it is facing increasing sustainment and operational challenges against evolving threats” and a replacement is needed. The AGM-86B was joined for a time by the stealthy AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile, but that weapon was retired in 2012 as a cost-saving measure. The Air Force said the LRSO will provide a needed element to the air-launched aspect of the nuclear triad, providing credibility and a “tailorable deterrent effect” against adversaries and “evolving threats.” USAF didn’t specify how much it’s planning to spend on the TMRR phase. (See also: Nukes Are “A Big Bill.”)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 31, 2016, 10:58:27 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBj8PpI8SA

LLNL - Russian Views on Strategic Deterrence.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 31, 2016, 11:13:21 am
A mostly propaganda video on the Sarmat ICBM (SS-18 replacement) but does disclose (for what it's worth) that Sarmat will be 170t last reported estimate was 100t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8as7bKjV7c
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on July 31, 2016, 09:52:14 pm
http://thebulletin.org/press-release/25-years-start9690?platform=hootsuite

Quote
Twenty-five years ago this Sunday, the world gave a heavy sigh of relief. On July 31st, 1991, Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush signed the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or more commonly, START I. The treaty limited the nuclear arsenals on either side of the Iron Curtain to 6,000 warheads and 1,600 Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles (SNDVs) by 2001

We should never have gone below these levels IMHO. With the improved relations between the superpowers at the time of this treaty it should also have marked the decoupling of the arsenal, in a numeric sense, from the size of the Russian arsenal and sized ONLY to our strategic and extended deterrence needs.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 01, 2016, 03:04:41 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on August 01, 2016, 03:28:30 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

Asteroid deflection role? Honestly?
I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Good luck selling that line of bullshit to Congress.....
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 01, 2016, 04:17:52 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

This.  You're not going to deflect an iron asteroid you just detected 6 months out with a solar sail. 

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 01, 2016, 07:09:11 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/08/01/new-us-nuclear-warhead-b61-nnsa-production-engineering/87922672/

We should begin R&D on next generation family of warheads from sub-kiloton to Mt for the Triad along with research into very large yield 100Mt + for the asteroid deflect mission.

This.  You're not going to deflect an iron asteroid you just detected 6 months out with a solar sail.
Interesting article with video on a 1/2 KM wide asteroid with only 1Mt warhead. He also talks about "late detection only a few months from impact"

http://www.space.com/21333-asteroid-nuke-spacecraft-mission.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on August 01, 2016, 07:13:33 pm

I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Then you're not reading credible sources. Nukes are not only a viable solution to the issue... for near-term impactors they're the *only* solution.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on August 01, 2016, 07:37:22 pm
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/22/us-lawmakers-duel-over-plans-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal/

Gotta love politicians who think the way to reduce the likelihood of being attacked is to appear weak and submissive.

Sure Scott - you know the only reason there is violence around the world is US hegemony.  If the US wasn't so strong there wouldn't be any violence anywhere. 

Remember after the Great War when no one country was substantially stronger than anyone else there was no reason for any country to go to war anymore.  Oh, wait a minute.  I'm forgetting WWII. 

Well, we all know it's true.  Just look at how dangerous it is in the Caribbean.  Look at all the wars going on in South America.  Look at how much Canada and Mexico have to spend on their defense.  The US is a very dangerous neighbor buddy!



Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on August 01, 2016, 11:32:53 pm
the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 02, 2016, 04:59:54 am
the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.

Or go to Africa and see which buffalo gets pulled down, the weak and sickly one, or the one that wants a piece of that lion just because it's annoying.  The concept of "weak is bad, strong is good" is so fundamental that it beggars belief that anybody couldn't be familiar with the concept.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: NeilChapman on August 02, 2016, 06:06:56 am
the way to reduce the likelihood ....

... the only reason there is

Hmmm. Those two things don't seem very similar. It almost seems as if you're arguing against a claim that wasn't made.

Here's a thought experiment: go to the "bad side of town" and act falling-down drunk. And have someone else walk through town looking alert and capable. See who gets mugged first.

I was expanding upon Scott's point.  A weak US raises the likelihood of bad actors make poor decisions.  Where there is US hegemony there is a baseline peaceful coexistence where countries enjoy low defense budgets.

Canada      1.0% - Which is 1/2 their NATO commitment
Mexico       0.7%
Nicaragua  0.6%
Panama     0.0%
Belize        1.1%
Costa Rica  0.0%
El Salvador 0.9%
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 02, 2016, 11:37:23 am

I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Then you're not reading credible sources. Nukes are not only a viable solution to the issue... for near-term impactors they're the *only* solution.

Not only that, how would he propose to get nukes to the asteroid if not by missile?  Slingshot?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on August 02, 2016, 03:18:26 pm

I'm not a expert on asteroid deflection buy anything remotely credible I've ever see on this topic tended to rubbish nuclear weapons (especially missile mounted) as a realistic "solution".

Then you're not reading credible sources. Nukes are not only a viable solution to the issue... for near-term impactors they're the *only* solution.

Not only that, how would he propose to get nukes to the asteroid if not by missile?  Slingshot?

Never claimed to be an expert; if any of you happen to be experts on asteroid deflection then that's a very happy coincidence.

My limited familiarity comes from articles and documentaries from reputable sources such as the BBC; for example I recall a Horizon documentary.

My recollection is that for any chance of a nuclear weapon being effective you would have to get very lucky with the type of asteroid or meteor you were facing and even then the device would need to be at the centre of the object to maximise its effect (dependent on the type of space object not likely to be achievable by just shooting a missile into it). Also the very sound argument that a large yield weapon (needing alot of fissile material) would in it self be extremely dangerous and potentialy world ending as a potential asteroid.
An argument was put forward that it was better to spend resources on earlier detection and potential early intervention "pushing"/ solar sail solutions, as mentioned above.

And that's before we get to common sense. Short of a very clear massive imminent threat who is going to be willing to pay for (and take the probable massive international implications for) developing massive yield nuclear weapons so you "might" be able to take a shot at an asteroid "if" we detect it early enough, "if" it happens to be on a collision course, and "if" it happens to have any chance of being successful against the specific asteriod/ meteor/ comet etc. That part of the equation is the most sci-fi of all.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 02, 2016, 04:08:10 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 02, 2016, 04:14:52 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.

There should be two.  A lightweight, Midgetman type, and a heavy Peacekeeper+ missile.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 02, 2016, 04:25:37 pm
Dr. Keith Payne of NIPP and Peter Huessy of Mitchell Institute two real patriots who understand deterrence.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2016/08/02/imminent-danger-of-no-first-use-policy/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on August 02, 2016, 04:31:19 pm
Quote
Also the very sound argument that a large yield weapon (needing alot of fissile material) would in it self be extremely dangerous and potentialy world ending as a potential asteroid.

I invite you to re-read that. The largest nukes that humans are likely to whip up in the event of a threatening impactor would likely be in the range of 100 megatons, because that's the rough scale of the largest nukes we've ever made. The yield-equivalent of the sort of impactors we're likely to worry about on an existential level would be in the range of hundreds of thousands to *millions* of megatons.

We have set off fifty-megaton bombs with *no* world-ending implications. A 100 megaton bomb would be little more dangerous. But a million-megaton impact? Juuuuuust a bit more dangerous. They are not remotely comparable.


Quote
. Short of a very clear massive imminent threat who is going to be willing to pay for (and take the probable massive international implications for) developing massive yield nuclear weapons so you "might" be able to take a shot at an asteroid "if" we detect it early enough,

The Wayland-Yutani Corporation. Then they can sue the UN to recover costs. Maybe settle on transferring the geographical region and mineral rights for, say, Andorra and Dubai to corporate control.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 02, 2016, 04:42:41 pm
So what would the cost be of converting a Ares booster (as an example) to carry 10 10Mt nukes or 10 Spacex Heavy boosters? Lets say 50 billion compared to what 10 Trillion if the east coast was wiped out by an asteroid? Plus another 10 Trillion in global wealth destroyed.

This is a cheap no brainer cost benefit wise. Plus to be honest with readers I want the labs building new nukes again before we forever lose that capability.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 02, 2016, 06:08:20 pm
Plus to be honest with readers I want the labs building new nukes again before we forever lose that capability.

I doubt Russia or China will ever lose the ability.  I do doubt the likelihood of them ever shooting an asteroid down for us if it happened to be headed for the US though. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 03, 2016, 04:57:30 am
http://news.sky.com/story/asteroid-strike-could-cause-immense-suffering-10519054

Dante Lauretta, the NASA expert in charge of a new mission to analyse the asteroid, said;

Quote
"Don't run out and buy asteroid insurance," he said, explaining that "nukes" or a "gravity tractor" could be among the options for knocking it off course.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 03, 2016, 05:01:42 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/03/mobile_icbms_are_a_bad_idea_109666.html

Don't agree but like to post different sides of arguments.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on August 03, 2016, 07:30:11 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/02/recapitalizing_the_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles_109657.html

Still think it should be at least twice the throw weight of MMIII enabling uploading to 5+ AMaRVs if future strategic environment changes.

There should be two.  A lightweight, Midgetman type, and a heavy Peacekeeper+ missile.

Preaching to the choir, brother.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 04, 2016, 03:03:29 am
Air Force tweaks schedule for GBSD, LRSO contract awards

The Air Force is tweaking the acquisition schedule for two major nuclear modernization projects, slightly delaying estimated contract award dates compared to the most recently published plan for a new silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile and a new cruise missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 04, 2016, 04:39:06 pm
Hat Tip Mr. Havoc from Nuke Weapons News Only Thread

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/04/obama-will-bypass-congress-seek-u-n-resolution-on-nuclear-testing/

This and other issues ignoring/bypassing the Constitutional role of the Senate's treaty power sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. Mind you with the Republican Senate giving away that power for the Iran Agreement (Treaty) what difference does it make.

I always ask myself how many Romans recognized the decline and fall..............
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 04, 2016, 05:19:51 pm
Air Force official: 'GBSD is silo-based. Period.'

The Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration has attempted to close the door on the discussion of whether the Air Force will eventually pursue a mobile basing option for its replacement intercontinental ballistic missile, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent

That settles that I guess............
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 05, 2016, 08:01:10 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Complain it is too costly, priceless  ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 05, 2016, 09:50:02 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Discover you forgot how to do much of what you need, check.
Realize you need to recreate your knowledge base, check.
Complain it is too costly, priceless  ::)

Fixed.  :'(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 05, 2016, 07:09:30 pm
Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on August 06, 2016, 01:15:40 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/bow-wave-time-bomb-b-21-ohio-replacement-costs-likely-to-grow/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32541575&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9aEglIFMb4qBuP1rNNVRZqBbOgbVIoClPj-IbwtxMN_p2Nw9bhK3EJzQYe_dpwv81xsj9SfauHG3SO0UBz0T-hK6UC9Q&_hsmi=32541575

Say the Cold War is over, check
Stop all modernization of the Triad and Nuke enterprise, check
Wait until old and possibly obsolete, check
Need to replace all at once, check
Discover you forgot how to do much of what you need, check.
Realize you need to recreate your knowledge base, check.
Complain it is too costly, priceless  ::)

Fixed.  :'(

What do your comments have to do with the actual article which itself?
It was relatively neutral; for good or bad there is a concentration of nuclear triad related spending coming up which (like all major defense projects) will be vulnerable to cost overruns.

Considering some of the right-wing click bait both of you regularly post without any critical comments (for example I recall an article calling for Obama to be impeached for the Iran deal) it seems at best random what articles you choose to direct your critical facilities. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 06, 2016, 08:43:06 am
Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

Can't fix stupid.  (Or in this case an intentional effort to weaken the US from the top.  >:()
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on August 06, 2016, 11:07:46 am
Thanks Scott, can you fix this?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

Can't fix stupid.  (Or in this case an intentional effort to weaken the US from the top.  >:()

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. - Sir John Harington
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 08, 2016, 07:54:23 am
http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/nows-not-the-time-to-lower-americas-nuclear-guard-mr-president/

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 08, 2016, 03:23:54 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdyFPJn6Eg4

Redefining the US Agenda for Nuclear Disarmament
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 08, 2016, 04:39:50 pm
Sorry but I don't see how pursuing unilateral disarmament is going to HELP the US.  I also don't agree that it would help with modernization.  I have no doubt whatsoever that certain parties (we all know who they are) would "promise modernization as long as we cut the total numbers of warheads.  We'll cut the numbers of warheads today and give you promises of modernization tomorrow - that we'll make sure never amount to anything."  And that guy's voice is annoying as hell.

"Nuclear weapons would no longer be seen as essential for national security."  Ye gods.  Okay.  So Russia and China have huge, modern strategic nuclear forces but if we just declare them not essential for us is that suppose to magically wave those opposing forces away? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 09, 2016, 12:42:12 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-air-force-wants-new-city-killer-nuclear-missiles%E2%80%94-prevent-17287

Hyperbole aside in the click bait title.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 09, 2016, 07:38:23 am
http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-wants-replace-us-s-aging-nuclear-icbms-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160809_AW-05_86&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6651&utm_medium=email&elq2=d1ee7bbb48b641afaf38739c84d1892b#slide-0-field_images-1495111

The fourth slide "Antares" booster would make a heck of a CPGS missile (for size comparison I believe that is Minotaur second from the right which is Peacekeeper size.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 09, 2016, 08:00:02 am
http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-wants-replace-us-s-aging-nuclear-icbms-0?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160809_AW-05_86&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6651&utm_medium=email&elq2=d1ee7bbb48b641afaf38739c84d1892b#slide-0-field_images-1495111

The fourth slide "Antares" booster would make a heck of a CPGS missile (for size comparison I believe that is Minotaur second from the right which is Peacekeeper size.)

That comment section is face-palm city.  Apparently AvWeek wasn't satisfied with how far it had fallen so they decided to allow commenting on it's articles too.  The least they could do is make it so only subscribers could comment so at least there are a few brain cells involved.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 10, 2016, 07:38:37 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/10/the_us_icbm_force_money_better_spent_elsewhere_109690.html

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 11, 2016, 05:57:26 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-americas-military-needs-new-nuclear-armed-cruise-missile-17314
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 15, 2016, 06:47:27 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

Quote
“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 15, 2016, 07:23:51 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/allies-unite-to-block-an-obama-legacy/2016/08/14/cdb8d8e4-60b9-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html?utm_term=.33e171f1c625

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/15/nuclear_weapons_and_first_use_109704.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 15, 2016, 08:19:01 am
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

Quote
“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

It's all good. Feinstein said we don't need any new weapons. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 15, 2016, 06:04:35 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-new-underground-nuclear-command-posts/

Quote
“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

It's all good. Feinstein said we don't need any new weapons. 
Phew that's a relief thanks Senator  :o

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-nuclear-test-moratorium-common-sense-17341
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 16, 2016, 05:10:05 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-16/air-force-ballistic-missile-upgrade-said-to-be-stalled-over-cost

Quote
The uncertainty over costs stems from the fact that the U.S. has not built new ICBMs, which are designed to carry nuclear warheads, for decades.

Quote
The Air Force is currently weighing whether to accept the direction to fund the ICBM program at the higher estimate and where to find the extra money, the official said. The service must agree to the higher forecast or it won’t move forward -- unless the Pentagon allows the Air Force to underfund it, which is unlikely.

Unreal! Some politician with guts should declare this a national emergency and prioritize spending to completely modernize the Triad and nuke enterprise.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 16, 2016, 05:11:39 pm
x2.  It's never going to get easier by doing nothing.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 16, 2016, 05:16:02 pm
Followed by this

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/16/russian_violations_of_the_inf_and_new_start_treaties_109708.html

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IS-410-final.pdf

http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IS-407.pdf

Quote
Russia’s 2016 New START data, released by the Department of State, indicate that since New START’s entry  into  force  (EIF)  in  2011,  Russia  has  increased  its  deployed  warheads.  Russia  has  reached 1,735 deployed  warheads,  an  increase  of  198  warheads  since  New  START’s  EIF  when  Russia  had  1,537 deployed warheads.

Russia is now 185 warheads above the New START Treaty limit. U.S. data for the same period indicate the U.S. cut its warheads from 1,800 to 1,481, 69 below the New START limit of 1,550.

The  Russian  increase  is  even  more  impressive  when  it  is  compared  with  their  level  of  1,400 warheads in October 2013. From this baseline, the increase is 325 warheads or about 24%. According to Bill Gertz, an Obama administration official told him, “The Russians are doubling their [nuclear] warhead output,” and, “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

Gertz also reported Russia had added over 150 more warheads during the past year. This  appears  consistent  with  what  Russian  leaders  say  they  are  doing  with  regard  to  nuclear force modernization. We are now five years into the New START Treaty’s seven-year reduction period (2011-2018) and all we have seen is increases in Russian nuclear warheads. The only reductions being made are unilaterally by the U.S. It is likely the U.S. will be down to all the New START limits in the near future.

Is this being reported anywhere?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 16, 2016, 06:01:07 pm
Doesn't fit the MSM narrative.  People have legacies to worry about you know.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 18, 2016, 10:05:56 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-dangerous-drive-ban-nuclear-weapons-testing-17391
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 18, 2016, 10:34:24 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/obamas-dangerous-drive-ban-nuclear-weapons-testing-17391

Anything to tie our hands.  >:(  Putin and Xi couldn't have asked for better friends.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 23, 2016, 09:45:00 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-must-be-ready-nuke-back-fast-17439
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 25, 2016, 09:02:10 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 26, 2016, 06:00:11 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/south-korean-nukes-less-risky-america-extended-deterrence-17464
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 26, 2016, 07:26:47 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html

If you told a bunch of hardened criminals that you swear, no matter what, you will never shoot first, how well do you think that would work out?  About the only thing worse would be unilateral disarmament.  (The equivalent of a "Guns Free Zone" sign on a national level.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 30, 2016, 07:10:32 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-nuclear-cost-debate-gets-even-uglier-17507
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on August 31, 2016, 01:51:08 am
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policy

And Fred Kaplan is supposed to be a real foreign policy/security 'thinker'.  ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on August 31, 2016, 06:12:50 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/08/25/the_dangers_of_no-first-use_109750.html

If you told a bunch of hardened criminals that you swear, no matter what, you will never shoot first, how well do you think that would work out?  About the only thing worse would be unilateral disarmament.  (The equivalent of a "Guns Free Zone" sign on a national level.)

So  much for the concept of provocation...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on August 31, 2016, 08:20:13 am
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2016-08-01/rethinking-nuclear-policy

And Fred Kaplan is supposed to be a real foreign policy/security 'thinker'.  ::)

"The arsenals of both sides had grown to such staggering levels, and the chance of a real war between the two super­powers had so diminished"

Judas.  Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.  Maybe Mr. Kaplan should have asked himself WHY the chance of real war had become so diminished.  Nah, of course not.  That would support the notion nuclear weapons work when it comes to deterrent.

"The case for land-based ICBMs today is extremely weak and has been since 1990, when the U.S. Navy started deploying Trident II missiles on submarines. Unlike earlier SLBMs, the Trident II is accurate enough to destroy blast-hardened missile silos. In other words, one of the ICBM’s unique properties—its ability to hit blast-hardened targets quickly—is no longer unique. Meanwhile, its other unique property—its vulner­ability to an adversary’s first strike—is all too enduring. Even by the esoteric logic of nuclear strategists, then, ICBMs make the United States less secure, with no compensating advantages."

Ye gods.  Not enough face palms on the intertubes for that howler. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 01, 2016, 08:40:23 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-getting-ready-build-the-most-stealth-submarine-17549
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 05, 2016, 01:38:18 am
Unbreakable nuclear codes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mnm5yTwZZE
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 05, 2016, 02:11:06 pm
Nuclear Superiority and Nuclear Crisis Outcomes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsLpZ5a-Dgs
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 07, 2016, 05:55:52 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/07/how_xi_and_putin_humiliated_obama_at_the_g-20_110025.html

 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 07, 2016, 04:55:00 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/nuclear-facilities-bad-conditions-photos/index.html

The road into DC should look like the final scene of Spartacus with politicians from both parties since 1991 who let this happen to the national security and the intellectual jewels of this nation. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 07, 2016, 05:06:58 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1Bmp0_5Xo

Strategic Stability and the Second Nuclear Age
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 09, 2016, 03:04:12 am
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003191193&ss=tw&rt=How+capable+are+N.+Korea%27s+subs,+missiles

Thoughts? The two experts interviewed do have a decent stab at the issue, but they overlooked/ignored things like merchantmen armed with SLBMs. On the other hand they may just be trying to avoid sparking unnecessary panic among the Japanese (and American) public there.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 10, 2016, 01:28:47 am
Senators Debate Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

—Wilson Brissett 9/9/2016

​Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) urged the Obama Administration not to bypass the Senate and request United Nations Security Council action on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. “I just want to make sure that we are not allowing an administration on the way out the door to do something that ends up binding us through customary international law down the road,” said Corker during a Sept. 7 hearing. “I have watched through the years, and the responsibilities of the United States Senate have eroded. And I am just here today with this hearing and pushing back against the administration to try to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that is not something that continues.” The Senate voted against US ratification of the CTBT in 1999. Although 164 nations have signed on, the treaty still has not gone into force because it requires ratification by several other nations, including the US, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. SFRC Ranking member Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said, “the underlining strategy on how do we stop emerging nuclear powers from testing is an important issue that needs to be dealt [with]. And the Obama administration, I believe, is using its opportunities at the United Nations to advance that, not to advance the treaty.” (Corker release.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't disagree although Corker was the senator that mangled the Constitutional treaty provision and actually reversed the provision completely for the Iran Treaty so............
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 15, 2016, 11:17:01 am
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2299
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 15, 2016, 11:47:38 am
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2299


Carter has been there before with MX (and Midgetman) and cost estimates; he led the OTA assessment that determined that the MX/MPS system would cost what the Air Force estimated it would cost.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 15, 2016, 12:22:40 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 15, 2016, 12:27:36 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

I hope nobody got paid for that.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 15, 2016, 08:01:09 pm
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-09/rethink-triad
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 16, 2016, 08:17:31 am
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-tests-upgrades-nuclear-armed-trident-ii-d5

Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sienar on September 16, 2016, 08:25:23 am
Not sure this if this is the appropriate thread, and this is hardly new news, but I think its worth posting

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-says-israel-has-200-nukes-leaked-email-499192
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 16, 2016, 12:00:10 pm
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1707164-us-tests-upgrades-nuclear-armed-trident-ii-d5

Wonder if upgrades to the Mk4 & Mk5 re-entry vehicle incorporates some maneuvering technology tested a decade or so ago, IIRC, under the Conventional Trident Program part of early CPGS work?

That article is a bit unclear; the Mk5 and Mk21 (from MX -> MMIII -> GBSD) RVs will have some fuzing and other commonality. There is a proposal for a common Navy/AF RV but it's some ways off.

I believe almost all of the MaRV work done for CTM used Mk4 derivatives.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 16, 2016, 06:01:19 pm
Decision to proceed with construction of Ohio Replacement submarine delayed

The Navy's top modernization priority -- the Ohio Replacement Program -- missed a planned high-level Pentagon review in August, delaying a decision until this fall on whether the new strategic submarine program is ready to transition from technology development into detailed design and construction, according to government officials.

On Sept. 16, a Navy official told Inside Defense the delay of the planned milestone B review is effectively an administrative schedule slip and will not affect the start of planned ship production, slated for January 2017.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: GTX on September 17, 2016, 02:05:11 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 17, 2016, 03:03:25 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

An adversary freed of the need to toss 800+ warheads at 400+ hardened aimpoints, can toss them at probable
SSBN locations or bomber approach corridors assuming the bombers (which are not on alert and don't have supersonic dash)
have survived even a conventional attack in the first place.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 17, 2016, 04:26:05 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

Pretty much A-Z.   It's obvious by the opening paragraph what their agenda is, what arguments (such as they are) they're going to present and what fallacies they're going to propagate.  And, not to disappoint, they hit them all.

Basically:

1. The Cold War is over so nukes aren't needed.
2. The nukes we have will have infinite life.
3. Building new nukes cost too much money.
4. ICBMs are worthless cuz GPS.



Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on September 17, 2016, 08:35:27 pm
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

You are wasting your time asking the question.  Your opponents will make up any excuse to ignore reality.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on September 18, 2016, 07:54:37 am
https://warisboring.com/op-ed-its-time-to-ditch-the-icbm-america-s-thermonuclear-dinosaur-b2ca199a5574#.e0k63ghxt

Same people same flawed logic.

What exactly is flawed there?

Pretty much A-Z.   It's obvious by the opening paragraph what their agenda is, what arguments (such as they are) they're going to present and what fallacies they're going to propagate.  And, not to disappoint, they hit them all.

Basically:

1. The Cold War is over so nukes aren't needed.
2. The nukes we have will have infinite life.
3. Building new nukes cost too much money.
4. ICBMs are worthless cuz GPS.

The article itself in reality doesn't argue 1-3 at all, and arguably doesn't argue 4 either.
I don't agree with many of the arguments that the article makes (personally I think a minimum capacity/ size ICBM force has a role in a nuclear triad going forward) but should be critiqued honestly, not with phantom arguments.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 18, 2016, 08:11:20 am
Like the sun rising in the East.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 18, 2016, 09:17:04 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/18/the_new_b-21_bomber_under_fire_before_it_can_even_take_flight_110080.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 18, 2016, 11:53:35 am
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/07/14/former-us-defense-officials-back-funding-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile/

Quote
“The launch of a conventional weapon and the launch of a nuclear weapon occur in context,” Miller said. “So the launch of [U.S.] cruise missiles against Iraq or indeed the launch of Russian cruise missile against Syria did not raise any questions of nuclear use.”

Hamre concurred.

“I do not think it’s a plausible argument that people will be confused about what we’re doing,” he said.
Making implausible arguments is what the disarmament as any cost zealots have been doing since, at least, the nuclear freeze movement why would they stop now.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 18, 2016, 12:41:02 pm
Funny how thousands of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, mixed in with thousands of conventionally-armed cruise missiles -a situation that has existed for roughly half a century- would suddenly become "destabilized" simply because the US wants to replace an already existing nuclear-armed cruise missile.  No?  (Miraculously though, Russia and China adding nuclear-armed cruise missiles to their forces destabilizes nothing.  Weird.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 18, 2016, 12:54:57 pm
Funny how thousands of nuclear-armed cruise missiles, mixed in with thousands of conventionally-armed cruise missiles -a situation that has existed for roughly half a century- would suddenly become "destabilized" simply because the US wants to replace an already existing nuclear-armed cruise missile.  No?  (Miraculously though, Russia and China adding nuclear-armed cruise missiles to their forces destabilizes nothing.  Weird.)
Disarmament crowd takes advantage of the hoi polloi's short term memory. Every single  US nuke modernization program since 1960's MIRV debates has been called destabilizing while anything our adversaries do is also described as "They're just responding to US developments" funny how they always come down on the side of our opponents.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 18, 2016, 01:38:07 pm
http://www.heritage.org/events/2016/09/no-first-use-policy
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on September 18, 2016, 03:20:23 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 18, 2016, 04:24:41 pm
Same people same flawed logic.

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

Talk about "damning with faint praise."  :)

 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 18, 2016, 06:16:11 pm
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 18, 2016, 06:32:17 pm
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

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 18, 2016, 06:46:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 19, 2016, 05:31:47 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 19, 2016, 05:47:23 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/19/the_us_nuclear_gambit_110083.html

As the saying goes, "there's no cure for stupid".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 19, 2016, 10:03:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 20, 2016, 01:32:43 am
http://webjeju.com/theguardian/2016/09/17/obama-to-decide-on-cuts-to-us-nuclear-arsenal-in-october/

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 20, 2016, 01:58:19 am
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 20, 2016, 05:05:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: DrRansom on September 20, 2016, 10:12:35 am
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....
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 20, 2016, 10:30:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on September 20, 2016, 07:42:46 pm
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.   ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 20, 2016, 09:26:32 pm


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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 22, 2016, 09:21:16 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 23, 2016, 04:40:20 pm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=2313

GBSD cost estimating trouble.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 24, 2016, 12:45:04 pm
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-chinese-multiwarhead-df41-missile/?platform=hootsuite
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 26, 2016, 08:56:30 am
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gathering-nuclear-storm-1474668674

http://www.wsj.com/articles/evading-the-constitution-to-ban-nuclear-tests-1471303498
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 26, 2016, 09:09:28 pm
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.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 26, 2016, 11:05:56 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/09/26/pentagon_chief_is_expert_on_nukes_but_says_little_about_them_110126.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on September 27, 2016, 01:43:09 am


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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 27, 2016, 04:02:12 am
Probably worth mentioning:  LBJ, Democrat,  1964, China.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 27, 2016, 07:36:52 am


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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on September 27, 2016, 07:54:21 am


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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 27, 2016, 11:23:41 am

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on September 27, 2016, 12:04:36 pm

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 27, 2016, 02:27:09 pm

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on September 27, 2016, 02:48:05 pm

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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 27, 2016, 03:14:49 pm

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 27, 2016, 05:27:37 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Abraham Gubler on September 27, 2016, 05:40:23 pm

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 27, 2016, 09:16:02 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 28, 2016, 01:50:32 am
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/27/first-strike-nuclear-doctrine-wont-change-carter.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 28, 2016, 02:41:00 am
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

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 28, 2016, 02:41:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 30, 2016, 08:26:50 am
http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 30, 2016, 09:06:22 am
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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'
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 30, 2016, 09:10:33 am
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

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 30, 2016, 09:30:47 am
http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942

Quote
    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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on September 30, 2016, 09:36:19 am
“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.   ::) 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on September 30, 2016, 10:27:19 am
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on September 30, 2016, 11:01:07 am
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?

Not while the Democratic party has any say on the matter, I suspect.

On a related note: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-22/obama-kept-military-out-of-the-loop-on-cash-payments-to-iran
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on September 30, 2016, 11:03:01 am
http://thebulletin.org/it%E2%80%99s-time-cut-america%E2%80%99s-nuclear-arsenal9942

Quote
    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.

About the authors:

Daryl Kimball is a 1986 Graduate of Miami University of Ohio. He holds a B.A. in Political Science and Diplomacy/Foreign Affairs.

[Kingston] Reif holds a B.A. in International Relations from Brown University. He spent two years in the U.K. as a British Marshall Scholar where he received a MSc. in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a M.Litt. in International Security Studies from the University of St. Andrews. Reif is a 2014 Truman National Security Project Fellow.

So that "atomic scientists" thing is just marketing.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 01, 2016, 11:01:02 pm
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/29/russia-accuses-us-nurturing-aggressive-nuclear-strategy.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 02, 2016, 12:30:24 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 02, 2016, 11:20:18 am
http://38north.org/2016/09/sinpo093016/?utm_source=38+North+Bulletin+093016&utm_campaign=38+North&utm_medium=email
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 02, 2016, 11:35:37 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......

Don't know how you can read that site. The amount of ignorance is mind boggling. Sad thing is you often see the MSM pointing to it because they know even less.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on October 02, 2016, 01:47:20 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......

Don't know how you can read that site. The amount of ignorance is mind boggling. Sad thing is you often see the MSM pointing to it because they know even less.

I gave the article a stern rebuke in the comments section. Surely that's enough to stem the tide of stupid.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on October 03, 2016, 04:09:05 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......

Don't know how you can read that site. The amount of ignorance is mind boggling. Sad thing is you often see the MSM pointing to it because they know even less.

I gave the article a stern rebuke in the comments section. Surely that's enough to stem the tide of stupid.

 ;D

On another note: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38972&p=1269637
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 03, 2016, 05:50:25 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......

Don't know how you can read that site. The amount of ignorance is mind boggling. Sad thing is you often see the MSM pointing to it because they know even less.

I gave the article a stern rebuke in the comments section. Surely that's enough to stem the tide of stupid.

Like pouring a glass of wine into a sewage holding pond.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 03, 2016, 08:12:40 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/nuclear-tipped-cruise-missiles-are-relic-the-past-17889

Yes that's why we need new stealthy or hypersonic ones.......

Don't know how you can read that site. The amount of ignorance is mind boggling. Sad thing is you often see the MSM pointing to it because they know even less.
Yes I get sucked into reading wanting to learn the "other sides" arguments but then find it's the same dumb ones repeated and wish I had the five minutes of my life back  ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 03, 2016, 10:38:18 pm
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/10/new-start-data-2016/

Quote
Russia now has 259 warheads more deployed than when the treaty entered into force in 2011.

Rather than a nuclear build-up, however, the increase is a temporary fluctuation cause by introduction of new types of launchers that will be followed by retirement of older launchers before 2018. Russia’s compliance with the treaty is not in doubt.

Quote
The aggregate data shows that Russia has continued to increase its deployed strategic warheads since 2013 when it reached its lowest level of 1,400 warheads. Russian strategic launchers now carry 396 warheads more.

Overall, Russia has increase its deployed strategic warheads by 259 warheads since New START entered into force in 2011. Although it looks bad, it has no negative implications for strategic stability.

Quote
The United States, in contrast, has continued to decrease its deployed strategic warheads. It dipped below the treaty limit in September 2015 but has continued to decrease its deployed warheads to 1,367 deployed strategic warheads

Overall, the United States has decreased its deployed strategic warheads by 433 since New START entered into force in February 2011.

Quote
As a result, the disparity in Russian and U.S. deployed strategic warheads is now greater than at any previous time since New START entered into force in 2011: 429 warheads.

If the exact opposite was happening who would want to bet me this article would read very differently and FAS would discuss the US's 'alarming' and 'destabilizing' (probably throw in massive and expensive as well) nuclear buildup?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 04, 2016, 05:04:32 am
No kidding. 

"Russia has increase its deployed strategic warheads by 259 warheads since New START entered into force in 2011. Although it looks bad, it has no negative implications for strategic stability."

But the US replacing an already existing cruise missile?  Destabilizing.  On can't help but wonder if these people are incredibly stupid/naïve or actively wishing for the destruction of the US.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 05, 2016, 01:02:38 am
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2015/12/31/nuclear-weapons-modernization/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 05, 2016, 08:07:24 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/05/report-congress-columbia-class-submarine-program
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 05, 2016, 03:49:05 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/05/tactical_nuclear_weapons_a_new_arms_race_110167.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 05, 2016, 10:06:09 pm
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2016/October%202016/1016nukes.pdf

My dream to study at the School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 06, 2016, 09:17:06 am
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2016/10/06/0401000000AEN20161006007700315.html

Wait how did North Korea get nukes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 06, 2016, 09:21:55 am
Sounds like the awesome nuke deal we have with Iran.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 06, 2016, 09:24:16 am
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/dumping-americas-icbms-would-be-big-mistake-17946
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 06, 2016, 05:38:10 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/06/101m-awarded-electric-boat-build-ssbn-missile-tubes-uk-enters-manufacturing-phase-successor-class

Still think they should build extra quad packs and install them on the deck of a retired heli-carrier and make a mobile prompt global strike missile ship.

Or even take them all out of the retiring Ohios, unless they are keeping some to be SSGNs then never mind  :D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 07, 2016, 01:01:37 am
Russia Adds Hundreds of Warheads Under Nuclear Treaty

Russia increased its deployed nuclear warheads over the past six months under a strategic arms reduction treaty as U.S. nuclear warhead stocks declined sharply, according to the State Department. During the same period, the United States cut its deployed nuclear warheads by 114, increasing the disparity between the two nuclear powers. Russia’s warhead increases since 2011 suggest Moscow does not intend to cut its nuclear forces and will abandon the New START arms accord as part of a major nuclear buildup.

“It is now highly unlikely that Russia intends to comply with New START,” said Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear weapons specialist now with the National Institute for Policy. At the same time, the Obama administration is continuing a program of unilateral nuclear disarmament despite promises by President Obama to modernize and maintain U.S. nuclear forces as long as strategic dangers are present. The latest Russian warhead increases coincide with increased tensions between Moscow and the West. The nuclear buildup is raising new fears Russia plans to break out of New START treaty limits rather than comply with the accord. Russian forces have deployed 249 warheads above the warhead limit set by the treaty to be reached by February 2018.

Since the treaty went into force in 2011, Moscow increased its total warhead stockpile from 1,537 warheads to 1,796 warheads, an increase of 259 warheads. By contrast, the Obama administration has cut U.S. nuclear forces by 433 warheads during the same period. Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, nominee to be the next commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, warned the Senate during a hearing last month that Russia is modernizing both its strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. “It seems clear that Russia has been making large investments in its nuclear weapon programs as well as modernizing both its strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons,” Hyten stated in answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. “In addition to advancing nuclear capabilities, Russia is emphasizing new regional and strategic approaches, and declaring and demonstrating its ability to escalate if required,” he added. “Collectively, Russian development of advancing weapons capabilities and its evolving warfighting doctrine is concerning.”

Under New START, the United States and Russia agreed to reduce deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 warheads. Deployed land-based and submarine-launched missiles and bombers will be cut to 700. Missile launchers and non-deployed heavy bombers will be reduced to 800. While U.S. nuclear forces are very old and in need of modernization, Russian nuclear forces are being modernized. By 2020, nuclear missile submarines, land-based missiles, and bombers will be modernized, with 70 percent of the nuclear forces replaced with advanced systems, according to U.S. officials. In a related development, Russia announced on Tuesday it is abandoning a 2000 agreement to reduce stockpiles of plutonium originally intended for nuclear weapons. “We’re disappointed with their decision,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said of the Russian rejection of the plutonium agreement. The Russian action followed the State Department’s decision to cut off talks with Russia on Syria. Schneider, the nuclear weapons expert, said Moscow appears to be on a path to doubling its warheads.

“With or without New START, Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads are likely to increase to 3,000 by 2030,” he said. Other troubling signs of Russian nuclear weapons advances include intelligence reports that Moscow is expanding underground nuclear command bunkers, violating New START terms, and planning to double its warhead stockpiles for new multiple-warhead missiles. Schneider added that the sharp U.S. nuclear cuts indicate the Obama administration is moving ahead with a unilateral disarmament scheme.

“I think it is also clear that the Obama administration has an unannounced program to implement Obama’s proposed one-third reduction in strategic nuclear forces from the New START level unilaterally,” he said.

A strategic military balance that existed in 2011 when the treaty was approved has now been reversed by Russian increases and U.S. cuts. “In 2011, the United States had a lead of 263 deployed warheads,” Schneider said. “We are now 429 deployed warheads below Russia. The Russians will think this is quite important. It could impact Putin’s willingness to take risks.” Russia has adopted a new nuclear strategy that lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear arms in a conflict. Moscow calls the nuclear doctrine, escalate to de-escalate. Blake Narendra, spokesman for the State Department’s arms control bureau, dismissed the Russian warhead increase, saying it was part of a “business-like” implementation of the treaty provisions.

“The United States and Russia continue to implement the New START treaty in a business-like manner,” Narendra said. “The treaty does not prescribe interim limits. We fully expect Russia to meet the treaty’s central limits by February 2018.” Narendra said current tensions with Russia highlight the need to abide by treaty provisions on verification and confidence-building measures. Without the treaty, the United States would lack information about Russian strategic forces that are currently being modernized, he said.

“Fluctuations in the number of deployed warheads is an expected process as the Russians replace older missiles dating from the 1980s that are being retired and eliminated,” Narendra said. Hans M. Kristensen, an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, a group that favors nuclear arms cuts, said he believes the Russians will continue to abide by the treaty despite the 259 warheads it has deployed over New START levels. “Rather than a nuclear build-up, however, the increase is a temporary fluctuation caused by introduction of new types of launchers that will be followed by retirement of older launchers before 2018,” Kristensen said, adding “Russia’s compliance with the treaty is not in doubt.” Regarding other New START provisions, Russia had reduced its deployed strategic delivery systems—land-based and submarine missiles and bombers—slightly from 521 systems to 508 systems. The United States cut its missile and bomber forces by 60 systems over the same six-month period.

Russia cut its deployed and non-deployed delivery systems, another New START category, by 18 launchers and bombers. The United States cut 30 systems over the same period.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 07, 2016, 06:57:39 am
And this is how you know who's only interested in weakening the US:


"Russia has increase its deployed strategic warheads by 259 warheads since New START entered into force in 2011. Although it looks bad, it has no negative implications for strategic stability."

Yet the US replacing AN ALREADY EXISTING CRUISE MISSILE?  The squeals of, "destabilizing" can be heard echoing from California to D.C.   It doesn't get more brazen than that.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on October 07, 2016, 11:09:36 am
Squeals? Hysterical screaming is more like it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 07, 2016, 02:53:03 pm
Squeals? Hysterical screaming is more like it.
As I mentioned up the thread imagine if the US had built up its nuke forces while Russia disarmed? The Joe Cirinciones of the world would be going nuts and probably organizing protest marches in Washington. Russia does it, not big deal.

Hey it's just like the Cold War everything the US did, especially Reagan, was going to start WWIII while everything the USSR did was ALWAYS described as a response to US militarism.

50 years of undermining US national security why stop now it's all they know.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 07, 2016, 03:12:06 pm
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/russia-lays-down-3-new-nuclear-submarines/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 07, 2016, 03:24:10 pm
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/russia-lays-down-3-new-nuclear-submarines/

From a few months ago:

"Russia’s two newest classes of submarines–the Yasen-class multi-purpose attack nuclear submarine (SSGN) and the Borei-class (“North Wind”) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN)—are expected to be fitted with a new deep-water torpedo by 2017.

According to TASS news agency, the advanced Futlyar deep-water torpedo is currently undergoing state trials. The new torpedo is an advanced variant of the533-milimeter Fizik-1 homing torpedo that has recently entered service with the Russian Navy, a source within Russia’s defense industry told TASS.

“The new variant of the torpedo is undergoing state trials at Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan, which are due for completion later in the year. If the torpedo passes the tests, it will enter service and its full-scale production should begin in 2017,” the source said.
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

“The Futlyar will also be supplied with an improved homing system with an extended underwater target lock-on range. It will retain the baseline model’s range, speed and maximum launch depth – 50 km, over 50 knots and 400 m respectively,” the source added.

Once in full-scale production, the Futlyar heat-seeking torpedo is slated to replace the Fizik-1 and Fizik-2 torpedo variants. Full-scale production of Fizik torpedoes has only started about a year ago and it unclear how many submarines have been fitted with the weapon system."

And the US?  Well, they're thinking about blowing the dust off the Mk48 and trying to upgrade it again.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 07, 2016, 04:03:29 pm
Next generation in development

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-next-submarines-will-be-small-super-stealthy-17964
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Kadija_Man on October 07, 2016, 08:08:42 pm
Squeals? Hysterical screaming is more like it.
As I mentioned up the thread imagine if the US had built up its nuke forces while Russia disarmed? The Joe Cirinciones of the world would be going nuts and probably organizing protest marches in Washington. Russia does it, not big deal.

Actually it is however the protest are more direct and more muted.  The Cold War Warriors are protesting.  The difference is that whereas the ability to influence Moscow are limited, particularly while Putin is flexing his muscle, the ability to influence in a Democracy are much greater.

Of course, that the US has also over the years since the end of the Cold War flexed it's muscle a great deal appears to go unremarked in your mind...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: kaiserd on October 08, 2016, 12:38:14 am
Squeals? Hysterical screaming is more like it.
As I mentioned up the thread imagine if the US had built up its nuke forces while Russia disarmed? The Joe Cirinciones of the world would be going nuts and probably organizing protest marches in Washington. Russia does it, not big deal.

Hey it's just like the Cold War everything the US did, especially Reagan, was going to start WWIII while everything the USSR did was ALWAYS described as a response to US militarism.

50 years of undermining US national security why stop now it's all they know.

Yeah it must be terribly annoying to live in a democracy where people are free to express opinions that don't agree with your own and where people aren't branded traitors for doing so.
What sort of reasonable country doesn't seek to demonise such people for their sincerely held beliefs and accuse them of intentionaly working for the interests of foreign powers?
Hopefully Pesident "I love women" Trump will immediately solve those problems for you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 08, 2016, 08:59:24 am
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/the-united-states-and-russia-are-inching-toward-doomsday-arms-weapons-nuclear/

Big difference the US has no warhead production lines with a maximum 50 pit/year capability while Russia has 1000 pit/capability and active production lines. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on October 08, 2016, 10:17:35 am
These developments are going to add fuel to the fire, in every sense:

Russia deploys nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37597075) (BBC News)

Russian military considers return to Cuba, Vietnam  (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1df5262286c04f3583a233bcf654ccc7/russian-military-considers-return-cuba-vietnam) (The Associated Press)



Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 08, 2016, 10:49:29 am
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/07/the-united-states-and-russia-are-inching-toward-doomsday-arms-weapons-nuclear/

Big difference the US has no warhead production lines with a maximum 50 pit/year capability while Russia has 1000 pit/capability and active production lines.

Back to the reeducation camps with you, heretic. Your facts aren't wanted here.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 08, 2016, 10:52:34 am
These developments are going to add fuel to the fire, in every sense:

Russia deploys nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37597075) (BBC News)

Russian military considers return to Cuba, Vietnam  (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1df5262286c04f3583a233bcf654ccc7/russian-military-considers-return-cuba-vietnam) (The Associated Press)

Weakness- the gift that keeps on giving.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 10, 2016, 05:27:28 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/these-russian-nukes-are-better-americas-15926
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 11, 2016, 07:15:46 am
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-think-tank-warns-north-korea-could-develop-100-nuclear-weapons-by-2020-1585557

And refer everyone back to the video at comment #618
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 11, 2016, 04:09:26 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-11/russia-says-it-s-joining-china-to-counter-u-s-missile-defense

Cross posted at Nuke Weapons News Only h/t Grey Havoc

I've been predicting for over a year 2021 Russia drops out of or doesn't extend New START and we have a Russian breakout at the same time China's arsenal is still totally opaque to us and probably much larger than advertised. We are faced with 2X up to 4X as many deployed warheads while a secondary prediction we've cancelled the GBSD and LRSO, the B-21 languishes and SSBN(X) is under serious budgetary pressure.

At the end of the Cold War we should have sized out arsenal to OUR security needs completely independent of our adversaries.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 11, 2016, 05:18:09 pm
http://aviationweek.com/blog/why-trump-wrong-us-nuclear-modernization-0

Only thing dumber than this article is the majority of commenters who seem intent on trying to prove they are the most ignorant.

Quote
The U.S. is actually in the midst of modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad:

Yes an actual quote from the article.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 11, 2016, 06:14:50 pm
Avweek has really taken a dive since they started letting non-subscribers post.  Most them are dumber than rocks and would be more at home at HuffPo. Come to think of it, more than a few of their writers would be too.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on October 11, 2016, 06:45:38 pm
Avweek has really taken a dive since they started letting non-subscribers post.  Most them are dumber than rocks and would be more at home at HuffPo. Come to think of it, more than a few of their writers would be too.

I also tend to think their coverage of Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems development has been deliberately neglected to help bolster their New START endorsement.
A bit like how their previous editor prevented any mention of the Martin Baker JSF ejection seat issues because it would paint a British manufacturer in a bad light.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 11, 2016, 07:07:04 pm
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".  But that cruise missile we want to build (to replace an existing system)?  "Destabilizing".   One wonders how the world still exists considering how long we had TWO nuclear armed cruise missiles in the arsenal.  (AGM-129)   It makes it difficult to choose whether it's just willful ignorance or if they actually WANT the US to get nuked. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on October 12, 2016, 12:22:13 am
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".

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 12, 2016, 05:22:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 12, 2016, 05:52:48 am
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 12, 2016, 04:35:05 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 13, 2016, 08:20:41 pm
http://machinedesign.com/materials/improving-nuclear-security-additive-manufacturing

Now to 3D print the whole warhead
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Orionblamblam on October 14, 2016, 12:59:55 am
Now if only they could 3D print some weapons-grade plutonium...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 14, 2016, 04:28:56 am
Now if only they could 3D print some weapons-grade plutonium...

Maybe we could buy some from Russia. . . >:( :'(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 14, 2016, 05:46:17 am
Now if only they could 3D print some weapons-grade plutonium...

Maybe we could buy some from Russia. . . >:( :'(
Hey, we can build 40 pits/year right up there with North Korea
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 17, 2016, 07:34:28 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/17/why_its_safe_to_scrap_bill_perrys_advice_110217.html

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: Grey Havoc on October 17, 2016, 09:04:33 am
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/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 17, 2016, 10:36:30 am
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 18, 2016, 12:55:16 am
Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century

https://cgsr.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/SW_21_2016_Summary_Report.pdf
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 18, 2016, 09:41:29 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 20, 2016, 07:02:29 am
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-accuses-russia-of-violating-missile-treaty-1476912606
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 20, 2016, 06:00:12 pm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/november/Pages/FutureNuclearCruiseMissileFacesPoliticalHeadwinds.aspx
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 21, 2016, 07:02:07 am
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 22, 2016, 09:38:32 am
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 22, 2016, 05:15:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 22, 2016, 05:20:39 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 23, 2016, 02:11:04 pm
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/03053017/NuclearArsenal2.pdf

Quote
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

Later in the study they say even 8 SSBN(X)s is sufficient........
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 25, 2016, 03:44:13 am
Sarmat first image

https://www.rt.com/news/363981-russian-icbm-sarmat-missile/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 25, 2016, 05:21:44 am
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/03053017/NuclearArsenal2.pdf

Quote
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

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

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 27, 2016, 07:01:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on October 28, 2016, 03:54:15 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on October 28, 2016, 10:07:34 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 02, 2016, 06:41:33 am
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on November 02, 2016, 07:27:46 am
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

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.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on November 02, 2016, 11:03:52 am
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.

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.

I was hoping the regime change at AvWeek would have improved matters but so far it's been very disappointing.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 04, 2016, 04:47:33 pm
http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-modernizing-us-nuclear-forces
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 05, 2016, 09:45:32 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-the-us-air-force-wants-new-nuclear-tipped-18308
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: sferrin on November 05, 2016, 10:20:45 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-the-us-air-force-wants-new-nuclear-tipped-18308

"“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.

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi847.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab35%2Fbobro15%2Fworfnotagain.gif%7Eoriginal&hash=ff0f4080c902dd51d586ba49e8d8c9c4) (http://s847.photobucket.com/user/bobro15/media/worfnotagain.gif.html)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: marauder2048 on November 05, 2016, 01:37:47 pm
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 05, 2016, 03:21:03 pm
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 05, 2016, 03:47:21 pm
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1694776-air-force-defends-nuclear-cruise-missile
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: RyanC on November 05, 2016, 04:33:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
Post by: bobbymike on November 05, 2016, 04:47:51 pm