Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Nuclear Cost-Cutters Face Uphill Battle

Nuclear Cost-Cutters Face Uphill Battle
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
“In my humble opinion, we’re building more weapons than we need,” HASC Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, said during an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We need to look at ways to have a robust deterrent in a more cost-effective manner. And that’s what we’re going to work towards.”
—————————————————
It is so disingenuous to claim the nuclear deterrent is somehow too costly for the nation to afford. Covid relief exceeds $4 Trillion last 11 months which is 4X the full cost to modernize and maintain the Triad FOR THE NEXT 30 years.
 
bobbymike said:

Nuclear Cost-Cutters Face Uphill Battle

Nuclear Cost-Cutters Face Uphill Battle
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
“In my humble opinion, we’re building more weapons than we need,” HASC Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, said during an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We need to look at ways to have a robust deterrent in a more cost-effective manner. And that’s what we’re going to work towards.”
—————————————————
It is so disingenuous to claim the nuclear deterrent is somehow too costly for the nation to afford. Covid relief exceeds $4 Trillion last 11 months which is 4X the full cost to modernize and maintain the Triad FOR THE NEXT 30 years.
Click to expand...
That's imaginary. No evidence whatsoever that the Democrats would kill triad modernization. ;)
 
So basically the Russians got everything they wanted and the US got nothing in return. Not a good omen for the next four years at all.
 
Grey Havoc said:
So basically the Russians got everything they wanted and the US got nothing in return. Not a good omen for the next four years at all.
Click to expand...
When a client wants to sign my Offer to Finance letter agreement as fast as possible I know I’ve charged him too little lol.
 
Practically, the US would be a little hard pressed to violate New START anyway. It has no nuclear weapons in production. I suppose a lot reMIRVing could be done if there are W76s and W78s stored in working condition.
 
Josh_TN said:
Practically, the US would be a little hard pressed to violate New START anyway. It has no nuclear weapons in production. I suppose a lot reMIRVing could be done if there are W76s and W78s stored in working condition.
Click to expand...
As I’ve posted previously a sad state of affairs. In the 70-80s with five separate warhead programs (and vigorous new warhead R&D) the US built 3000 W76s in five years. No we don’t need this level of production today but we should have never stopped building some number of new nukes annually.
 
No argument from me. I would just say that since the US can't produce a nuclear weapon in the next five years, it might as well lock in the Russians to the current numbers.
 
Минобороны раскрыло характеристики ракетного комплекса «Ярс-С» | Новости | Известия | 29.01.2021 (iz.ru)

"For the first time, the Russian Ministry of Defense spoke about the characteristics of the strategic complex with the Yars-S intercontinental ballistic missile. More information about the equipment was obtained within the framework of the Single Day of Acceptance of Military Products, which was held on January 29 at the National Defense Control Center of the Russian Federation.

It became known that the Yars-S mobile ground missile system is designed to engage all types of strategic targets with the ability to maneuver.

Over six years, the military received more than 200 strategic delivery vehicles

Among the tactical and technical characteristics of the complex are indicated: caliber - 1.86 meters, missile length - 17.8 meters, launch weight - 46,000 kilograms, payload weight - 1250 kilograms, range - up to 10,000 kilometers, type of fuel - solid.

During the last single day of acceptance of military equipment, the commander of the Barnaul missile division, Major General Alexander Prokopenkov, said that the division was on combat duty as part of three regiments with mobile missile systems "Yars-S". Until the end of 2021, another regiment with Yars-S complexes is expected to take over on duty.

Yars-S is a strategic missile system with a solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile, mobile and stationary, with a multiple warhead.

As reported , the Teikovskaya, Yoshkar-Olinskaya, Nizhny Tagil, Novosibirsk and Irkutsk missile divisions were fully re-equipped with mobile-based Yars-S complexes. The Barnaul and Bologovskaya divisions are being re-equipped with mobile-based complexes and the Kozelsk division with a stationary-based complex."
 
breakingdefense.com

DepSecDef Will Run Most Missile Defense, Nuke Modernization; SecDef Recused - Breaking Defense

"I am worried about the state of the readiness of the nuclear triad," Deputy SecDef nominee Kath Hicks tells the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, “and, if confirmed, that is an area I would want to get my team in place and start to look at right away.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
——————

"I am worried about the state of the readiness of the nuclear triad," Deputy SecDef nominee Kath Hicks tells the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, “and, if confirmed, that is an area I would want to get my team in place and start to look at right away.”
—————————​

Seems like good news
 
Grey Havoc said:
So basically the Russians got everything they wanted and the US got nothing in return. Not a good omen for the next four years at all.
Click to expand...

How does START being extended favor the Russians while screwing over the US?
 
TR1 said:
Grey Havoc said:
So basically the Russians got everything they wanted and the US got nothing in return. Not a good omen for the next four years at all.
Click to expand...

How does START being extended favor the Russians while screwing over the US?
Click to expand...
One important thing to remember is that the US has only two operational long-range ballistic missiles in service, the LGM-30 Minuteman III and UGM-133 Trident II, whereas Russia has multiple types of SLBMs and ICBMs in service. The US has more nuclear-armed long-range bombers than Russia. Currently, the US and Russia have met all targets set out in the New START treaty, and presumably Joe Biden will do everything he can to make sure that the forthcoming B-21 Raider is not constrained by New START.
 
B-21 production will probably be slow enough that New START won't be a major hindrance. There are already a number of US bombers that have been de-nuclearized to meet the 700 launcher target - I think over a dozen B-52s and I haven't heard but suspect a few B-2s. I found an old google map image of three B-2s just sitting in Pearl Harbor - I wonder whether these were moved from Whiteman because denculearized bombers can't operate from the same base as nuclear cable bombers. In any case, either some B-21s will be build non nuclear capable (doubtful) or existing bombers will be moved and denculearized to allow the B-21 fleet to grow. Eventually the B-2 fleet will be retired as well, removing those from the START list. B-21 production will probably be slow enough that this will not be difficult in START's five year time from which will just see the type hit IOC; it seems doubtful that START will be renewed in 2026 as the US's nuclear recapitalization finally starts to produce new weapons and China's nuclear arsenal grows closer to peer capability.

Currently the US does not produce nuclear platforms or warheads, so the only way START really limits the US is the number of warhead mated with their missiles - a number of W-76/78 are in storage.
 
rooster said:
www.thedrive.com

Majority Of Voters Don't Want Billions Spent On New ICBMs To Overhaul America's "Nuclear Sponge"

With the new administration tasked with deciding America's future nuclear posture, a poll reveals dissatisfaction with the Air Force’s ICBM plans.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
The aforementioned “nuclear sponge” argument posits that Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming would soak up hundreds of enemy warheads during a conflict, reducing the ability of the enemy to strike elsewhere. While this might save the United States from direct attacks on a number of secondary targets in populated areas, the effects of hundreds of thermonuclear weapons detonating over the central part of the country would be cataclysmic, regardless.
———————————-
I’ve read variations of this from the disarmament crowd but it misses a MASSIVE first step. The attacker would have to make the decision to fire hundreds of warheads at the US homeland. That is what makes a deterrent and makes the Triad so necessary.

Alternatively let’s say we have six bomber and SSBN bases and no ICBMS. If our at sea SSBNs become vulnerable an adversary could sink our submarines conventionally and use 6-12 warheads on the remaining bases leaving us very few warheads to their 1488 left after this very limited first strike (using NST limits). That may be a gamble worth taking.
 
The risk of submarines suddenly becoming vulnerable is too high, and bombers lack a second strike capability. It’s that simple.
 
Josh_TN said:
The risk of submarines suddenly becoming vulnerable is too high, and bombers lack a second strike capability. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
The thing about submarines is that A) there are only a handful at sea at any moment and it takes considerable effort manpower and costs to keep them at sea, and B) there are inherent risks in operating them.

How many submarines would the USA need at sea to match the level of ground based numbers? Quite a few.

Land based takes a minimum of risks, costs and manpower to keep operational. Once the investment is made and missiles are in silos you just need to keep it staffed.
 
Currently the USN probably has as many warheads ready to fire at patrol stations as the USAF has in silos. The issue isn’t the number, the issue is if a technology suddenly make boomers easily tracked.
 
sferrin said:
rooster said:
www.thedrive.com

Majority Of Voters Don't Want Billions Spent On New ICBMs To Overhaul America's "Nuclear Sponge"

With the new administration tasked with deciding America's future nuclear posture, a poll reveals dissatisfaction with the Air Force’s ICBM plans.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
And this is what they'll point at. Never mind it's complete BS. How many of those they asked even have enough knowledge to give an educated answer? Almost none.
Click to expand...
As evidenced by who controls the government the majority or people are quite ignorant about everything important.
 
apnews.com

Audit raises concerns about wildfire risks at US nuclear lab

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — One of the nation’s premier nuclear laboratories isn’t taking the necessary precautions to guard against wildfires, according to an audit by the U.S.
apnews.com apnews.com
I really have to wonder about the timing of this, among other things.

In other news:
www.forbes.com

Target: Iceland! Russian Bombers Practice Striking Key NATO Base

The leg of their flight plan that had the huge, swing-wing Tu-160s barreling toward Iceland from the north before veering east was ... interesting.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom