Current Nuclear Weapons Development

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/inside-americas-aging-nuclear-missile-submarines/

“Every leg of the triad is up against the red line in terms of recapitalization,” agreed Rear Adm. John W. Tammen, director of undersea warfare (N97) on the Navy staff. “The green-eyeshade people…have repeatedly delayed and delayed each of the programs. (Now), the bottom line is there’s no additional margin for construction and delivery of Columbia.” To reduce the risk, defense contractors have already started building missile tubes — some of which will go to the Royal Navy‘s SSBN program — as well as a full-up prototype of the new design’s electric drive.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2131261/china-needs-more-nuclear-warheads-deter-us-threat

In the PLA Daily on Tuesday, a commentary said China had enough nuclear weapons to prevent “bullying” by other nuclear powers but still needed to respond to changes in US strategy.

“To enhance China’s strategic counterbalance in the region and maintain China’s status as a great power, and protect national security, China has to beef up and develop a reliable nuclear deterrence capability,” it said.

It also said China would still stick to the “no first use” doctrine, meaning there were no circumstances in which it would be the first to use nuclear weapons.

The commentary comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump is expected to unveil its new military weapons policy later this week.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/22/trump-administration-control-national-nuclear-secu/
 
https://mobile.wnd.com/2018/07/china-adding-significant-capabilities-to-nuclear-forces/

China is quietly adding “significant capabilities” to its nuclear forces, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists write that the nation’s nuclear force “includes about 280 warheads for delivery by ballistic missiles and bombers” and the “stockpile is likely to grow further over the next decade.”

Kristensen is director of the Nuclear Information Project with the FAS and Norris is a senior fellow there. Their Nuclear Notebook column has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1987.

China is continuing a modernization program begun in the 1980s, putting more types and bigger numbers of nuclear weapons in play.

“Since our previous Nuclear Notebook on China in July 2016, the country has continued fielding a new version of an existing nuclear medium-range mobile ballistic missile, a new dual-capable intermediate-range mobile ballistic missile, and an improved road-mobile launcher for an existing intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM),” they write.

“It has also continued development of a road-mobile ICBM, and might be developing an air-launched dual-capable ballistic missile.”

The analysts estimate China has a stockpile of approximately 280 nuclear warheads for delivery by 120 to 130 land-based ballistic missiles, 48 sea-based ballistic missiles, and bombers.

“This stockpile is likely to grow further over the next decade as additional nuclear-capable missiles become operational. Moreover, in response to the U.S. deployment of missile defense systems in the Pacific, China has equipped some (or all) of its silo-based ICBMs with multiple warheads,” the report said.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/24/tactical-nuclear-weapon-launches-into-development-with-pentagon-policy-bill/

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is poised to get congressional authorization to start building a controversial new submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon.

The Senate and House came together Monday on a $716 billion defense authorization report that authorizes $65 million to develop the weapon, aimed at deterring Russia, according to the bicameral compromise conference report.

The requirement for the weapon — likely to be a submarine-launched Trident II D5 with a W76-2 warhead — is part of the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review.

The report for the sweeping 2019 National Defense Authorization Act is expected to come to a vote in the House this week and the Senate next week. The annual must-pass bill covers military hardware, personnel and a wide swath of hot-button national security issues.

In a minor win for opponents of the new weapon, the energy secretary would not be able to reprogram money to begin a nuclear weapons program or begin a new phase of a nuclear weapons program.

Low-yield nuclear weapons per 2004 law need special authorization from Congress, but the new legislation would make them equivalent to other nuclear weapons, with the same authorization requirements. That’s a win for W76-2 advocates.
Click to expand...
 
Chinese nuclear forces 2018

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2018.1486620?needAccess=true
 
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/07/27/the_trump_administration_must_revitalize_natos_nuclear_deterrent_113657.html

Russia is a military power primarily because of its large arsenal of nuclear weapons. So central are these weapons to Moscow’s foreign and defense policies that it was even willing to deploy a new long-range, land-based cruise missile in violation of the long-standing Intermediate-Range Nuclear Weapons Treaty to bolster Russian theater nuclear force capabilities.

While Russian conventional forces have been modernized over the past decade, they are a one-trick pony, capable only of limited offensive operations against NATO in areas immediately beyond its Western borders. Russian anti-access/area denial forces are relatively brittle and intended largely to shield the homeland from the power of U.S. and Alliance air and sea forces. The Kremlin’s efforts to organize a national mobilization capability, which would be required in the event of a conflict with NATO, have been largely unsuccessful. Thus, the Russian military is really designed to support a “smash-and-grab” strategy similar to what we saw in Crimea.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rouhani/irans-rouhani-says-its-up-to-europe-to-save-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1KL17B?il=0
 
US Intelligence: North Korea Is Continuing to Produce ICBMs

North Korea is continuing production of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at a known missile manufacturing site, U.S. officials with knowledge of the latest classified intelligence of North Korea’s weapons programs confirmed to The Diplomat. The new U.S. military intelligence assessment was first reported on Monday by the Washington Post.

At least one—possibly as many as two—Hwasong-15/KN22 intercontinental-range ballistic missiles are being manufactured at the site known as the Sanum-dong Research Center, outside the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, sources confirmed to The Diplomat.

“Work on the new missile likely began after the summit,” one source told The Diplomat, referring to the June 12 meeting between U.S. President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.
Click to expand...

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/us-intelligence-north-korea-is-continuing-to-produce-icbms/
 
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3969

The Department of Energy announced in May that it will spend at least $7.6 billion to build new facilities to manufacture plutonium cores, known as pits, for nuclear weapons. Given the shrinking US stockpile, the probable usability of many pits from retired weapons, and the lack of new weapons on the drawing board, why are new pits required at all?

The Trump administration’s nuclear posture review released in February calls for DOE to build 20 new pits a year beginning in 2024 and increase production to 80 pits annually by 2030. The document said that a sustained pit-manufacturing capability is required “to avoid stockpile age-out, support life extension programs, and prepare for future uncertainty.”

If a US nuclear weapon were ever detonated, high explosives would implode the grapefruit-sized pit as it is flooded with neutrons from a generator. Fissioning of the plutonium would then generate x rays that implode the secondary, fusion–fission stage of the weapon.
Click to expand...

28 years ago (1990), at the Pantex Plant in Texas, the United States assembled its last completely new nuclear warhead—a 455-kiloton W88.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/detect-nukes-in-flight-with-electron-beam-technology/

SPACE & MISSILE DEFENSE SYMPOSIUM, HUNTSVILLE, ALA.: Imagine a technology that could detect roadside bombs and landmines buried underground, pick out a nuclear warhead from a cloud of decoys miles away, or even fry enemy electronics, potentially disarming those warheads from a distance. Well, physicist William Dent has invented that technology and briefed its potential to the Army and industry here. It’s called a neutron beam generator.

Dent’s idea is a potential breakthrough for bomb squads and missile defenses, enthused conference organizer David Mann, a three-star Army general who ran Space & Missile Defense Command here (SMDC) until his retirement in 2016. Despite the Star Trek-esque name, Mann told me after Dent’s presentation, this is a feasible real-world technology, a matter of “when, not if.”
Click to expand...
 
I remember reading back in the day that the purpose of a neutral particle beam would be to distinguish warheads from decoys as part of SDI.
 
sferrin said:
I remember reading back in the day that the purpose of a neutral particle beam would be to distinguish warheads from decoys as part of SDI.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The wheel turns.
 
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/u-s-nuclear-weapons-performance/

A just-released and about-to-be-published scientific report, authored by two respected Los Alamos nuclear experts, raises serious questions about the reliability and performance of U.S. nuclear weapons!

This is important. In today's nuclear weapons era, America's existence depends on our nuclear weapons stockpile. The instant readiness of these weapons for launch by our deployed submarines, bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the absolute, unquestioned ability of the weapons themselves to perform meticulously to their certified military characteristics, are our nation's only guarantee of survival.

This is what the Cold War was all about, avoiding global thermonuclear war. For 46 years, the Soviet Union and the United States each had tens of thousands of high-yield nuclear weapons poised for instant launch. If there had been any hint of incipient U.S. weapons failure, our nation would have ceased to exist. Our Strategic Air Command used to say that their mission was to ensure that the Kremlin's daily morning meeting ended with the leader saying "Not today, Comrades."
Click to expand...
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-britain/u-s-ambassador-urges-britain-to-ditch-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1KX09N
 
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB200/index.htm

U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON RUSSIAN AND CHINESE NUCLEAR TESTING ACTIVITIES, 1990-2000
Prospects of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Led China to Accelerate Testing Schedule
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 200
 
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/08/13/deterrence_the_2018_npr_deterrence_theory_and_policy.html

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was rolled out on 2 February. There was, of course, some criticism from various commentators. This was to be expected.

But, I am very pleased that the NPR has received considerable bipartisan support, particularly from those senior civilians and military officers who have had real responsibility in this arena. For example, along with former Commanders of SAC and STRATCOM, the 2018 NPR has been praised by former senior officials from both past Democratic and Republican administrations. It also has been praised by diverse, knowledgeable senior academics.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/17/pentagon-china-close-to-nuclear-triad-has-practiced-targeting-us/

The Pentagon, for the first time, has publicly reported what commanders in the Pacific have known about, and kept a wary eye on, for some time: China is practicing long-range bombing runs against U.S. targets.

While the Defense Department annually reports on the rapid growth in capabilities of China’s air, land and sea forces, the 2018 report is the first to acknowledge the direct threat to U.S. territory.

Recent developments on China’s H-6K variant of its Badger bomber give the bomber “the capability to carry six land-attack cruise missiles, giving the PLA a long-range standoff precision strike capability that can range Guam,” the report said. It also acknowledged frequent bombing practice runs that U.S. commanders at the newly renamed U.S. INDOPACOM in Hawaii have watched expand in numbers and distance.
Click to expand...
 
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-military-joining-russians-nuclear-war-games/

Russia and China will hold a large-scale military exercise next month that will include simulated nuclear weapons attacks, according to American defense officials.

The People's Liberation Army will send more than 3,200 troops, 900 pieces of military equipment, and 30 aircraft to Russia for the exercise known as Vostok-18, or East-18, the Chinese Defense Ministry said, noting the exercises will involve practicing maneuver defense, live firing of weapons, and counterattack.

"We urge Russia to take steps to share information regarding its exercises and operations in Europe to clearly convey its intentions and minimize and potential misunderstanding," Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon said when asked about Vostok-18.

Additionally, the joint Russian-Chinese exercises scheduled for Sept. 11 through 15 will include military forces from Mongolia for the first time.
Click to expand...
 
http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/402993-changing-nuclear-oversight-threatens-security-tech-edge

Now that the 2019 John McCain National Defense Authorization Act has become law, there is a lesson to be learned from a furtive effort to fundamentally change the way the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile is sustained to ensure a reliable deterrent.

We learned at the eleventh hour that language had been inserted into the Senate-passed bill that would have weakened the management of vital Department of Energy (DOE) national security programs that assure the safety, security and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear deterrent, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, and provide global nuclear propulsion for the U.S. Navy.

Although the language ultimately was removed, Congress should move beyond recurrent attempts to eliminate, or substantially limit, nuclear security leadership by the cabinet member responsible for America’s premier nuclear science and technology enterprise and for the broader national laboratory system that is critical to its success.
Click to expand...
 
Tonopah Test Range B61 Flight Test in Slow Motion
Tonopah Test Range is a secure test range in the remote Nevada desert where the nation’s most critical assets are tested. Sandia Labs deploys an advanced suite of diagnostics to verity test assets perform as designed. This video shows the sequence of events for a B61 flight drop test. Using integrated engineering, testing, diagnostics, and advanced modeling Sandia ensures the safety and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile.
SAND2018-6188V
Click to expand...
Video:
https://youtu.be/VzLwqAuncBQ
Code: 
https://youtu.be/VzLwqAuncBQ
Article: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23057/this-video-makes-test-dropping-a-b61-nuclear-bomb-look-like-an-elegant-dance
If this article or the video has been posted before, please delete it or let me know.
 
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/08/27/russian_ground-launched_non-strategic_nuclear_weapons_113745.html

Russia maintains the largest force of ground-launched non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons in the world. Even more striking is the fact that essentially 100% of these weapons violate Russian arms control commitments. According to the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), “Russia continues to violate a series of arms control treaties and commitments, the most significant being the INF Treaty. In a broader context, Russia is either rejecting or avoiding its obligations and commitments under numerous agreements, including…the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.”[1] The 1988 INF Treaty prohibits ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500-km and Russian commitments under the 1991-1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives include, among other things, the complete elimination of short-range ground-launched nuclear missiles of less than INF range, nuclear artillery and nuclear land-mines.[2] Russian now has a monopoly on these weapons because the U.S. honored its commitments to dismantle these weapons. In 2014, the Obama administration concluded, “…that the Russian Federation was in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”[3] This missile type is now operational.[4]
Click to expand...
 
http://www.nipp.org/2018/08/28/gray-colin-s-and-matthew-r-costlow-time-to-withdraw-from-the-inf-treaty/

Time to Withdraw from the INF Treaty

Dr. Colin S. Gray
Colin S. Gray is the European Director and co-founder of the National Institute for Public Policy, and Professor Emeritus of Strategic Studies, University of Reading

Matthew R. Costlow
Matthew R. Costlow is an analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy and a PhD student in Political Science at George Mason University.



Introduction

“To be serious about arms control is to be serious about compliance.”[1] President Ronald Reagan’s axiom, though stated during the Cold War, holds special relevance for today. If ever there was a test case for the level of seriousness which the United States assigns to compliance, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is it. Since formally accusing Russia of breaking its INF Treaty commitments four years ago, the United States has not succeeded in bringing Russia back into compliance. In fact, Russia apparently is continuing to produce and deploy the Treaty-violating system in greater numbers, even after two rounds of diplomatic meetings.[2] That is in addition to numerous other possible INF Treaty concerns not addressed in State Department compliance reports.[3]
Click to expand...
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/5/navy-chief-concerned-about-columbia-class-submarine-program

The Navy’s most important modernization effort could drift off course if program officials and industry can’t create more slack in the program schedule, the service’s top officer said Sept. 5.

The Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine is the Navy’s No. 1 acquisition priority as it seeks to replace aging Ohio-class platforms. The service plans to procure the first of 12 boats in fiscal year 2021, and have the first vessel on patrol by 2031. Electric Boat is the prime contractor for the initiative, which is estimated to cost more than $100 billion in the coming decades.

The Columbia-class program is currently on track, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said at a conference in Arlington, Virginia, hosted by the media outlet Defense News. But he has concerns.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/congress-funds-pentagons-new-low-yield-nuclear-warhead

Congress has approved money for a controversial new low-yield nuclear warhead after lawmakers passed an annual spending package on Thursday.

The legislation, along with $65 million for the warhead called the W76-2, passed the House in a final 377-20 vote and is headed to President Trump’s desk for signature.

The Senate on Wednesday passed the package, which also includes military construction money, in an overwhelming 92-5 vote on Wednesday. The bill includes funding for the Energy Department and is separate from the overall defense bill, which is still being debated.
Click to expand...
 
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-leaning-extending-arms-treaty/

Trump administration officials expressed doubts the 2010 New START arms treaty will be extended over concerns about Moscow's failure to comply with that and several other arms treaties.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, is moving ahead with designing a new ground-based missile to counter Russia's illegal cruise missiles built in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty.

Andrea Thompson, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told a Senate hearing Tuesday that Russia's new strategic weapons announced in February, are a factor in whether the United States will seek to extend New START.

"No decision's been made at this time," she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "All options are on the table."

Among the options being considered are withdrawing from New START; re-negotiating inspection and verification provisions as part of treaty extension; or adopting a more limited and simple agreement similar to the 2002 Moscow Treaty that called for significant reductions in strategic offensive arms.
Click to expand...
 
From Inside Defense (pay site)
Pentagon official says U.S needs to 'revitalize' nuclear weapons production

The Pentagon needs to send the Energy Department a "steady-state" demand signal for nuclear warheads production and "revitalize" it similar to how the military has readied the missile, submarine, aircraft and weapons manufacturers industrial bases, respectively, for the U.S. nuclear recapitalization effort, according to a Defense Department official.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/10/01/americas-newest-nuclear-gravity-bomb-completes-design-review/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=spaaaace%2010/3/18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20Space%20Report

WASHINGTON — The B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb has completed its final design review, setting up production for March of 2020, the National Nuclear Security Administration has announced.

The B61-12 life-extension program consolidates and replaces the older B61-3, -4, -7 and -10 variants, in a move that proponents say will both update aging parts of the weapons and drive down upkeep costs. The review, which involved a team of 12 independent experts studying three years of data, certified that the B61-12 design meets Defense Department standards.

The weapon is certified for both the B-52 and B-2 bombers, America’s F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighter aircraft, and British and German Tornado aircraft under a NATO agreement. The F-35 is also planned to go through certification on the weapon at some point in the next decade.

Production qualification activities at the agency’s Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas, will begin in October 2018, with the program on track for its first production unit in March 2020, according to an agency timeline. The weapon passed another milestone in June, when two non-nuclear designs for the weapon were flown and released successfully over Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.
Click to expand...
 
https://audioboom.com/posts/7032318-peter-huessy-geostrategic-analysis-president-strategic-deterrence-studies-mitchell-institute

Rebuttal to this paper released by Global Zero

https://www.globalzero.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ANPR-Final.pdf
 
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/02/why-low-yield-nuclear-warheads-are-critical-to-preventing-nuclear-war/

Last month, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., introduced a bill that if approved would stop the administration’s plans to modify select warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles to give them a low-yield option.

Such a step is unwise, considering the compelling rationale that drove the Pentagon to initiate the effort.

The bill argues that U.S. low-yield options would “increase a likelihood of a nuclear war.” But the truth is just the opposite.

If an adversary thinks the U.S.’ only option in response to an adversary’s limited nuclear use is to use U.S. high-yield nuclear weapons, an adversary might be tempted to use his low-yield nuclear weapons thinking that U.S. response options are not credible.

As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states, the development of a low-yield nuclear warhead for a U.S. submarine-launched ballistic missile is the fastest way to prevent this miscalculation.

The sense of urgency is justified.

Russia has stated that its first use of a nuclear weapon could serve to “de-escalate” a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Moscow holds military exercises that simulate use of a nuclear weapon and periodically threatens U.S. allies in Europe with nuclear attack.

Credibility is at the heart of deterrence, and Russian actions indicate that the United States is losing credibility.

The Lieu bill argues, “a low-yield nuclear warhead would be indistinguishable to an adversary from the high-yield W76 and W88 submarine-launched warheads.” The U.S., however, has always assumed Russia would be able to distinguish between a limited nuclear launch and a large-scale nuclear exchange, even if the risk of a failure for such a distinction is not zero.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/if-you-want-peace-prepare-nuclear-war

In a little under three decades, nuclear weapons have gone from center stage to a sideshow in U.S. defense strategy. Since the 1990s, the United States has drastically reduced its stockpile and concentrated on its conventional and irregular warfare capabilities. Nuclear weapons policy has focused overwhelmingly on stemming proliferation to countries such as Iran and North Korea, and prominent political and national security figures have even called for abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. What was once the core of the country’s Cold War strategy has been reduced to an afterthought.

Immediately after the Cold War, when the United States enjoyed unprecedented global power, this approach seemed reason­able. Washington didn’t need much of a nuclear strategy against Iraq or Serbia. But now, great-power competition has returned. Russia wants to upend the post–Cold War status quo in Europe. A rising China seeks ascendancy, first over Asia and ultimately beyond. To accomplish this, each country has developed military forces ideally suited to fight and defeat the United States in a future war. And modern, mobile nuclear capabilities are a key part of their strategies.
Click to expand...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2018-10-15/moscows-nuclear-enigma?fa_package=1123220

Talk to anybody in Washington (except, perhaps, the U.S. president), and you will hear an ominous mantra: the Russians are back. Moscow, resurgent, is sowing discord among Western states and trying to reestablish its sphere of influence in former Soviet countries and beyond. One development, in particular, has caused much hyperventilating in Western ministries and think tanks: the Russian Federation not only has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world but also is investing in an arsenal of modern, low-yield nuclear weapons that could be used for limited nuclear warfare.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018-10/bring-tactical-nukes-back-fleet

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Previously, nuclear weapons–capable militaries were an exclusive club of high-tech and responsible nations. Today, that once level-headed cadre includes a few less stable members, one unpredictable associate (North Korea), and a dangerous aspirant (Iran). More will follow as the technology and material for nuclear weapon production becomes more readily available and easier to produce. Couple that with a newly aggressive (and large) Chinese fleet and a resurgent Russian Navy and suddenly the U.S. Navy has more to worry about than it did during the Cold War. The Navy is finding itself outgunned, but it has been here before.

During the Cold War, the United States relied on nuclear weapons to even the odds against the Soviet Union, whose strategy was to produce cheaper, less sophisticated ships, planes, and missiles to overwhelm U.S. units. The factor that leveled the playing field was shipboard nuclear weapons. The RIM-2D, a nuclear warhead–equipped version of the Terrier surface-to-air missile, was designed to eradicate saturation missile attacks in one swoop.1 The rocket-thrown nuclear depth charge (RTNDC), a version of the antisubmarine rocket (AsRoc) system, enabled ships to sink or disable Soviet submarines without needing a pinpoint location for a torpedo attack.2 The nuclear variant of the Tomahawk land-attack missile (TLAM) could deliver tactical warheads more than 1,000 miles.3
Click to expand...
 
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-to-pull-plug-on-russian-arms-control-treaty

US President Donald J. Trump confirmed on October 20 that the United States will withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The agreement, signed between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987, sought to ban both countries’ armed forces from keeping ground-based nuclear missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

White House officials, especially National Security Advisor John Bolton, have been pushing to abandon the treaty as they believe it is limiting Washington’s ability to counter China’s growing nuclear arsenal in East Asia. US military officials have estimated that as many as 95% of Beijing’s missiles fall in the intermediate range covered by the INF, making it impossible for the United States to counter this build-up.
Click to expand...
 
https://us.cnn.com/2018/10/22/opinions/trump-nuclear-treaty-china-intl/index.html

Sydney (CNN)US President Donald Trump blamed repeated Russian violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty to justify his announcement over the weekend that the United States will soon withdraw from the bilateral agreement which has been in place since 1987.

That China is not a signatory to the treaty was mentioned only briefly as a contributing reason.
While Russia and other European countries will probably loudly voice their views on America withdrawing, Asian countries will be less vocal. But do not read reluctance to comment as indifference. Trump's decision is likely to have the greater impact on matters with respect to China and other Asian powers than it will Russia and Europe.
Click to expand...
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/what-weapons-will-the-us-build-after-the-inf/?fbclid=IwAR1u8YwdR4DJV1AgjV1iyOih7fgcVOlJBiwXBAkZwNNGsfmrkyRqcaMCDpA

So what could the US military do without the treaty that it can’t do already? A congressionally mandated Pentagon report from 2013, unpublished but obtained by Breaking Defense, says that withdrawing from the treaty would create four possibilities:
Army photo

1. Modifications to existing short range or tactical weapon systems to extend range.

While the US has plenty of sea- and air-launched weapons that were never covered by the treaty, the only existing ground-launched system that comes close to the banned ranges is the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). But the Army’s already decided it’s not worth upgrading the 1980s-vintage ATACMS for a significantly longer range.

Instead, the Army’s developing an all-new Precision Strike Missile (PRSM) to hit targets out to 499 km — but officers acknowledge that’s an arbitrary limit imposed by the INF treaty, not the available technology. So, practically speaking, the end of INF would remove this restriction on the new PRSM, but not magically enable a radical enhancement of the aging ATACMS.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/10/23/the-inf-treaty-hamstrings-the-u-s-trump-is-right-to-leave-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01184984b963

The Trump administration has announced that it plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. This treaty banned the United States and Russia from possessing any ground-launched ballistic and cruise missile systems with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles). The administration’s decision is sure to elicit a cacophony of criticism, but the truth is that the United States should no longer tolerate the INF status quo. The reasons basically boil down to two: Russia appears unwilling to give up the systems that violate INF (meaning INF is essentially a dead letter), and, more important, the United States no longer benefits from a ban on ground-based intermediate-range systems — but because of China, not Russia.
Click to expand...

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/23/one-nuclear-treaty-is-dead-is-new-start-next/

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration moves closer towards exiting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, experts are left to wonder whether another nuclear treaty may be in the administration’s crosshairs.

Signed in 2010 between the U.S. and Russia, the New START treaty limits the deployed forces of both nations to 1,550 nuclear warheads over 700 delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers.

Asked about New START’s future while in Moscow, John Bolton. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, said the government is “currently considering” its position on the agreement, but then added that the administration “does not have a position that we’re prepared to negotiate.”

This isn’t the first time the administration has raised fears about the future of New START. In February 2017, Trump called the agreement “a one-sided deal” and a "bad deal.”
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom