Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Y-12 Moves Toward Combined Update of Multiple Warhead Types The United States has entered the exploratory phase of a bid to refurbish two nuclear-warhead types with a single set of updates, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported on Thursday. The effort is expected to review the possibility of combining modernization activities for the W-78 warhead used on Minuteman 3 ICBMs and for W-88 bombs deployed on Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The current budget cycle is the first in which the project has received funds at the Y-12 National Security Complex, program head Tom Thrasher indicated in a publication for workers at the Tennessee nuclear arms site. National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Steven Wyatt said the effort has received roughly $50,000 to date and would involve collaboration between Y-12 and "design agencies" on possible approaches to updating the weapons. The personnel document says "conceptual designs include reuse technologies geared toward reducing the cost of [life-extension programs]." The initiative's "first production unit" is slated for completion by the end of fiscal 2023, according to the NNSA website.
 
http://freebeacon.com/bear-bombers-over-guam/

The bomber flights near Alaska violated a provision of the 2010 New START arms treaty that requires advance notification of exercises involving strategic nuclear bombers.

Military spokesmen sought to play down the June and July incidents as non-threatening, apparently reflecting the Obama administration’s conciliatory “reset” policy toward Russia that seeks better relations by tamping down criticism of Moscow, despite growing anti-U.S. sentiments and policies from the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Click to expand...

Why am I not suprised?
 
There recently was a semi-public admission by japanese officials that one the reasons the bureaucrats are heavily fighting the total dismantlement of the nuclear power industry and associated nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure is due to an internal policy to maintain the capability to ramp up to nuclear weapons production in 90 days. The admission supposedly may have been motivated by right winger political appeasement, as there have been increasing calls for a change in the japanese military stance, ranging from the declaration that self defense includes the development of long range first strike weapons, lifting of weapons export controls as a counter to chinese influence spreading, and a possible constitutional amendment to remove the self-defense only restriction on the military.
 
LEFT IN THE DARK: Secret U.S. military flights carried officials, equipment to N. Korea (The Asahi Shimbun)

Senior U.S. administration officials held secret talks in North Korea on at least three occasions in 2011 and 2012, The Asahi Shimbun has learned.

Although the visits had potential implications for Japan, Washington did not inform its security partner at the time and only informally confirmed one of them when the Japanese side pressed, government and other sources in Japan, South Korea and the United States said.

The U.S. State Department even warned the Foreign Ministry against making further inquiries, saying they would harm bilateral relations, the sources said.

U.S. military planes flew from an air base in Guam to Pyongyang and back on April 7, 2012, and again on a longer visit lasting from Aug. 18-20, the sources said.

It is believed that those aboard included Sydney Seiler, director for Korea at the U.S. National Security Council, and Joseph DeTrani, who headed the North Korea desk at the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. DeTrani left the post in May.

They met with North Korean officials and discussed policies following the death of leader Kim Jong Il in December 2011.

The North Korean delegation included Jang Song Thaek, vice chairman of the National Defense Commission and husband of Kim Jong Il's sister. Jang is widely considered to serve as a mentor for Kim Jong Un, who succeeded his father as his nation's leader.

The Japanese government only learned about the flights after receiving reports from hobbyists monitoring activity at military bases and also analyzing air traffic flight plans.

When the Japanese side submitted an official inquiry, U.S. officials expressed frustration that the request had been made, citing the subject's confidential nature. The State Department warned Japan against inquiring further, saying Washington-Tokyo ties could be damaged.

The third visit that The Asahi Shimbun has confirmed is one that took place in November 2011. Sources said at least one military aircraft from the Guam air base loaded heavy equipment, including bulldozers, at Yokota Air Base in western Tokyo and flew to Pyongyang.

It is believed that the delegation included officials from the U.S. Pacific Command. They met with North Korean officials and discussed efforts to recover the remains of U.S. soldiers killed during the 1950-53 Korean War, the sources said.

When Japan inquired about this visit, U.S. officials unofficially confirmed that it had taken place, the sources said.
Click to expand...
 
An update to the Slashdot story I posted above:

Update — Sensors Do Not Pick Up North Korean Radioactivity

Posted by Soulskillon Tuesday February 19, @02:45PM
from the better-than-any-other-radiation-ever-created dept.


Update: 02/19 20:49 GMT by S : The story below has been retracted upon further examination of the research. There has been no detection of radioactivity.
Click to expand...
 
Nuclear Weapons Critics Suffer Cold War Brain Freeze; Deterrence Works, Argues Top Air Force Official

Before his latest State of the Union speech, President Obama was widely reported to be ready to propose a significant reduction in nuclear weapons. Then North Korea conducted a nuclear test the day before the address. (The photo above shows Kim Jong-Un smiling after his country's recent successful ballistic missile test.) In his speech, President Obama only committed the US government to work with Russia to "seek further reductions," though the New York Times said before the speech that the administration aimed to cut as many as 700 of our 1,700 deployed nuclear weapons. One of America's most highly regarded nuclear strategists argues below that nuclear deterrence works. James A. Blackwell, an Air Force official, posits that those who argue they are Cold War weapons of such tremendous power as to be unusable are demonstrably wrong. The Editor.

There is an unsettling paradox in much of the recent debate over nuclear weapons in this country. Some pundits, fixated on purging "Cold War thinking" from those of us with real-world responsibilities for nuclear deterrence, are themselves suffering from thoughts frozen in time. In the midst of this important debate, let me offer some examples of the new strategic concepts emerging from a new generation of deterrence thinkers.

The conventional wisdom is that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is inherently a better world. What we are discovering is that less is not less, less is different.

US policy has led in reducing nuclear weapons. At its peak in 1967, the US stockpile stood at a staggering 31,255 warheads. Just since 1991, we have disassembled more than 13,000 weapons, and in the past decade taken our stockpile – the total number of weapons -- down from 10,526 in 2001 to 5,113 in 2010. Our nuclear weapons and delivery platforms now number an order of magnitude less than during the Cold War, and this policy continues -- creating new conditions in the global nuclear balance.

In this new nuclear environment, potential adversaries are reaching conclusions we did not expect, and our allies and partners are more nervous about it than we want them to be. This new world of several contending nuclear powers behaves differently than the bi-polar world that preceded it...
Click to expand...
http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/20/nuclear-weapons-critics-suffer-cold-war-brain-freeze-deterrence/
 
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-nuclear-lab-ready-shelve-costly-facility-plan/

So according to the article this facility will cost $6 billion and be ready in 2026, notwithstanding the efficacy of the facility to perform its intended mission, does this approximately indicate an annual budget of roughly $460 million per year?

Or another way to look at it the Federal Government will average close to $4 TRILLION/annum over those 13 years or $52 Trillion in total expenditures. So building a needed cutting edge plutonium science facility in one of the nations premier weapons laboratories at a cost of ELEVEN ONE HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT of total federal expenditures is deemed to costly?

On another note federal goverment subsidies to now failed "green" energy companies will be between $4 and $10 billion and Obama asked for billions more in 'green' energy subsidies in the State of the Union address. The Hurricane Sandy relief bill had $10 billion in 'unrelated' PORK barrel spending.
 
AJ201302250115M.jpg

Original Caption: The X-band radar system at the U.S. Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture, northern Japan (Asahi Shimbun file photo)​

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201302250114​
 
Grey Havoc said:
An update to the Slashdot story I posted above:

Update — Sensors Do Not Pick Up North Korean Radioactivity

Posted by Soulskillon Tuesday February 19, @02:45PM
from the better-than-any-other-radiation-ever-created dept.


Update: 02/19 20:49 GMT by S : The story below has been retracted upon further examination of the research. There has been no detection of radioactivity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No radioactivity was ever detected around ANY of their "nuclear" tests that could be attributed with certainty to North Korea. Not in 2006, not in 2009 and not in 2013. All their tests could have been done with a large enough amount of ANFO and even if they were nuclear, they are surprisingly low yield. I'm calling fake.
 
Simon666 said:
No radioactivity was ever detected around ANY of their "nuclear" tests that could be attributed with certainty to North Korea. Not in 2006, not in 2009 and not in 2013. All their tests could have been done with a large enough amount of ANFO and even if they were nuclear, they are surprisingly low yield. I'm calling fake.
Click to expand...

Plausible, the Norks take deception extremely seriously. I would suggest it is far more likely that they just bury their tests very deeply- they have near perfect geography and geology to pull it off. Also, this latest test seems to have been relatively powerful, consensus is over 5kt and that would take a lot of ANFO to fake it would also probably mean the Norks are producing the largest planned conventional explosions in history.

Small North Korean nuke yields should not be unsurprising either, they have multiple motivations to keep them small. Their current tech level means any device they build is going to be bulky but they need a small device as their only means of delivery are ballistic missiles- no B-29s for them. I suspect they are also trying to ration their available fissile material, especially if they are still using plutonium. They probably also know that today most people just see nukes, they tend not distinguish on yield; their target audience is unlikely to be proportionally more outraged by a bigger device.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Plausible, the Norks take deception extremely seriously. I would suggest it is far more likely that they just bury their tests very deeply- they have near perfect geography and geology to pull it off.
Click to expand...
Speculation - just that - I've seen so far was I think 300 to 400 meter deep.

JFC Fuller said:
Also, this latest test seems to have been relatively powerful, consensus is over 5kt and that would take a lot of ANFO to fake it would also probably mean the Norks are producing the largest planned conventional explosions in history.
Click to expand...
It's been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale

From what I've read, if the depth is a bit lower than the magnitude would seem bigger (only up to a certain depth). So I'd rather speculate on not so deep ANFO rather than very deep or well sealed nuke.

JFC Fuller said:
Small North Korean nuke yields should not be unsurprising either, they have multiple motivations to keep them small. Their current tech level means any device they build is going to be bulky but they need a small device as their only means of delivery are ballistic missiles- no B-29s for them. I suspect they are also trying to ration their available fissile material, especially if they are still using plutonium. They probably also know that today most people just see nukes, they tend not distinguish on yield; their target audience is unlikely to be proportionally more outraged by a bigger device.
Click to expand...
First tests + North Korea:

USA 18-20 kiloton
USSR 22 kiloton
UK 25 kiloton
France 70 kiloton
China 22 kiloton
India 12 kiloton
Pakistan 40 kiloton
North Korea 2006 ~1 kiloton
North Korea 2009 ~2-6 kiloton
North Korea 2013 ~5 kiloton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
 
And, going a bit OT, some news relating to Iran: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-iran-said-deploy-aging-foreign-tankers-avoiding-131133307.html
 
Simon666 said:
From what I've read, if the depth is a bit lower than the magnitude would seem bigger (only up to a certain depth). So I'd rather speculate on not so deep ANFO rather than very deep or well sealed nuke.
Click to expand...

Also pure speculation. Minor Scale was only 4kt TNT equivalent meaning the Norks would have to make it at least 25% bigger and underground. Very James Bond but a primitive and undeliverable nuke should not be beyond Nork capability.

First tests + North Korea:

USA 18-20 kiloton
USSR 22 kiloton
UK 25 kiloton
France 70 kiloton
China 22 kiloton
India 12 kiloton
Pakistan 40 kiloton
North Korea 2006 ~1 kiloton
North Korea 2009 ~2-6 kiloton
Click to expand...

And all those countries have very different needs, the UK, USA, USSR, China and France all had aircraft for delivery that allowed them to carry large devices whilst India and Pakistan could afford larger devices because they do not have to launch them very far (relatively speaking): North Korea has every motivation to keep its nukes physically small and not one to make them big. Indeed the North Korean's themselves effectively admitted this when they claimed the latest test was of a smaller device, combine this with the Unha/KN-08 programme and it is clear that what they want is a small device to go on top of a big rocket with the hope of pointing it at the US. Their limited tech prevents them from being able to produce small devices with big yields though if they have made a smaller device than 2009 one but with a bigger yield they are certainly making progress.
 
U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear EMP Weapon: Ex-Lab Head Feb. 20, 2013 By Rachel Oswald Global Security Newswire

ARLINGTON, Va. -- One of the United States' most prominent nuclear weapons experts on Wednesday urged the government to develop nuclear weapons that could be used to short-circuit enemies' electrical infrastructure, to counter similar capabilities possessed by Russia and China. Former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory head John Foster noted in a speech at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit recent claims by Moscow that it has "developed and deployed no-yield clean penetrating EMP weapons tailored to terminate any conventional attack." "Similarly if the U.S. were to send a naval carrier force to aid Taiwan, the Chinese could use a nuclear EMP weapon to disable the carriers’ command and control," Foster asserted. "Such declaratory warnings and capabilities cause our allies to question their confidence in our continued deterrence." Foster, who has long advocated for development of next-generation nuclear weapons, did not cite examples of partner nations that have become skeptical of the strength of U.S. extended deterrence in light of Russian and Chinese offensive EMP capabilities.


"The credibility of our nuclear deterrent would be enhanced if we could develop and certify nuclear weapons such as those described by Russia and China," he stated, adding, that at the minimum the Defense Department and the national nuclear laboratories "should promptly address what capabilities are most needed and if they can be provided without nuclear testing."
Washington's nuclear weapons policy for years has been to not pursue additional capabilities out of concern that would open up new arms races. The United States has maintained a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992.


"Yes, some of those capabilities might be considered to be new and would then have to be reviewed by the White House and approved by the president. But that hurdle should not prevent the DOD from requesting what is needed to provide a more credible nuclear deterrent," according to the physicist who led the Livermore site from 1958 to 1965 and subsequently served at high levels at the Pentagon. The George W. Bush administration was interested in developing a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which was envisioned as a low-yield nuclear weapon that could destroy enemies' subterranean WMD arsenals without causing significant loss of life. Lawmakers refused to fund work on the weapon in the wake of a congressionally ordered study by the National Academy of Sciences that concluded the warhead could cause massive loss of life as it would not be able to bury itself deep enough in the ground.
--------------------------------------------------------

My plan;

1) Robust R&D on advanced weapons concepts (or as I like to say is the 4th Generation possible)
2) EMP Weapon
3) RNEP
4) RRW
5) High yield hard target or meteor deflector
6) Micro Yield limited collateral damage warhead

Of course in conjunction with;

1) New ICBM (120" diameter heavy silo stuffer) & Prompt Global Strike Missile
2) AMaRV/HTV-2 warhead integration
---------------------------------------------------
My current 'Smartphone' location................fantasyland ;D
 
bobbymike said:
My current 'Smartphone' location................fantasyland ;D
Click to expand...

I'll bet if you looked you could see Obama riding around on his unicorn.
 
Simon666 said:
JFC Fuller said:
Plausible, the Norks take deception extremely seriously. I would suggest it is far more likely that they just bury their tests very deeply- they have near perfect geography and geology to pull it off.
Click to expand...
Speculation - just that - I've seen so far was I think 300 to 400 meter deep.

JFC Fuller said:
Also, this latest test seems to have been relatively powerful, consensus is over 5kt and that would take a lot of ANFO to fake it would also probably mean the Norks are producing the largest planned conventional explosions in history.
Click to expand...
It's been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale

From what I've read, if the depth is a bit lower than the magnitude would seem bigger (only up to a certain depth). So I'd rather speculate on not so deep ANFO rather than very deep or well sealed nuke.

JFC Fuller said:
Small North Korean nuke yields should not be unsurprising either, they have multiple motivations to keep them small. Their current tech level means any device they build is going to be bulky but they need a small device as their only means of delivery are ballistic missiles- no B-29s for them. I suspect they are also trying to ration their available fissile material, especially if they are still using plutonium. They probably also know that today most people just see nukes, they tend not distinguish on yield; their target audience is unlikely to be proportionally more outraged by a bigger device.
Click to expand...
First tests + North Korea:

USA 18-20 kiloton
USSR 22 kiloton
UK 25 kiloton
France 70 kiloton
China 22 kiloton
India 12 kiloton
Pakistan 40 kiloton
North Korea 2006 ~1 kiloton
North Korea 2009 ~2-6 kiloton
North Korea 2013 ~5 kiloton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
Click to expand...


I believe major nuclear power's first weapon tests were all 12 KT or above because it is actually substantially more difficult to build a good device with a smaller yield than about 12KT.

This is why I find it hard to believe North Korea could actually try for a more sophisticated small yield weapon on its first go.

I think it must have either been faked, or the test devices all malfuncitoned and would have been considered duds by a real nuclear powers.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Also pure speculation. Minor Scale was only 4kt TNT equivalent meaning the Norks would have to make it at least 25% bigger and underground. Very James Bond but a primitive and undeliverable nuke should not be beyond Nork capability.
Click to expand...
The 5 kiloton figure is based on certain assumptions regarding to depth of the test. A lower actual depth than estimated could imply a lower actual yield than estimated. It might mean only 2 kiloton of conventional explosives are needed.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.S43B2231K

Grey Havoc said:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T130222004466.htm
Click to expand...
That news is meaningless if natural background levels and their fluctuation are not mentioned. Background levels for most detectors are 1.0 millibecquerels per cubic meter are above, this is 1.9 and hence meaningless without further context.

It is interesting the only time radiation from a North Korean "nuclear" test was allegedly measured was in 2006 with North Korea's believed dud of 1 kiloton or below. That was measured at CTBTO radionuclide station RN16 in Yellowknife, Canada. Natural background radiation of xenon 133 is due to atmospheric and location reasons very low there, 0.1 millibecquerel per cubic meters, so a peak of around 1.6 millibecquerel a few days after the event was proclaimed as significant and attributed to the North Korean test. However, atmospheric models failed to show how such radiation could actually reach there, leading to the suspicion of political manipulation of the data. No other station than the one in Yellowknife, Canada measured anything, while some others far closer should have measured something too far above background, leading to the conclusion that more data would have been necessary to conclude anything with certainty.
 
DOD's Future Contribution To Nuclear Weapon Modernization Plan Unclear Posted: Feb. 21, 2013
Ongoing work by the Defense and Energy departments to modernize and sustain the nuclear stockpile has been clouded by fiscal uncertainty, according to an Air Force official. Speaking at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Arlington on Feb. 21, Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the Air Force's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said that while the Nuclear Weapons Council has developed a long-range plan for the stockpile and its modernization, the plan requires funding that neither DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nor DOD can assure will be available. "This requires dollars that are difficult for NNSA to budget for and difficult for DOD to predict," Chambers said. Chambers said DOD has been clear about the capabilities that are required to maintain the strength of the nuclear triad and has made financial "contributions" to NNSA's efforts to modernize the stockpile, but Chambers said he is not sure what continued contributions the department will be able to make, as "every aspect of the DOD budget is totally squeezed" by planned budget cuts, the threat of sequestration and the possibility of a yearlong continuing resolution.

"In the next five years and beyond, there is quite a hump of requirements that must be paid for," Chambers said. "In this case, these are national requirements. And both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy would argue that the nation must commit, and must commit above politics, to what America needs to deter and assure. . . . the details of partnering or helping to pay the DOE bill, I can't speak to it because it is all clouded with the uncertainty of the current budget environment." DOD and NNSA have developed options for cuts that consider those requirements, Chambers said, including lowering the number of weapons and extending the life of some missiles. But reducing any arm of the triad, he said, is "not open for debate." "The scenarios, as we look forward, require this flexible and resilient synergy that comes with a penetrating platform, a ballistic missile platform and a long-range ballistic missile as well as a fighter capable of delivering nuclear weapons," Chambers said. "Any of those are not open for debate from an assurance, deterrence perspective from those of us in uniform. We're paid to prevent this. We believe that over the next two decades, each one of those pieces is needed."

Chambers argued that nuclear capabilities, while their upfront costs may appear significant, are relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of other capabilities. In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force provided intercontinental ballistic missile capability for 1 percent of the overall budget and, in the same year, provided bomber capability for 2.1 percent, he said. "When compared to any other necessary modernization program in our service or by any service, no other program can produce the same strategic affect per dollar than what we have invested in our nuclear systems," Chambers said. -- Courtney Albon
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/9903205/Commodity-giant-Glencore-under-spotlight-over-Iran.html
 
Hon. Douglas Feith, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for National Security Strategies, Hudson Institute; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, spoke to the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on the topic of: The Obama Administration’s Pending One-Third Cut to the Nuclear Arsenal — National Security Implications

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/02/25/douglas-feith-the-obama-administrations-pending-one-third-cut-to-the-nuclear-arsenal/

I talk often, in other terms, of dissuasion you have to have an arsenal big enough to dissuade others from trying to match us. I think we no longer dissuade others, especially, China who are rising to match us. Former SecState Clinton said openly, "We welcome the rise of China" and part of that is falling to meet them on the way up.

The other part I agree with in is to stop the thought process saying only by 'maximizing reductions' can we maximize security, Feith argues these two things are not interchangable in fact at some point a low number will increase the likelihood of war and lessen security.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/4/the-antiquation-of-americas-nuclear-weapons/
 
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/4/the-antiquation-of-americas-nuclear-weapons/
Click to expand...

Some of the comments look like they were written by 3rd-graders. ;D
Click to expand...

Ya neither side of the debate stood out as 'intellectuals' especially the no nukes crowd. We have enough to blow up the world A MILLION TIMES!!!!! :eek:

But is it any wonder my side - the build back to Start I levels, lol - but seriously I'm resigned to 1550 deployed warheads WITH a robust modernization plan I can live with that.

Letting our nuke industry die on the vine is the current strategy. :'(

sferrin,

I don't know if you listened to Douglas Feith but he made a point you and I have made about when the President and other politicians stand and say 'nuclear zero' and then in the Nuclear Posture Reivew say "We must attract the best and brightest nuke scientists to work in the national labs", it is hard to attract anyone. Yes I'm going to get my PhD in nuclear physics and then what? Flip burgers? Or I guess Iran might have some employment opportunities.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/north-korea-threatens-cancel-korean-war-cease-fire/
 
Russian nuclear forces conducted a major exercise last month that tested the transport of both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons near Europe, according to United States officials. The exercise raised concerns inside the Pentagon and with the U.S. European Command because it was the largest exercise of its kind in 20 years and involved heightened alert status of Russian nuclear forces. The nuclear drills were part of other military maneuvers in Russia carried out between Feb. 17 and Feb. 21. The exercises followed a recent surge in Russian strategic bomber flights that include a recent circling of the U.S. Pacific island of Guam by two Tu-95 Bear bomber and simulated bombing runs by Tu-95s against Alaska and California in June and July. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley P. Miller sought to play down the nuclear exercise but declined to comment on the movement of nuclear weapons and whether nuclear forces went on a heightened state of alert. “We don’t comment on intelligence matters,” he said. Miller said the nuclear forces maneuvers were “nothing to be concerned about because the Russians, like us, have routine exercises and inspections.”

However, a U.S. official said the exercise was a concern within the U.S. national security community because of the scale of the exercise and the number of weapons being moved. “Certainly it’s a concern when you have this kind of exercise going on,” this official said. The official said another worry is that Russia appears to be increasing the readiness of its nuclear forces at a time when the U.S. nuclear complex is in urgent need of upgrading and the military is facing sharp automatic defense cuts that could affect U.S. nuclear forces readiness in the future.

http://freebeacon.com/russians-conduct-huge-nuke-drill/
-----------------------------------------------
Hmmm!
 
Air Force is issuing a study contract for a subway-like tunnel basing system for a next-generation ICBM to replace Minuteman III. Or maybe a road-mobile TEL. Or maybe ultra-hard fixed silos. MX all over again.

http://insidedefense.com/201303122427355/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/air-force-readies-contracts-to-shape-minuteman-iii-modernization-plans/menu-id-926.html

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=63114642123dbbf11fe4ad94c35844ed&tab=core&_cview=0
 
TomS said:
Air Force is issuing a study contract for a subway-like tunnel basing system for a next-generation ICBM to replace Minuteman III. Or maybe a road-mobile TEL. Or maybe ultra-hard fixed silos. MX all over again.

http://insidedefense.com/201303122427355/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/air-force-readies-contracts-to-shape-minuteman-iii-modernization-plans/menu-id-926.html

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=63114642123dbbf11fe4ad94c35844ed&tab=core&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Hopefully it's not because the people doing the thinking are so green they don't know what's already been looked at. But I'm not holding my breath.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Air Force is issuing a study contract for a subway-like tunnel basing system for a next-generation ICBM to replace Minuteman III. Or maybe a road-mobile TEL. Or maybe ultra-hard fixed silos. MX all over again.

http://insidedefense.com/201303122427355/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/air-force-readies-contracts-to-shape-minuteman-iii-modernization-plans/menu-id-926.html

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=63114642123dbbf11fe4ad94c35844ed&tab=core&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Hopefully it's not because the people doing the thinking are so green they don't know what's already been looked at. But I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

A couple more links to the same;

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/air-force-aims-updated-icbm/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/nuclear-subway/

I would like a new missile twice the payload as MMIII in new superhard silos married to AMaRV type RV with new nuclear warhead variable yield of 100kt to 1Mt. Also use for a prompt global strike missile. I am a broken record :D
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom