• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Decided to start a new topic capturing current nuclear weapons news of interest. Other SP members please feel free to to add stories, links, reports, etc. that you find in your Interwebz searches ;)

Further U.S. Nuclear Tests Highly Unlikely: Former NNSA Chief
Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 By Diane Barnes

Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON -- The United States is “almost certain” never to conduct another test detonation of a nuclear device, a former top U.S. nuclear weapons official said on Monday (see GSN, Oct. 21). In the nearly 20 years since the nation’s last nuclear trial, technological alternatives to such detonations have advanced substantially while political obstacles to testing have grown close to insurmountable, said Linton Brooks, who headed the National Nuclear Security Administration from 2002 to 2007 under President George W. Bush.


The negotiation in the early 1990s of a global ban on atomic trial blasts marked “the beginning of the end of the U.S. nuclear testing era,” Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball added in a panel discussion. The independent expert called for U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate previously rejected in 1999. Upon taking legal effect, the pact would prohibit explosive nuclear testing by any member state. “The United States current bears all the responsibilities of a CTBT signatory state, but because we haven’t ratified, we do not enjoy the considerable benefits of a legally binding global ban,” including the ability to demand on-site inspections of suspected violators, Kimball said.


The 182-signatory pact cannot become binding until it is ratified by 44 "Annex 2" states that participated in drafting the 1996 treaty while operating nuclear power or research facilities. Nine of those nations have yet to acquire legislative approval for the agreement: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States. The U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program has achieved significant strides in obviating the need for test explosions to ensure the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable, Brooks said. The effort, which includes surveillance of aging weapons and production of replacement components, is overseen by the semiautonomous Energy Department agency he once led. During his tenure, Congress repeatedly refused to provide funding for basic preparations that would be required to resume testing. “We aren’t going to test,” Brooks said. “Therefore, the question is not, ‘Should you support stockpile stewardship because you like the CTBT?’ The question is, ‘Should you support stockpile stewardship because you think it’s important that nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, reliable and effective?’”


Nuclear test blasts carried out during the Cold War were not intended to confirm that fielded U.S. systems operated as intended, said the former official, now a consultant to four Energy Department laboratories and a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “This was not like you pull every 18th device off an assembly line and test it to make sure it works,” he said. “It gathered data, it was a tool of scientific exploration. And the question, therefore, for the Stockpile Stewardship [Program] is, ‘Can we replace that tool [testing] with another?’” Advocates consider the treaty a means of discouraging explosive tests necessary for the development of new or more sophisticated nuclear weapons, but detractors contend that a U.S. pledge never to conduct such work could undermine confidence in the country’s nuclear deterrent (see GSN, July 15).


The Obama administration has pledged to bring the treaty before the Senate for ratification, though the schedule for that initiative remains unclear. Kimball warned that insufficient time remains for the Senate to scrutinize, debate and vote on the test ban treaty prior to the November 2012 elections. To help lay the groundwork for legislative consideration of the pact in 2013, the Obama administration should “step up its CTBT outreach work and … pursue a fact-based, quiet discussion with Senate offices and staff about the issues that are at the center of the [treaty] discussion,” he said. Brooks said he had observed no serious discussion of a potential resumption in regular U.S. nuclear testing. “What’s on at the very most, even from enthusiasts for testing outside the government, is two or three tests. And nobody is prepared to divert the funds from stockpile stewardship into two or three tests,” he said.


“There is no plausible situation in which current stockpile stewardship and the deep scientific understanding … will not be enough to ensure the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons for the indefinite future,” Brooks later added. The program “has been successful to date,” though its future effectiveness would depend on updates to nuclear weapons facilities and a continued infusion of skilled personnel, said Marvin Adams, a veteran nuclear weapons scientist who has served at the Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories. To date, the U.S. arsenal’s safety, security and reliability -- and the absence of need for new tests -- has been verified each year by the Defense and Energy secretaries, the directors of the three nuclear-weapon laboratories and the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Adams said. Brooks noted that the NNSA administrator cannot influence the findings of the annual stockpile assessment.


Brooks said he was unaware of any proposal for a new nuclear weapon that would require testing, including a potential deep earth penetrator. “It’s not just against our current policy, it’s solving a problem that we don’t appear to have,” he said. The former NNSA chief said he had not heard from technical experts “opposed to the CTBT” any potential “safety or security problem that’s so great that the only way you can fix it was to involve nuclear testing.” In addition, it is “extremely difficult” to conceive of a problem that would require testing to diagnose a problem or certify a solution, he said. Putting the treaty into effect might deter Iran from potentially conducting a nuclear-weapon test, panel experts suggested. The Middle Eastern nation maintains its uranium enrichment operations operations are strictly civilian in nature (see related GSN story, today).


Brooks noted, though, that every past test of a uranium-based weapon has proven successful, and South Africa maintained a small nuclear arsenal for a period with no testing. “CTBT does not prevent people from developing nuclear weapons,” he said. If Iran opted against nuclear testing under a potential CTBT regime, it would have less confidence in any nuclear-capable missile it produced, Adams said. The nation might still move to produce such delivery systems, he added.


U.K. Commits $3.1B to New Nuke Facilities Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 The United Kingdom has committed $3.1 billion for work on new nuclear arms facilities before the government has made a final determination on whether to replace its submarine-based nuclear deterrent, the London Guardian reported on Monday (see GSN, Oct. 24). The Conservative Party, which leads the current British coalition government, has thrown its support behind a Labor-era initiative to build four new ballistic missile submarines to replace Vanguard-class vessels slated for retirement in the 2020s. Cost estimates for the plan have risen in the last year to as much as $40 billion, according to a previous report. The government has said it would delay a final decision to construct the submarines until after the 2015 election. A decision is also pending on replacing the nuclear-tipped missiles carried by the submarines. The funds would play a role in preventing problems involving the nation's current nuclear warheads, and would uphold the capacity to develop an additional weapon "should that be required," the British Defense Ministry said. The money includes $1.15 billion for a weapon construction and dismantlement site dubbed "Mensa"; a $989 million bomb-grade uranium site dubbed "Pegasus"; and a $361 million explosives facility dubbed "Circinus."



"This investment maintains the safety of the current Trident warhead stockpile by sustaining essential facilities and skills," according to a Defense Ministry spokeswoman. "It also helps maintain the capability to design a replacement warhead should that be required following decisions in the next parliament." "The fact that the [Defense Ministry] signed off on these costs before a decision has even been made on replacing the Trident warhead makes a complete mockery of the democratic process," countered Green Party lawmaker Caroline Lucas. The new facilities could remain operational for more than four decades, said Peter Burt of the Nuclear Information Service. "By spending billions of pounds now, the MoD is trying to force the hands of future governments into developing a new nuclear warhead, regardless of whether it will be necessary or affordable," he said (Rob Edwards, London Guardian, Nov. 28).
---------------------------------------------
It would be very interesting if US politicians tied our weapons laboratories and scientists hands to the point that we "subcontract" our weapons work to the British. Some say it all started with Rutherford anyway so there is a fine tradition of British Boffinry. I say why not.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/georgetown-students-shed-light-on-chinas-tunnel-system-for-nuclear-weapons/2011/11/16/gIQA6AmKAO_story.html?hpid=z1

Most of the attention has focused on the 363-page study’s provocative conclusion — that China’s nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than the well-established estimates of arms-control experts.
“It’s not quite a bombshell, but those thoughts and estimates are being checked against what people think they know based on classified information,” said a Defense Department strategist who would discuss the study only on the condition of anonymity.
The study’s critics, however, have questioned the unorthodox Internet-based research of the students, who drew from sources as disparate as Google Earth, blogs, military journals and, perhaps most startlingly, a fictionalized TV docudrama about Chinese artillery soldiers — the rough equivalent of watching Fox’s TV show “24” for insights into U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
With China its the old hope for the best but prepare for the worst. That's why I always said Start II's 3500 warhead limit was far enough. I don't think China was prepared to "match us" at those levels at 1550 with a decaying nuclear weapons infrastructure..........maybe?
 

unclejim

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Just a personal feeling but I seriously doubt that the Chicoms would settle for an Israeli level of warheads. I have been hearing and reading that the PRC has about 3-400 warheads for at least fifteen years. That maks no sense to me. Perhaps they have a limited number of delivery systems, ICBMs, H-6s and so forth. Production of warheads say 20 to thirty per year? "Arms-control specialists" are way too credulous about accepting at face value Chinese or indeed any nations claims regarding stockpile size.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Snapshot of ICBM Force:

The Air Force had 448 Minuteman III ICBMs on operational status in their silos as of Sept. 1, according to a State Department fact sheet issued on Thursday based on the periodic data exchanges now occurring between the United States and Russia under the provisions of the New START arms control agreement. It also had an additional 266 Minuteman III missiles on non-deployed status, 58 additional silos not in operational status, and six silos used for tests, states the fact sheet. While the Peacekeeper ICBM fleet is now out of service, some assets remain, and the United States must count them for the purposes of the treaty and its caps on strategic offensive warheads and launchers. The fact sheets states that there are still 58 non-deployed Peacekeeper missiles, 51 remaining silos, and one test silo. The Air Force has announced plans to eliminate 50 of those silos (see below).


New START Silo-Elimination Process Under Way:

The Air Force is moving forward with the task of eliminating 100 deactivated ICBM silos and their associated alert facilities in accordance with the provisions of the New START agreement with Russia. Air Force Global Strike Command officials announced on Thursday that environmental impact assessments are now under way at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and Malmstrom AFB, Mont., per US law, to clear the way for this empty infrastructure to be imploded or filled with gravel to render it useless. The Air Force intends to get rid of 50 silos and 5 alert facilities at each of the two missile bases. At F.E. Warren, the service will eliminate former Peacekeeper missile silos and alert facilities once belonging to the 400th Missile Squadron. On the books for elimination at Malmstrom are Minuteman III silos and alert facilities formerly used by the 564th Missile Squadron. Under New START, the United States has until February 2018 to eliminate this infrastructure. (Barksdale release)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two observations:

1) As OBB's article shows we just don't know what is happening in China with regard to nuclear weapons. It might have been OK to not worry if they had 400 or 2000 warheads when we had 12,000 at the end of the Cold War or 6000 after Start I but we are rapidly disarming down to 1550 we should really insist the Chinese be part of any future weapons negotiations.

2) Under New Start the US is allowed a hedge force of 100 launchers so I would keep the 50+ Peacekeepers (and not destroy their silos) which could be deployed and uploaded to 10 MIRVs - see point 1) above for rationale.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Concerns Remain on New Plutonium Lab After Years of Planning Monday, Dec. 5, 2011

The ultimate function of a planned multibillion-dollar plutonium research facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is still unresolved after years of planning. the Associated Press reported on Sunday. Questions on atomic safety and other matters also persist (see GSN, Oct. 24). The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex is intended to replace a World War II-era plutonium facility at an earthquake-prone location. However, the specific types of nuclear and plutonium research activities to be conducted there remain in question, according to AP. Officials argue the new plutonium complex will allow the laboratory to continue its role as the nation's leading center for nuclear arms upkeep and development by performing analytical research that will aid the work of the Plutonium Facility at Los Alamos -- the sole facility in the country in which plutonium warhead cores are produced.


Antinuclear groups accuse the Energy Department of seeking to ramp up generation of new nuclear bombs by turning what had primarily been a scientific institution into a weapons production plan. The activist Los Alamos Study Group has filed two separate lawsuits against the project. The anticipated final $5.8 billion expense for the facility exceeds by close to $1 billion New Mexico's entire yearly budget and represents a twofold boost from the annual appropriation for entire Los Alamos site. It comes at a time of severe federal belt-tightening. Still, the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the nation's nuclear-weapon complex, is progressing forward with the laboratory. Project chief Herman Le-Doux said the blueprints have been modified to incorporate advice from the country's foremost specialists on earthquakes.


The semiautonomous Energy Department agency has "gone to great extremes" to make certain the complex could handle a seismic eruption of a maximum 7.3 magnitude. The majority of earthquake specialists think that a 7.3 magnitude earthquake is the strongest Los Alamos is likely to experience. However, a number of residents living in the area say there is not sufficient justification for taking the risk. The laboratory has faced danger from wildfires on two occasions in the last decade. "The Department of Energy has learned nothing from the Fukushima disaster," watchdog group Citizens Action New Mexico Director David McCoy said at a recent hearing on the laboratory. The meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan was caused by an earthquake and tsunami in March. The damaged plant has leaked radiation on a level not seen since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and has forced tens of thousands of residents to evacuate from the area. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Chairman Peter Winokur said "the board believes that no safety issue problem (in the nation's nuclear complex) is more pressing than the Plutonium Facility's vulnerability to a large earthquake" (see GSN, Nov. 18).


Winokur said the safety board has no worries about radiation fallout from an earthquake at the planned plutonium center so long as NNSA officials "follow through" in implementing all design plans. Los Alamos Study Group head Greg Mello countered that laboratory officials could not be trusted to implement all of the safety designs for the new plutonium center. "Los Alamos doesn't have the safety ethos needed for a facility that will store the bulk of the nation's stockpile of plutonium." Winokur highlighted two recent documents that touched on issues with atomic safeguards at Los Alamos. The memos show "that the operations out there are very challenging and that there is plenty of room for improvement," he said. Nonetheless, "it's fair so say" the contracting team that assumed management of Los Alamos in 006 has "improved safety at the sites," Winokur added.


The board chairman said he would leave it to Washington to judge the wisdom of building a new plutonium center near major earthquake fault lines. "I'll leave that to Congress and DOE about whether or not they want to build a facility of that nature in that region of the country where they do have a fairly large earthquake threat" he said (Jeri Clausing, Associated Press/Google News, Dec. 4). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Red print, really? The US needs to stay on the leading edge of all things nuclear and be able to research, develop and build a new generation of modern, robust nuclear warheads if required (also delivery systems but that is for another post).
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
From the Chicago Municipal Code.<blockquote> Phase-out of present activities. No person shall knowingly, within the City of Chicago, design, produce, deploy, launch, maintain, or store nuclear weapons or components of nuclear weapons. This prohibition shall take effect two years after the adoption and publication of this ordinance...


...Each violation of this ordinance shall be punishable by up to 30 days’ imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine. Each day of violation shall be deemed a separate violation.
</blockquote>

Nuclear Free Zones- because nothing deters nuclear terrorism like the threat of 30 days in prison.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
No person shall knowingly, within the City of Chicago, design, produce, deploy, launch, maintain, or store nuclear weapons or components of nuclear weapons.
A fun thing to do: find some local designer/manufacturer of some mundane little trinket - a nut or bolt, say - and then show how that would be used in a nuclear weapon (thus they "design" a "component" of a nuclear weapon). Convince a city prosecutor to bring cherges. Then sit back and watch as the defense attorneys eviscerate the city, hopefully suing the city into bankruptcy.

Chicago sucks.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Triton said:
The nuclear weapon problem has just gotten out of hand in Chicago. ;)
Given how well Illinois' anti-gun laws have done in Chicago, I can only imagine that by sometime next week gangbangers will be setting off H-bombs at various liquor stores along Lakeshore Drive.
 

Artie Bob

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
159
Reaction score
8
IIRC, the world's first nuclear reactor lit off under a football stadium in Chicago. Could this ordnance be just a NIMBY reminder of those heady days of early bomb research?

Best Regards,

Artie Bob
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
194
Possibly related to Iran's Nuclear weapons program? :

An explosion at a steel factory in Iran has killed seven people including foreign nationals, say reports in Iranian state media.

The blast in the city of Yazd was caused by discarded ammunition which arrived at the plant with a consignment of scrap metal, the official Irna news agency reported.

It happened late on Sunday at the privately owned plant, Irna said.

At least 12 other people are reported to have been injured.

The governor of Yazd region in central Iran, Azizollah Seyfi, said "several of those killed were foreign nationals".

He gave no further details of their nationalities or what caused the blast, although he did say it was being investigated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16144780
 

Lauge

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
437
Reaction score
0
Grey Havoc said:
Possibly related to Iran's Nuclear weapons program? :

"The blast .... was caused by discarded ammunition which arrived at the plant with a consignment of scrap metal...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16144780
If the quoted article is correct, I'd say it has no relation to any nuke program. Why in the Wide World of Sports would you transport discarded ammunition to a nuclear weapons research facility? Or scrap metal?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
194
The official Iranian explanation is that the blast was caused by discarded ammunition which arrived at the plant with a consignment of scrap metal.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Lauge said:
Why in the Wide World of Sports would you transport discarded ammunition to a nuclear weapons research facility? Or scrap metal?
Discarded ammo: old Soviet suitcase nukes.
Scrap metal: bits of enriched uranium.

It's all in how you sell it.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
I am trying to find an article I read recently that said "at this point the US is capable of producing about 40 new warheads a year at Los Alamos and will not have the ability to ramp up production until the 2023 completion of another facility"

Sorry for the paucity of information but this situation is scary given the lack of information we have about China's nuclear program. Also given that Russia has active production lines how did we let this happen?

Combine this with the lack of will, it seems, to modernize the Triad's deliver systems.........
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
682
Reaction score
42
You must be very pessimistic to think that the US needs more than 40 new warheads per year.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Strategic Review Suggests Potential New U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cuts

The United States might have opportunities to achieve additional nuclear arsenal cuts without undermining its strategic deterrent, the Obama administration said in a defense planning document issued on Thursday (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2011).


"As long as nuclear weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal. We will field nuclear forces that can under any circumstances confront an adversary with the prospect of unacceptable damage, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments," the defense strategic guidance states. "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy" (U.S. Defense Department release, Jan. 5).


The document, released by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Pentagon press briefing, calls for an increased U.S. armed forces focus on Asia and the withdrawal of some military personnel from Europe, Reuters reported. The paper, which addresses spending plans only in general terms, was published amid efforts to reduce defense spending by no less than $450 billion over the next 10 years. ???
==========================

Submitted without commentary - gnashing teeth :mad:
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Meanwhile;


Russia this year intends to conduct 11 ICBM trial firings, ITAR-Tass reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2011). “Four launches will be carried out for the purpose extending service life and seven under experimental programs to test new missiles and improve existing ones with a view to piercing missile defense systems,” said Col. Oleg Koval, spokesman for the Russian strategic missile forces.
 

Gridlock

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
243
Reaction score
1
Www.armscontrolwonk.com is an invaluable resource if you find proliferation and nuclear issues interesting.


There's a good article debunking the notion that China might have more than 400 warheads, for a start.


Also can't miss the opportunity to post a link to playboy on SP :D

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/the-secret-treachery-of-a-q-khan
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
WASHINGTON -- Forthcoming updates to the U.S. nuclear weapons force structure should eliminate the long-held objective of deterring a massive surprise atomic attack by Russia, arms control advocates said on Friday (see GSN, Jan. 6).


Only by doing away with the requirement, which necessitates a much larger nuclear force than otherwise necessary, can Washington and Moscow negotiate arms reductions beyond those mandated under the New START treaty that entered into force last year, said Morton Halperin, an adviser with the Open Society Institute. The size of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal is far beyond what is needed to deter Russia two decades after the end of the Cold War, Halperin indicated. “We need to start from scratch,” he said at a panel discussion sponsored by the Arms Control Association in Washington. “We need to ask ourselves the question: Under what circumstances might the Russian leadership wake up and say, ‘Oh, it’s Easter Sunday, the Americans are at rest, we can launch a surprise attack and it will be successful?’ What would have to be going on in the world that would make that even conceivable?”


New START requires each government by 2018 to reduce deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from a cap of 2,200 mandated by next year under an older treaty. It also limits the number of fielded strategic warhead delivery platforms to 700, with an additional 100 systems permitted in reserve (see GSN, Dec. 23, 2011).


The United States as of last September had 1,790 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on bomber aircraft and land- and submarine-based missiles, according to data from an exchange mandated under the treaty (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2011). The U.S. nuclear stockpile totaled 5,113 warheads in September 2009, including stored weapons, according to a Pentagon disclosure (see GSN, May 4, 2010).


President Obama is set in coming weeks to assess options for updating guidance on plans for the possible employment of nuclear weapons in combat. His resulting Presidential Policy Directive would initiate preparation of a succession of highly classified defense planning documents and culminate in a new strategic war plan.


The president’s decisions could prove crucial to his administration’s hopes of carrying out additional arsenal reductions in conjunction with Russia, Gary Samore, National Security Council coordinator for arms control and nonproliferation, suggested in comments published last May by Arms Control Today.


“Reductions below the level that we have now are going to require some more fundamental questions about force structure,” Samore said then.


http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/arms-control-proponents-question-us-nuclear-readiness-doctrine/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So would they support more nukes if a strategic targeting review included Russia, China, North Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, etc. warranted it? Of course not because the goal is for the US to have zero nukes even unilaterally.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
Zero from Zero. Would you expect anything more?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139

Meanwhile

Russian Military Continue Massive Re-armament

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released information about its weapons procurement in 2011. According to the first deputy minister Alexander Sukhorukov, the Ministry has purchased 30 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) and Yars ballistic missiles, 4 military satellites, 21 aircraft, 82 helicopters, one Stereguschiy class corvette, 8,531 military trucks and other military hardware. The total weapons procurement budget for 2011 amounted to 721.2 billion rubles (about $23 billion) including both federal budget money and government-guaranteed loans what was significantly more that in previous years, said the military official.
 

Gridlock

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
243
Reaction score
1
I will bet you every penny I am ever going to earn that the US will never unilaterally achieve zero (overt or covert or one-stage-from-completion like Japan and others). ::)


Seriously, how can so many Americans be so very, very naive? Name one action of the current administration, action not statement, that has demonstrated anything other than a continuation of exceptionalism and desire to be the sole global superpower. How's that promised closure of gitmo coming along? Did Bush ever dare to claim the power of global extra-judicial execution of US citizens?


It'd be hilarious how scared and dogmatic you are if there wasn't a non-trivial chance the US could be solely responsible for ending life on earth. Look at how obsessed the 42 administration was with abrogating the ABM treaty for that strange 9-month period between Bush v Gore and 9/11. Just a bunch of ex-Kremlinologists and defence industry chiefs pining for the cold war while the actual, real threat was making final preparations to do you-know-what.


Anyhow, your apparent belief that islamo-commie Obama is secretly implementing unilateral disarmament is a nice thought, if not the paranoia behind it, but it is demonstrably false. So can we talk physics packages and rogue states and NPT and NSG now?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
U.S. Pushes Back Future Nuclear-Armed Sub Jan. 27, 2012

The U.S. ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming approaches Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga., in 2009. The Obama administration on Thursday announced plans to set back by two years the preparation of a successor to the nation’s Ohio-class fleet of nuclear-armed submarines (U.S. Navy photo). The United States will push back by two years the Navy's time line for preparing a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines, a move intended to defer related expenses and promote a stronger foundation for the project, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday (see GSN, Jan. 6).

The Pentagon chief announced the decision in laying out plans to reduce armed forces spending by $487 billion across 10 years, the New York Times reported. The future submarines would eventually host the U.S. sea-based nuclear deterrent in place of the nation's existing fleet of Ohio-class vessels. The first of the next-generation submarines had been scheduled to enter service in 2029, according to a previous report (see GSN, Jan. 24). The Defense Department also intends to build a successor to its line of B-2 strategic bombers (see GSN, July 21, 2011; Christopher Drew, New York Times, Jan. 26). The cuts announced on Thursday would not affect the country's existing nuclear bomber or ICBM fleets, according to the Associated Press (Robert Burns, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Jan. 27).


With the exception of the coming fiscal year, U.S. defense spending would rise annually over the next half-decade with the reductions in place, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Pentagon's $525 billion budget request for the 2013 budget cycle is $6 billion less than lawmakers provided for the current fiscal year, but projected spending would increase in following years until peaking at $567 billion in 2017. Still, Defense Department figures indicate the budget would remain largely consistent from year to year with inflation taken into account. Fiscal 2013 begins on Oct. 1 (David Cloud, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26).


The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.


“[Panetta's] announcement today is yet another indication that the president is backing off his part of the deal. Ultimately, this changes the circumstances for U.S. participation in the treaty under both Condition Nine of the New START Treaty Resolution of Ratification and language I offered in the National Defense Authorization Act for [fiscal 2012]." Turner said he would "look carefully" at the administration's spending plan for nuclear weapons activities overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration, focusing on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement complex and Uranium Processing Facility programs "which the president pledged to accelerate" (see related GSN stories, Dec. 19, 2011 and July 8, 2011).


"These two facilities are absolutely critical to the ability of the U.S. to maintain a credible and reliable deterrent, and they were an essential piece of the New START treaty bargain," he said. “I am also concerned about the administration’s missile defense plans," the lawmaker added (see GSN, Jan. 18). "For three years, the administration has underfunded and diverted funding from national missile defense. With rising threats from Iran, North Korea, China and others, we cannot afford the risk created by the administration’s irrational opposition to the missile defense of the United States. I hope the [fiscal 2013] budget undoes more than three years of neglect of national missile defense” (U.S. Representative Michael Turner release, Jan. 26).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
bobbymike said:
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.
No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.
No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.
For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
The fiscal 2013 spending proposal suggests the Obama administration is "backing off" a nuclear weapons complex spending plan negotiated in 2010 amid efforts to win ratification of a strategic arms control treaty with Russia, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2011). The plan called for $85 billion in spending over the decade. “When the New START treaty was ratified, it was part of a very clear bargain. The administration promised that a specific and detailed nuclear weapons modernization plan would be implemented, and senators consented to a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear forces because the remaining U.S. nuclear forces upon treaty implementation would be modernized," Turner said in released remarks.
No surprise there. Expect to see one leg of the triad disappear if Zero gets reelected (probably ICBMs since they're the greatest deterrent) accompanied by partying in the streets in Moscow and Bejing.
For what it is worth I had a couple of short communications with Rep. Turner and he said he will not let this happen. He is fully committed with other members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to maintain the Triad.
I hope he's got the backing.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream :eek:
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
bobbymike said:
Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream :eek:
We have a lot of former ATK employees where I work. Spoke to one of the new guys a few weeks ago and he said there are NO large solid motors of any type being made by them right now.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Maintaining The D5 from Seapower Magazine February 2012:


http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg38


Personally I would want to develop an E6 and combine it with a longer first stage for a MMIII replacement as well and then add a new AMaRV variable yield warhead up to 500kt, a guy can dream :eek:
We have a lot of former ATK employees where I work. Spoke to one of the new guys a few weeks ago and he said there are NO large solid motors of any type being made by them right now.
I posted a link on the "Future ICBM and SLBM" thread a report I believe from the Defense Science Board about the solid rocket industrial base, to paraphrase, "For the first time in the last fifty years the US does not have a large strategic missile in development or production"

Apparently in the 2013 defense budget there are funds to be made available to develop something if only to keep the industrial base warm.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
bobbymike said:
Apparently in the 2013 defense budget there are funds to be made available to develop something if only to keep the industrial base warm.
They'll have to have the janators run the machines. Everybody else is either already gone or will be. Just what I hear from the people I work with is scarey as hell.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Russia plans in 2012 to begin assembling a line of upgraded Borei-class ballistic missile submarines, Defense and Security reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Jan. 23). Russia so far has three Borei-class submarines -- Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh -- in various preparation phases. "Next year we will lay down the lead submarine of project Borei-A, that is the improved Borei. This will be the fourth submarine of this project," said Rubin Andrei Dyachkov, who heads Russia's Sevmash shipyard and maritime hardware central design office. "The state armament program for the period until 2020 makes provisions for beginning of construction of the fifth and sixth hulls in 2012," the official said.


The Russian Defense Ministry last November finalized a deal for assembling the first Borei-A submarine, referred to informally as Svyatitel Nikolay, Dyachkov said. Moscow is expected within the first three months of this year to ink deals for constructing components of the fifth and sixth Borei vessels, he said (Sergei Safronov, Defense And Security, Feb. 1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it appears I can find almost perfectly alternating headlines;
One day - Russia to build or test or expand or deploy
Next day - US to curtail or postpone or retire or downsize or cut funding for :mad:
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Air Force Takes Critical Step Toward New Nuclear Cruise Missile Program

February 2, 2012 Inside Defense

Related Expert: Natalya Anfilofyeva

The Pentagon is taking a crucial first step toward developing a new nuclear-armed cruise missile called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, a key component of the Defense Department's plan to modernize its long-range strike capabilities and ensure it can hit targets in well-defended, hard-to-reach areas such as China and Iran/.../

Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, authored a report last year recommending ways in which the Pentagon could sustain its strategic advantage in long-range strike capabilities, including the development of a new cruise missile capable of carrying a range of warheads -- nuclear and conventional.

"A new cruise missile should have the capability to penetrate [and] survive in A2/AD environments," Gunzinger told InsideDefense.com. "An analysis of alternatives should inform decisions on specific performance attributes. Compared to a subsonic missile, supersonic and certainly hypersonic missiles can be much more expensive."

With defense budgets projected to grow more slowly over the next decade compared to previous plans, unit cost is likely to be scrutinized as the Air Force formulates a program over the next year. Tighter future defense budgets were among the reasons Gunzinger cited in saying the Defense Department should "develop a new cruise missile that could be carried by a range of platforms, not just the new bomber and possibly not just Air Force platforms."

The omission of the word "missile" from an effort to recapitalize a missile may not be significant, said Gunzinger. "If anything, the Air Force may be trying to make the point that it will look at a wide range of potential capability solutions to meet its future needs for a survivable standoff attack weapon."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take back my last post some positive news after all ;D
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
bobbymike said:
Air Force Takes Critical Step Toward New Nuclear Cruise Missile Program

The Pentagon is taking a crucial first step toward developing a new nuclear-armed cruise missile called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, a key component of the Defense Department's plan to modernize its long-range strike capabilities and ensure it can hit targets in well-defended, hard-to-reach areas such as China and Iran.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take back my last post some positive news after all ;D
Hopefully it doesn't end up something like, "well, since we have no money we're going to take a performance hit and use JASSM-EX. Well, we were except we forgot how to make nuclear warheads, the W80s don't work anymore, and nobody knows how to intergrate them anyway, so we cancelled the program."
 

aam641

One needs a personality to have a personal text!
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
bobbymike said:

Meanwhile

Russian Military Continue Massive Re-armament

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released information about its weapons procurement in 2011. According to the first deputy minister Alexander Sukhorukov, the Ministry has purchased 30 Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle) and Yars ballistic missiles, 4 military satellites, 21 aircraft, 82 helicopters, one Stereguschiy class corvette, 8,531 military trucks and other military hardware. The total weapons procurement budget for 2011 amounted to 721.2 billion rubles (about $23 billion) including both federal budget money and government-guaranteed loans what was significantly more that in previous years, said the military official.
You are correct that Russian procurement completely dwarfs the US procurement. After all, in FY2011, US DOD only paid $137.5 billion for (at quick glance) 1 satellite, 250+ aircraft, 250+ helicopters, 6 ships, 2 subs, 9000+ tactical missiles, 100+ armoured vehicles, and 5000+ other vehicles. No contest at all.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_p1.pdf
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
277
AdamF said:
You are correct that Russian procurement completely dwarfs the US procurement. After all, in FY2011, US DOD only paid $137.5 billion for (at quick glance) 1 satellite, 250+ aircraft, 250+ helicopters, 6 ships, 2 subs, 9000+ tactical missiles, 100+ armoured vehicles, and 5000+ other vehicles. No contest at all.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_p1.pdf
How many of those were nuclear armed? None you say? So what was your point again?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
139
Russia Might Need to Increase Nuclear Arsenal, Defense Official Says

Feb. 6, 2012


Russia might someday need to increase the size of its arsenal of nuclear weapons to counter developing dangers, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said on Monday (see GSN, Jan. 23). “New challenges emerge, including missile and nuclear proliferation. Look at how unstable the situation in the Middle East is. That’s why Russia’s military doctrine envisages the use of nuclear weapons in specific cases. I do not rule out than under certain circumstances we will have to boost, not cut, our nuclear arsenal,” Antonov told the Kommersant newspaper. Russia as of Sept. 1, 2011, had 1,566 nuclear warheads deployed on ICBMs, bombers and submarines, according to data released by the U.S. State Department. The New START arms control accord requires Russia and the United States by 2018 to reduce their arsenals of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems (see related GSN story, today). The Obama administration's plan for missile defense in Europe is among the dangers to Russia, Antonov said. Washington has sought to persuade Moscow to join the U.S.-NATO effort, but significant disagreements persist after more than a year of talks (see related GSN story, today). Chief among them is the Kremlin's demand for a legally binding pledge that the system would not target Russian nuclear forces. Brussels and Washington say the system is aimed at countering ballistic missile threats from the Middle East, but have rejected calls for a binding agreement.


Antonov renewed the Russian threat to withdraw from the New START pact if the missile shield dispute continues. "This is one of possible variants of our retaliation measures. We have warned about it beforehand," he said (RIA Novosti I, Feb. 6). Meanwhile, Russia intends to maintain the current duty life of third-generation strategic nuclear submarines longer than planned, RIA Novosti reported on Thursday. “The most successful projects will undergo two repairs instead of one. The subs' period of service will be extended to 30-35 years instead of the current 25,” according to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.


Extending the vessels' operational life will serve to cover Russia's strategic needs until its full fleet of eight Borei-class submarines is put to sea by 2020, Rogozin said (RIA Novosti II, Feb. 2). “On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, head of the Russian navy, said on Friday. There are now 12 Russian strategic submarines in service that are powered by atomic energy, RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti III, Feb. 4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my original concern when Russia is producing new delivery systems capable of carrying many additional warheads (SS-18 replacement, Yars, Bulava, etc.) with active warhead production lines when the US systems continue to atrophy with no active warhead production and no political will to begin any.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top