Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
11
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
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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]
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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]
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
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.
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.”
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html

WASHINGTON — Russia has secretly deployed a new cruise missile that American officials say violates a landmark arms control treaty, posing a major test for President Trump as his administration is facing a crisis over its ties to Moscow.

The new Russian missile deployment also comes as the Trump administration is struggling to fill key policy positions at the State Department and the Pentagon — and to settle on a permanent replacement for Michael T. Flynn, the national security adviser who resigned late Monday. Mr. Flynn stepped down after it was revealed that he had misled the vice president and other officials over conversations with Moscow’s ambassador to Washington.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/democratic-house-hurts-space-corps-nuke-modernization-pentagon-topline/?fbclid=IwAR3Lt6GH4v-X8eI4dSFd0O8w_5xupYxE0RxNjfojzyZokiE2qP5_vqX2E1Q

The most likely losers are nuclear modernization programs, which leading Democrats like Adam Smith, the prospective House Armed Services Committee chairman, have criticized as unnecessary, excessive, and destabilizing.

President Obama had supported nuclear modernization as the price for ratifying the New START treaty, the theory being that the United States would be secure with fewer nuclear weapons if that remaining inventory were modernized. That means the programs that were not in Obama’s plans would be most vulnerable, particularly the low-yield nuclear weapon and the Long Range Stand-Off cruise missile (LRSO). The low yield weapon has been called dangerous because it arguably makes it easier to escalate from conventional to nuclear warfare. The cruise missile has been called unnecessary, since US bombers already have other nuclear weapons like the B61 variable-yield bomb, although proponents argue that non-stealthy bombers like the B-52 will only be able to hit defended targets with a long-range weapon.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://news.usni.org/2018/11/12/first-nuclear-deterrence-patrol-marks-major-step-indian-submarine-force
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/India-s-nuclear-submarine-provokes-Pakistan-to-renew-arms-race
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
From AFA

STRATCOM Boss: Don’t Reduce Nuclear Posture

US nuclear force structure should remain unchanged until the threats facing the United States subside, the head of US Strategic Command told a gathering at the Harvard University Kennedy School Nov. 14. The likely next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) suggested in September that nuclear force structure could be reduced. Not so fast, said STRATCOM boss Gen. John Hyten: “If you want to save money, change the threat.” The US and Russia are each able to field up to 1,550 deployable weapons under the New START Treaty, a level and balance Hyten said provides “strategic stability.” Reductions depend on negotiations to reduce those totals, he said, and U.S. defense is predicated on having a combination of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons. “My advice is that we need to have a force that can respond to any threat that is in the world today, and in order to do that I have to have a triad,” Hyten said. Russia currently has a “significant” triad aimed at the US, and that threat must be countered with a corresponding triad to be effective. —Brian Everstine
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-secret-plans-build-five-nuclear-warheads/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://submarinesuppliers.org/programs/ssbn/columbia-class/?fbclid=IwAR3NLBMMtm3IaL0kKF8_mfmME-2_h4Z_0XFS4yKIG7j4K0EiSnDfCCaZ1Js

The United States is developing the Columbia Class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), formerly know as the Ohio Replacement SSBN program, to maintain a continuous at-sea strategic deterrence as the current force of 14 Ohio Class SSBNs reach the end of their unprecedented 42 year service life in the late 2020s. Columbia Class is the United States Navy’s Number 1 acquisition priority.

The Columbia Class SSBN program consists of a minimum of 12 submarines to meet the requirements for U.S. strategic deterrent force structure as set forth in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The Columbia Class program completed Acquisition Milestone B on January 4, 2017 and is in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase.

Current plans call for a minimum of 12 Columbia Class SSBNs, with initial construction of the USS COLUMBIA (SSBN 826) beginning in 2021. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Richardson, SSBNs are essential to national security and are ”…foundational to our survival as a nation.” (January 2016). Because these new SSBNs will be in service until 2080, a new ship design that advances critical stealth capabilities and survivability is required.
Next-Gen SLBM Not Completely New, Trade Studies Start in 2020

By Staff Reports

The next-generation submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) to be featured on the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine will incorporate some elements of the current Trident D5 Life Extension (D5LE) weapon
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-america-needs-low-yield-nuclear-warheads-now/2018/11/29/c83e0760-f354-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?utm_term=.1f33a3cd9779

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/not-so-fast-rep-smith-why-we-need-modernized-nuclear-weapons/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://www.heritage.org/missile-defense/commentary/not-so-fast-rep-smith-why-we-need-modernized-nuclear-weapons?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb&fbclid=IwAR3rz5c8pqUA--jmAFSLCA0OxS8RCQxY_0bSx-KKIV1naxGvPgxsEKBuC4U

Rep. Adam Smith, presumptive chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, says he wants to curtail modernization of the nation’s sea-, air- and ground-based nuclear forces. He also opposes developing a low-yield submarine-launched nuclear cruise missile.

In a mid-November speech to the anti-nuke Ploughshares Fund, Smith asserted that the country cannot afford the $1.2 trillion nuclear modernization program due to the growing national debt, combined with the need to modernize the nation’s conventional military forces. He hopes the Senate and White House will back a reduction in the nuclear arsenal—and a possible departure from nuclear triad—in exchange for more conventional weapons systems.

Interestingly, the congressionally-mandated National Defense Strategy Commission’s recent report contradicts Rep. Smith’s approach. It states that the Pentagon “must remain committed to the bipartisan nuclear modernization program…especially to modernizing the triad of bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and ballistic missile submarines.” This was a consensus view of experts appointed by Republicans and Democrats, including two Rep Smith appointed.

The U.S. has not produced a new nuclear warhead since 1988. The oldest warhead in the arsenal, the B61 gravity bomb, was first deployed in 1963. It was originally designed for a 10-year operational life.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46458604
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,527
Reaction score
4
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/beyond-inf-missiles-networks-the-new-trench-warfare/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=68105621&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_qIMBVR-qu9JBjOCrngr7D7UmLWntsthf8MFxBqTo1kcStaKdVe3fkxCTivl-qb86YvJNJnR3wd1AGCyDw2dxzzvbYVA&_hsmi=68105621

WASHINGTON: Fifty-nine days from now, assuming no change of heart by Trump or Putin, the United States will formally kick off the six-month process to end the INF arms control accord, potentially eliminating the final obstacle to a new era of long-range smart missiles. The massive shift in post Cold War arms control would have the potential to turn future battlefields into the kind of bloody stalemate not seen since World War I. But that stalemate could be good news for the United States.

As US strategy shifts from striking rogue states that can’t fight back on even terms — Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria — to stopping great powers who can — Russia and China — it might benefit from technology that favors the defense. There are times and places in the history of war in which improvements in firepower force anyone in range to take cover instead of advancing, as machineguns and howitzers did a century ago on the infamous Western Front. The fundamental difference today is the width of the killing zone would be measured, not in hundreds or thousands of yards, but in hundreds or thousands of miles.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/b61-12-nuclear-bombs-guided-tail-kit-approved-for-p-454286/
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2177652/operation-z-machine-chinas-next-big-weapon-nuclear-arms-race
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/20/north-korea-may-have-used-foreign-scientists-nuclear-ambitions/
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,289
Reaction score
12
https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/china-conducts-first-test-of-new-jl-3-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile/
 
Top