US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading nuc

For general discussion about almost anything missiles. Come on in, pull up a chair and let's talk about any missile related matters and missile news not covered in other forums.

US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading nuc

Postby Batman on Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:51 pm

Read this NOT from the author's viewpoint of "The sky is falling!" but from a Force Mod viewpoint:

http://nuclear-news.net/2014/12/17/us-g ... r-weapons/

This is a good example of being able to use the same information in more one way.
Bill
Retired IA Raconteur
44 MIMS - CTT 311 69-72
3362 IS (Stateside tour) 72-74
741 SMS HO-TEL Flight 74-77
Pentagon (5E413) - 9-11-01
User avatar
Batman
3 RVs
3 RVs
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:32 am
Location: Bowie, MD

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:28 pm

He writes as if it's $1T this coming year. Oh, the Horror!
Bad Sam
220 TII alerts under Arizona ('70-75)
107 (36s & 24s) MMM alerts under Missouri ('75-78)
TerrorOfTucson
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:24 pm

Linked by Instapundit today:

http://thebulletin.org/interview-paul-b ... entury7855

An excerpt:

Bracken: Absolutely. Historically, greater survivability has been a favored avenue. Which is why the United States shifted so much of its deterrence to submarines in the 1960s; they weren’t hardened, but if you can’t find them, you can’t kill them. The underlying idea is that survivability doesn’t always mean you need super-hardened concrete silos in Montana; you could get the same end result through greater mobility or concealment. So you have fewer platforms giving you more bang for the buck.

That means that there are many alternatives to the triad.

But it is striking to me that the intellectual capital to analyze these questions has more or less disappeared after the end of the Cold War. So for example, the Air Force doesn’t really explore any of these alternatives in anything like a creative way. I think they’ve forgotten how to think about these things. There’s a bias towards reproducing what you already have in place.

Bulletin: It’s a case of bureaucratic inertia?

Bracken: It’s bureaucratic inertia, but also a real absence of thought leadership in these areas. There’s no intellectual capital to reach out and draw on—or reject. In the Cold War, there were a number of think tanks that pursued some very creative—some would say wild—thinking about what our nuclear posture should be called upon to do, and what form it should take. But there are very few think tanks that study these issues any more, other than from a very partisan point of view; they know the answer before they start.

And hewing to preconceived viewpoints is not just confined to analysis of strategic forces. All of the major think tanks have moved inside the Washington Beltway over the past 20 years. The whole place of think tanks in American society today is nothing like what it was during the Cold War, when there was a real striving for scientific objectivity, drawing on people from all over the political spectrum, and from many different fields. The absence of the physicists today is quite striking.

And I say this as someone who worked for the Hudson Institute think tank back in the 1990s—it’s just not the same field today.

Bulletin: Still, despite the tendency towards partisan viewpoints, isn’t there a cheaper or more innovative way to accomplish nuclear deterrence?

Bracken: Well, we’ve sort of forgotten how to explore other nuclear postures outside of the dated, old Cold War measures. So there’s a ripe, rich area for analysis concerning alternatives. For example, we could give up one leg of the nuclear triad entirely. Or even two legs of the triad—such as the ICBM force and the bomber force—and put all of our nuclear deterrent on submarines. So, that’s one alternative.

Another idea is to retain all of the individual legs but make each one smaller—to simply have a much smaller overall numerical force in terms of launchers or warheads or whatever. That could be an adequate deterrent in a world where a massive surprise attack by a Russia or a China on US nuclear forces seems a remote possibility—or at least more remote than it did during the Cold War.
Bad Sam
220 TII alerts under Arizona ('70-75)
107 (36s & 24s) MMM alerts under Missouri ('75-78)
TerrorOfTucson
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby MajorG1000 on Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:14 am

Very interesting. I think all of us believe that a reduction in the prolifertion of nuclear weapons worldwide would be a good thing. I also believe that all of us would agree that the US shouldn't be the one to set the example by going first. There is a comment just below the second article that raises the question about relying upon just one leg of the nuclear triad: Submarines. We don't know what, if any breakthroughs in stealth surveillance technology has or will be forthcoming; technology which would render current Stealth technology obsolete. It boils down to a case of putting all our eggs in one basket. That has never been a good strategic plan. I am not neccessarily saying "more is better", but I will go on record as saying diversity IS a good thing. ICBMs and Bombers truely are the least survivable of the nuclear triad, but only if we are surprised by a "Bolt Out Of The Blue" scenario in which our Bombers and tankers are caught on the ground, and our ICBMs were not given adequate time to receive an EWO message and launch. In every other scenario, those two legs become extremely survivable, and deadly. No nation on earth, with the possible exception of Russia has the capability of overwhelming our nuclear forces to where a "First Strike" becomes plausible. And even then, they would still have to contend with the Boomers that remain undetected, or any ICBM or air breathing sorties that were able to survive due to some miscalculation, or WS failure.
Having said all that, our Weapon Systems promoting Nuclear Deterrence are old and continuing to age. We have a finite inventory of delivery systems that becomes smaller with every passing year. Those delivery systems cover the depth and breadth of the Nuclear Triad. If the United States doesn't decide to re-invest in or re-invigorate our Nuclear investment, an investment which has kept us safe from nuclear aggression since the end of the Second World War, then we might very well set the example of being the first "Nuclear Free" Superpower of the 21st Century. I think at that point, the term "Superpower" itself would be obsolete.
CDB-63 742 SMS DMCCC/MCCC 1980 - 1983
ACP Qualified 1983
91 DOTI Dual Qualified 1983 - 1984
91 SMW Staff 1985
4 ACCS/ALCS 1986
44 SMW/DCM Staff 1986-1988
321 Alerts/15 Standboard Evaluations
MajorG1000
4 RVs
4 RVs
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:38 am

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby Batman on Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:50 pm

And yet Russia continues to fly their Bears (1950s platform) on practice nuclear combat sorties worldwide and China continues to build up their boomer fleet. And both continue to develop new strategic missile systems while we... talk. And the Production Complex continues to age.
Bill
Retired IA Raconteur
44 MIMS - CTT 311 69-72
3362 IS (Stateside tour) 72-74
741 SMS HO-TEL Flight 74-77
Pentagon (5E413) - 9-11-01
User avatar
Batman
3 RVs
3 RVs
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:32 am
Location: Bowie, MD

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby MajorG1000 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:54 pm

Batman wrote:And yet Russia continues to fly their Bears (1950s platform) on practice nuclear combat sorties worldwide and China continues to build up their boomer fleet. And both continue to develop new strategic missile systems while we... talk. And the Production Complex continues to age.


As a Democracy, that is what we do. It may be slow and arduous, but it seems to have served us well for over 230 years. It is also one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed. Today even as Putin rants about NATO and the West, he knows without a doubt we still have the capability to remove him from the face of the earth. He also knows that he could no more win a conflict with the West any more than the 70 plus years of Soviet dominated Autocracy could have.
It is true that we need a suitable replacement for our aging weapon systems; perhaps we already have something on the fast track. I do not know. I do know that we also continue to fly our Bombers on long range strategic missions and as far as anyone knows, our Boomers are trolling silently below the waves performing their missions. Although it would be nice to have a huge military to put on display for the rest of the world to see, is it really neccessary?
China won't try anything against the US because they need us to continue emerging as a Superpower. The United States is the engine that is driving their push into the industrial age on the world stage. Without the buying power and consumer base America offers, China doesn't have very much.
CDB-63 742 SMS DMCCC/MCCC 1980 - 1983
ACP Qualified 1983
91 DOTI Dual Qualified 1983 - 1984
91 SMW Staff 1985
4 ACCS/ALCS 1986
44 SMW/DCM Staff 1986-1988
321 Alerts/15 Standboard Evaluations
MajorG1000
4 RVs
4 RVs
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:38 am

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby MajorG1000 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:57 pm

HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS, Everyone!
CDB-63 742 SMS DMCCC/MCCC 1980 - 1983
ACP Qualified 1983
91 DOTI Dual Qualified 1983 - 1984
91 SMW Staff 1985
4 ACCS/ALCS 1986
44 SMW/DCM Staff 1986-1988
321 Alerts/15 Standboard Evaluations
MajorG1000
4 RVs
4 RVs
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:38 am

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:04 pm

And to all crews on alert today and tomorrow, May It Be A Quiet One!
Bad Sam
220 TII alerts under Arizona ('70-75)
107 (36s & 24s) MMM alerts under Missouri ('75-78)
TerrorOfTucson
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby MajorG1000 on Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:14 pm

Amen to that ToT. Let me add a heartfelt Thank You, from all of us who have done it in the past, and for every freedom loving person who has no idea that you are doing it now.
CDB-63 742 SMS DMCCC/MCCC 1980 - 1983
ACP Qualified 1983
91 DOTI Dual Qualified 1983 - 1984
91 SMW Staff 1985
4 ACCS/ALCS 1986
44 SMW/DCM Staff 1986-1988
321 Alerts/15 Standboard Evaluations
MajorG1000
4 RVs
4 RVs
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:38 am

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:36 pm

Newer article: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/americ ... 51520c257d
Looks like it was on Jan 26.
Bad Sam
220 TII alerts under Arizona ('70-75)
107 (36s & 24s) MMM alerts under Missouri ('75-78)
TerrorOfTucson
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Oregon

Re: US government planning to spend $1 trillion on upgrading

Postby TerrorOfTucson on Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:26 am

Bad Sam
220 TII alerts under Arizona ('70-75)
107 (36s & 24s) MMM alerts under Missouri ('75-78)
TerrorOfTucson
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:07 am
Location: Oregon


Return to Missile Coffee House

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

cron