Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 07/01/2006 View Fri 06/30/2006 View Thu 06/29/2006 View Wed 06/28/2006 View Tue 06/27/2006 View Mon 06/26/2006 View Sun 06/25/2006
1
2006-07-01 Home Front: WoT
US nuclear arsenal to be revamped - same power/bomb, won't need expensive maintenance
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-01 00:12|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Good. Our nuclear stockpile will almost be useless in 20 more years. Contrary to what loons think, having nukes does make sane countries think twice about agression against you.

Note, the government of Iran is NOT sane.
Posted by DarthVader 2006-07-01 00:42||   2006-07-01 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 "...their plutonium and other components are slowly breaking down in ways that researchers do not fully understand."

For example???
Posted by Scooter McGruder 2006-07-01 01:06||   2006-07-01 01:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Scooter...as one who was involved in the test program (meaning not a weapons engineer or physicist) I can safely say that a lot of testing was done on individual components compared to the number of tests. If the yield for a device in a test was within the expected range then it meant (most likely) that all of the components worked as designed. There are other means to gauge device effectiveness that are classified.

That being said the problem is that the circuitry, the "Swiss watch components" within the trigger and the device are unstable, and are subject to the same degredation any complex device is (e.g., do you still have the 1st PC you ever owned?). Given the complexity and instability, the limited production, and the general limited experience with nuclear devices...there is no way to accurately assess the MTBF. The estimates were best guesses based on what we knew at the time of assembly. I feel certain there was a lot of non-linearity, and interdependent feedback among the components that was unexpected. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by anymouse">anymouse  2006-07-01 02:17||   2006-07-01 02:17|| Front Page Top

#4 Pending finalization of compensation packages (the Livermore guys are demanding a CA COLA), in the interest of public safety, the public's right to know, and to show the upstarts at the WSJ Opinion Journal just who's boss, full schematics of both designs will be in the NYT by the end of July. Mullahs, despots, and anarchists everywhere, the core NYT constituency, will surely be pleased.
Posted by Gromorong Cruper1582 2006-07-01 04:16||   2006-07-01 04:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Bad, Bad idea, the expensive (Extensive) maintenance prevents use when (If) captured.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 07:36||   2006-07-01 07:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Every time we do this stuff, the plans end up in the capital of our enemy d'jour before we can complete testing. Why do this? We are wasting money on arms that will never be used and are utterly unneeded.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 08:15||   2006-07-01 08:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Several big assumptions in that comment, NS.
Posted by lotp 2006-07-01 08:21||   2006-07-01 08:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Why do this?

Because there's NO defense.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 08:23||   2006-07-01 08:23|| Front Page Top

#9 Go after them, partier. And describe to me when we would use nukes.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 08:36||   2006-07-01 08:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Considering all my years of existence, I personally think they will never be used except IF (Big IF) they are used by another entity first against either
(A) Our ground forces somewhere abroad, or
(B) possibly a Ground Invasion of the USA, (Even more remote, we don't want to poison our own soil)
(C) A better possibility, an Ocengoing Invasion Fleet heading for the USA.
and any of these possibilities is extremely remote.

They HAVE to be usable, if not usable there's no deterrent, (Fear) that's why we occasionaly blow a small deserted chunk of real estate skyward, also why there's such extensive publicity every time we set one off to prove beyond any doubt they work, but most probably they will never be used in war unless the situation is horribly desperate.

Japan was an entirely different matter, and conditions will never again be the same as then.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 09:00||   2006-07-01 09:00|| Front Page Top

#11 (A) What are the circumstances? We deploy overseas and so threaten a nuclear power that they nuke our forces? I doubt that we would do it or that the response would be nuclear except for the wackos like Kimmie. My position is that it is much easier to defang Kimmie if we defang ourselves first. Then we and Kimmie are limited to conventional forces and we win. Producing these new and improved nukes means Kimmie gets new and improved nukes, too.

(B) a ground invasion of the US?
(1) Who would or could invade the U. S.? That this is the second most likely scenario shows how unlikely it is that we will ever use this expensive arsenal.

(2) There is only one way the U. S. could be invaded. That invasion is currently under way and nothing is being done. So the nukes don't protect us from invasion


(C) An invasion fleet approaches and the Navy cannot defend us? This is not a credible scenario for at least 50 years.

The only credible situation in which nukes would be used against us is by terrorists. In which case we could not respond against a nation state in a timely basis, if at all. Thus there is no credible situation in which we would use nukes. So building more sophisticated nukes, of which we are the only conceivable designers, means that we do not increase our security but only increase the sophistication of the weapons available to those who would attack us.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 09:18||   2006-07-01 09:18|| Front Page Top

#12 "...that's why we occasionaly blow a small deserted chunk of real estate skyward, also why there's such extensive publicity every time we set one off to prove beyond any doubt they work..."

Eh? It's been almost a half-century since we've blown anything skyward, and the last time we conducted even an underground test was back in September of 1992.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-07-01 09:20||   2006-07-01 09:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Exactly, the point has been hammered home, they work.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 09:31||   2006-07-01 09:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Over the last few years I've come to think of nukes as Donk-Savers. By that, I picture some future Donk President, playing the fool with a law enforcement approach, yanking all our troops home to, um, drill around in circles, and generally showing such weakness and Tranzi idiocy, painting us into a life or death corner, that only using nukes on everything that even looks like a Muslim will save America. Even a Donk might, at the last moment, realize what a terrible disaster the entire base of lies and bullshit actually is and, contemplating Sundays without a soy Latte and NYT crossword, decide to use the Get Out Of Shit Free card.

They'd be forgiven by the other Donks. Probably even be declared a great hero and greatest moron President ever.

There might be one or two who'd "get it" just before we were plowed under. Doncha think?

Sheesh, how dumb. Nevermind.
Posted by Elmath Threasing8506 2006-07-01 09:34||   2006-07-01 09:34|| Front Page Top

#15 Nimble Spemble
I would never give them up for many reasons.
1)we might need them for war or threat
2)we will need them for PloughShare type projects its just a matter of where and when and are they big enough.

IF that dinosaur killing astreriod killer approaches and some non-out of the box thinkers have removed them from our toolkit.. After our deaths my shade will hunt them for eternity as the killers of the spieces through dimness.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 10:01||   2006-07-01 10:01|| Front Page Top

#16 as one who was involved in the test program (meaning not a weapons engineer or physicist) I can safely say that a lot of testing was done

WC-135?
Posted by 6 2006-07-01 10:16||   2006-07-01 10:16|| Front Page Top

#17 Oh and I still think some form of Project Orion always needs to be viable.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 10:27||   2006-07-01 10:27|| Front Page Top

#18 3dc, so how much do you want to spend on them and not on additional Special Forces units, training, maintenance and ordnance, logistical lift? This is money being thrown down a rat hole that could be spent much more effectively elsewhare. We don't get any bang for the buck from nukes. And if we ever really need them, we can build them very quickly.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 11:26||   2006-07-01 11:26|| Front Page Top

#19 NS - They are needed. If we need more money to do both then shoot the pork loving congress and senate thugs first. Every dollar we need for the war could be squeezed out of pork and lawyers.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 11:49||   2006-07-01 11:49|| Front Page Top

#20 It should be, but it won't. The reality is we could buy a lot more security by dumping nukes.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 11:52||   2006-07-01 11:52|| Front Page Top

#21 We can agree to disagree forever!
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 11:56||   2006-07-01 11:56|| Front Page Top

#22 Besides which that leaves Pakistan more powerful then the US. So at that point just pull out of the MidEast and surrender to Osama.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 11:58||   2006-07-01 11:58|| Front Page Top

#23 One cannot uninvent a weapon and the problem with treaties is that only law abiding states respect them.
Rogue states sign treaties and promptly break them.


Posted by john 2006-07-01 12:02||   2006-07-01 12:02|| Front Page Top

#24 If no other country has a nuke, the country with ten nukes can dictate many things to the rest of the world.

We may downsize our nuclear arsenal for many of the good reasons listed in the comments, but I doubt we'd eliminate them entirely. If we keep even 100 warheads, and the proper means to deliver them, we have effective nuclear deterrence against anyone.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-07-01 12:05||   2006-07-01 12:05|| Front Page Top

#25 Downsize costs and maintence by using a few of them now. Can you think of a few places with a 'Kick Me' postit on its back?
Posted by Uninter Whereting4376 2006-07-01 12:12||   2006-07-01 12:12|| Front Page Top

#26 And what do we do with the old warheads? Should we dispose them in Iran?
Posted by Anginens Threreng8133 2006-07-01 13:01||   2006-07-01 13:01|| Front Page Top

#27 No, we'd hear lawyers screaming "Radioactive Oil" for Centuries.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 13:18||   2006-07-01 13:18|| Front Page Top

#28 Hummm, maybe if we could host a "Lawyer's Conference" all expenses paid, it Tehran?
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 13:19||   2006-07-01 13:19|| Front Page Top

#29 Kant spel fore Shite tuday.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 13:22||   2006-07-01 13:22|| Front Page Top

#30 Kant spel fore Shite tuday.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 13:22||   2006-07-01 13:22|| Front Page Top

#31 The genie is out of the lamp. If we unilaterally disarm our nukes and sing Kumbaya, then we are subject to nuclear blackmail. There are a bunch of nasty people out there. Hell, we may have nuclear weapons and still be subject to nuclear blackmail by those that wish us harm.

We need to reevaluate our nuclear weapons stockpile just like Rummy reevaluated our armed forces and decided to push for what is needed in upcoming conflicts. We have all of plutonium we probably ever need for sure.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2006-07-01 13:33||   2006-07-01 13:33|| Front Page Top

#32 Why not give our nukes to the Moolahs and then resupply?
Posted by Captain America 2006-07-01 13:57||   2006-07-01 13:57|| Front Page Top

#33 Besides which that leaves Pakistan more powerful then the US.

In what sense? Pakistan has a nuke. Big whoop. What can they do with it? Or with 10? Destroy 10 cities? Then what? We can destroy them utterly with conventional weapons just as easily as Israel can destroy Palestine.

Pakistan has no power. It can force no one to do anything. It can't even force India to agree on a border. It can't keep the Taliban out. Nukes have only made the Americans more interested.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 14:12||   2006-07-01 14:12|| Front Page Top

#34 If we unilaterally disarm our nukes and sing Kumbaya, then we are subject to nuclear blackmail.

No more so than today. And I wouldn't call investing the money wasted on arms we will never use into Special Forces singing Kumbaya. I think it acutally frees us to pursue more aggressive stances internationally.

Lot's going on today. I hope just one of you is thinking over the cost and ineffective pointlesness of our current nuclear arsenal.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-01 14:17||   2006-07-01 14:17|| Front Page Top

#35 #11: (A) What are the circumstances? We deploy overseas and so threaten a nuclear power that they nuke our forces?

Iran, Today.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-07-01 14:18||   2006-07-01 14:18|| Front Page Top

#36 I disagree NS and you haven't made a single argument that would convince me - nice try
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-07-01 14:19||   2006-07-01 14:19|| Front Page Top

#37 Pakistan has no power. It can force no one to do anything. It can't even force India to agree on a border. It can't keep the Taliban out. Nukes have only made the Americans more interested.

You've never stopped and thought about what 9/11 would have looked like to us if Pakistan had never had nukes?

(And no, I don't mean that as an argument that the US should disarm because that'll make Pakistan's nukes naturally disappear. But they have gotten a lot of mileage out of theirs.)
Posted by Phil 2006-07-01 14:32||   2006-07-01 14:32|| Front Page Top

#38 No more so than today. And I wouldn't call investing the money wasted on arms we will never use into Special Forces singing Kumbaya. I think it acutally frees us to pursue more aggressive stances internationally.

OK, so we deploy special forces to North Korea and he nukes them. Then the fuck what?
Posted by Phil 2006-07-01 14:33||   2006-07-01 14:33|| Front Page Top

#39 How interesting. Today's "Nimble Spemble" isn't posting from the usual NS server. Of course, it's possible s/he's on vacation, but I wonder. NS is usually much better at articulating and defending a position. Do we have a 'nymjacker today?
Posted by lotp 2006-07-01 14:43||   2006-07-01 14:43|| Front Page Top

#40 I think Ns has made that argument before, let's not be more paranoid than needed... btw, stop reading my Ip and the "websites" I come from, I feel violated!
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-07-01 14:48||   2006-07-01 14:48|| Front Page Top

#41 anon5089, the moderators only look at the IP addresses when there is suspicion of a troll or someone who is deceptively pretending to be someone else. And we don't look at "websites (you've) come from" at all.

Today is a relatively light day at the 'Burg so far and already there are several hundred comments. I can't speak for other moderators, but I sure don't have time to check on all or even many of them!

It's a service to our regular commenters, not a violation. ;-)
Posted by lotp 2006-07-01 14:52||   2006-07-01 14:52|| Front Page Top

#42 Well, I'm lucky, then, my fetish porn habit remains a carefully hidden secret... err, I mean... humm, gotta go, sorry.
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-07-01 14:56||   2006-07-01 14:56|| Front Page Top

#43 Also: we spent a lot more money developing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems during WW2, when the Army was ten times larger than today anyway, but you're arguing with a much smaller army that a much smaller bill for nuclear weapons is what's holding us back?
Posted by Phil 2006-07-01 14:57||   2006-07-01 14:57|| Front Page Top

#44 They are a deterrent and looking at the expense of upkeep wise. Can the old warheads be converted to use for fuel in reactors though? If not, maybe we can bury all the waste in the future glass plains of Iran or North Korea.
Posted by Danielle 2006-07-01 15:02||   2006-07-01 15:02|| Front Page Top

#45 Like any weapons system, nukes need to be kept ready and upgraded periodically. There are many military programs, all good and vital, that need to be funded. We have a limited amount of funding. So intelligent priorities need to set. That probably is the most difficult task right there. Once you set the defense priorities, then your answers to issues like maintaining, upgrading, and setting levels of nukes becomes a bit easier. There are serious policy differences, leading to heated exchanges. To get to a solution, you have to rationally debate the issue, and get out of the handwaving festival. The solution to the problem lies somewhere between full nuke upgrades and no special forces and no nukes and special forces up the wazoo.

Wait a minute....we do need special forces up in wazoo. Got to rethink this one.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2006-07-01 15:34||   2006-07-01 15:34|| Front Page Top

#46 (1) How quickly and to what capacity CAN we ramp up special forces? We're not talking about adding another production line or one more standard battalion to run through the usual training sequence with a few more NCOs. We're talking significant training for each person, specialized for a certain region and related language and culture, PLUS intense and extensive weapons, combat, intel etc. skills.

The best way to ensure failure in the use of special forces is to water down the requirements or the training for them. Capacity can be added, but not easily and not in a linear fashion I suspect.

(2) To what degree (if any) is the special forces vs. nukes a turf issue between different military branches and/or doctrine?

(3) And - more fundamentally - what is the threat assessment and strategic doctrine in light of which these decisions will be made? In either case, you're talking a major and long-term investment. Those get made in light of national strategy and doctrine -- despite the understandable tendency to address immediate / tactical problems.
Posted by lotp 2006-07-01 15:54||   2006-07-01 15:54|| Front Page Top

#47 
Well...we could do away with:

  • Midnight Basketball
  • The UN
  • Foreign Aid to all our enemies
  • All of the frickin domestic entitlement programs
  • And a whole bunch of other stuff

That should free up quite a bit of money.

-M
Posted by Manolo 2006-07-01 16:01||   2006-07-01 16:01|| Front Page Top

#48 We could save at least $48 million if we stop providing insurance for Palestinian power stations in case of war...
Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-01 16:44||   2006-07-01 16:44|| Front Page Top

#49 tw - see the added comment that suggests OPIC may not be on the hook for that afterall.
Posted by lotp 2006-07-01 16:46||   2006-07-01 16:46|| Front Page Top

#50 Thus proving yet again that I'm not very good with matters monetary. Thanks, lotp.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-01 16:52||   2006-07-01 16:52|| Front Page Top

#51 Can the old warheads be converted to use for fuel in reactors though?

Both the Plutonium and the Uranium in the surplus warheads can be down-blended for nuclear fuel.

Arsenal still needs to be at least 1000 weapons though. This would provide enough for counterforce attacks on silos and TEL garages plus the major cities of an adversary state.

Posted by john 2006-07-01 16:55||   2006-07-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#52 Jeeeezzz.... 5089 that's some weird stuff. Ballons?
Posted by 6 2006-07-01 19:32||   2006-07-01 19:32|| Front Page Top

#53 I was under the impression that the Special Forces are relatively inexpensive. Am I wrong?
Posted by trailing wife 2006-07-01 20:45||   2006-07-01 20:45|| Front Page Top

#54 The Commies always kept reserve andor hiddden stockpiles - to argue that once the USA disarms the Commies will is fallacious at best, or worse. The USA and NATO for a long time once believed that any NATO-WARSAW PACT mil confrontation in the Fulda Gap would be conventional-only - TIME, etal major US mags came along and reported that the Soviets were ready and willing to use myriad nukes in any battlefield or "conventional" first-strike against NATO's defenses in Western Europe. The best way was Reagan's way > "PEACE/DIPLOMACY/
NEGOTIATION FROM STRENGTH" + "TRUST, BUT VERIFY".
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-07-01 21:45||   2006-07-01 21:45|| Front Page Top

#55 TW... not when the private sector will pay up to $1,000,000 per year for a really good one in the security game. Son's roomate (an ex-Marine - well as x as you get with ready reserve) is training for that. Needs some ninja skills though and that really requires Japanese so that's his current major.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-01 21:46||   2006-07-01 21:46|| Front Page Top

23:57 xbalanke
23:39 Anonymoose
23:12 Rambler
23:12 Chearong Unoper9371
23:11 Robert Crawford
23:00 bigjim-ky
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:47 anonymous2u
22:45 zazz
22:37 Inspector Clueso
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:29 Chearong Unoper9371
22:27 Oldspook
22:26 Nimble Spemble
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:10 JosephMendiola
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:03 JosephMendiola
22:02 Frank G
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:49 Frank G
21:47 Robert Crawford
21:47 Anginens Threreng8133
21:46 3dc









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com