NPR Says Goodbye MIRV

NPR Says Goodbye MIRV

The Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was released today (which can be found here) and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen held a brief press briefing at the Pentagon to discuss the NPR.

The fundamental role of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear armed states, Gates said and that the U.S. will not threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He said the administration didn’t believe it was far enough along in getting control of nuclear proliferation around the world to limit U.S. options. When it comes to North Korea and Iran, Gates said “all options are on the table,” if they don’t agree to “play by the rules.”

“This is obviously a weapon of last resort,” he said. The U.S. will continue to hold accountable any state or non-state actor that proliferates weapons of mass destruction. The NPR states that chemical or biological weapons use by any country against U.S. forces will be met by a “devastating” conventional response.


Gates also said that the U.S. will not develop any new nuclear warheads but will extend the life of existing warheads. Refurbishment of weapons is favored over replacement; any replacement will require presidential approval. DOE secretary Chu said his agency’s life extension programs can maintain the “effectiveness” of the nuclear stockpile without testing.

Gates said a number of command and control issues were “tightened up” to give the president more time to make any decision regarding nuclear weapons use. Nuclear armed bombers were no longer sitting ready on runways and all ICBMs were targeted at open ocean in the case of an inadvertent launch.

He said the issue of tactical nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe is a NATO issue that will be evaluated within NATO by consensus.

Key NPR conclusions:

• The United States will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.

• The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

• The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Also, it states, “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”

There is a prominent caveat though: “Any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response.”

The Nuclear Triad of ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear capable heavy bombers will be maintained.

The NPR says the U.S. will keep tactical nukes forward deployed in Europe, on tactical fighters and heavy bombers and will proceed with the “full scope life extension” for the B-61 bomb. The Tomahawk nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N) will be retired.

All ICBMs will be “de-MIRVed” to a single warhead each to increase stability.

Also, the military will continue “the practice of “open-ocean targeting” of all ICBMs and SLBMs so that, in the highly unlikely event of an unauthorized or accidental launch, the missile would land in the open ocean, and asking Russia to re-confirm its commitment to this practice.”

Join the Conversation

Barry continues to unilaterally disarm of the USA. The Chicomms and Russians finally have their boy in the white house.

Reserve something on the bag for defense purposes. So when they lunch their nukes we still have some reserve to counter.And I say again for defense only or when they attack. It’s called self defense.

If they ask us to reduce our nukes, Then lets start producing proton, nitrogen,hydrogen and electron missiles added to our arsenal for defense use. At least these were not on the negotiation list.

There is a prominent caveat though: “Any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response.”

What was the point of changing this? Biological and chemical weapons are easier to develop, field, hide, and possess the ability to kill just as many people as nuclear– yet he changed the response.

When will these idealist get it through their heads that nuclear is reality until another weapon supplants it or makes it irrelevant– you can’t force this stuff.

Compared to nuclear weapons, chemical or biological weapons are like farting against thunder. They simply don’t warrant a retalitory nuclear attack. a chemical or biological attack may kill hundreds, perhaps thousands, a nuclear weapon millions.

By the way, China is estimated to have only 80 nuclear weapons, and even all of these are not mounted on BMs. They have rightly concluded that even 20 hitting the US would devistate the country. I mean look at the BILLIONS of dollars of damage to the economy that Mr Bin Laden caused with a few aircraft on 9/11.

Remember when Russia had 49,500 warheads and the US 38,500? Did you really feel safer?. Reality check gentlemen. A MIRV is designed to kill civillians, nothing more.

OH GOD! Beam me up Scotty. Are you for real?

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev said they would take use over without firing a shot. Intresting

That’s becuase you are being short sighted just like the President. We already have had mass pandemics that are capable of this, and it is indeed possible to create biological weapons that can do the same.

Does the thought of a democratically elected president doing what democratically elected Presidents are elected to do upset you? Either he gets you out of Iraq or Afghanistan or the Taliban will throw you all out boy.

Remember when Bush wanted to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, or did you forget that. US estimates were that using a ‘bunker-buster’ nuclear armed missile would still result in 300,000 civilain deaths,but he still wanted them until he was refused funding in the house to develop them.

Barry, Or THE President has in his wisdom decided that nuclear weapons are making the whole world, including the US (Thats you) less safe. I am sure you can sleep well with only 2,500 under your matress. Ask the Japs how many is too many.

in his “wisdom”. What a joke… Obama’s foundation tutored during his career with left-wing marxist radicals such as Bill Ayers and USofKKA J Wright, instruct him that in any argument or confrontation it’s always America’s fault. If America could only mend its ways – or have them mended by someone else – the world would live In peace, harmony and love. In this world view, America and especially the American military must be cut down to size, to make it no more consequential in world affairs than Canada.

Hello barry…

Where does your 80 China nuke # come from?

Who knows? He disregarded my point and then went on a liberal, text book, and condescending diatribe.

Actually it believe it was Afghanistan and Tora Bora that caused the idea to be revisited, not Iraq (although that came up later) and the bunker-busting mini-nukes were only a concept program, not weapons production. Earth Penetrating Weapons (EPWs) were not a new idea and date back to the 1950s. The current earth penetrator is the B61-11. The USAF (through the DoE) was funded to test and develop a weapon penetrating body that could improve on the B61s abilities, but once tests were conducted program ended when the Bush Administration did not request further funding as of 2005. A senator confirmed this in 2006 with the announcement that DoE was not requesting any funds for further study. The weapons that were discussed were not in the same league as the warheads currently deployed on the strategic level. So not quite the ‘Bush is going to nuke the world’ scenario you seem to think. I never saw any study where using a small nuclear EPW would result in 300,000 deaths considering that the two deployed in 1945 was approximately half to two thirds that combined.

Fail Pete, there is a threshold were M.A.D. can no longer be guaranteed. We are close to that with the 2200 warheads. Remember all those warheads will not be deployed. Russian and Chinese c4i facilities are deep underground, and it would take multiple hits over a period of time to destroy them. There are different types of warheads, we have already retired our best deep penetrators. It isn’t push the red button and everything goes Nuke. There are different warheads for different task, and if you don’t have enough of a certain type, may lead to doubt. I don’t believe the Chinese, Russians, or anybody else would be stupid enough to engage in a planned nuclear strike, but they might try to bluff if they perceive us as being to week. This could result in all sorts of bad things happening conventionally and in the WMD arena.

“China is estimated to have only 80 nuclear weapons”. Estimated by “progressives”. Plus, regardless of the real number, will it increase? Will they add 20 a year? 30? 5? Unknowns.

I give Obama props for having his heart in the right place, a world without nukes is a nice dream. Once again one of O’s goals is admirable but the execution is a fail. The blame America first crowd fails to see that their is a world outside of America that harbors many evils. Cutting back on nukes in America alone with a treaty that doesn’t even bother to enforce a vigorous auditing regime is asking for problems, especially if relations deteriorate with Russia or others.

and Russia will de-MIRV? yeah… that will happen The road mobile SS-20’s will continue to be built and will be MIRV’d. The USA will not even pursue the Reliable Replacement Warhead because the admin will disarm the USA through atrophy…

Step one disarm the military
Step two disarm the American public through international laws (at least try to)
Step three move to Kenya or Malaysia in 2012 if not sooner

Anyone else see an issue with this. (and yes — he announced he has overturned the previous decision to maintain national gun control and will be signing the international gun control treaty within the next few months.private ownership is not permitted in the countries he is signing with.)

Pete do you know how many lives were saved by us using them on Japan. Would you have rather seen another million or so Japaness killed if we had to invade. Plus how many American troops would have died if the war had gone on for another year or so.

I would like to thank all of the Obama voters out there for sticking us with this short-sighted leftist fool. No MIRVs? No Tomahawks and tactical nuclear weapons? Does this guy not understand the concept of deterrence?

Any potential enemy of the United States will be pleased by this news.

Pete, please do a little research. Biologics in particular can literally destroy all of humanity — even inadvertently.

Here’s just one illustration: http://​www​.cracked​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​_​1​8​5​0​3​_​h​o​w​-​b​i​o​t​e​ch-…

Net effect of the article is that a company did a nice job of designing a beneficial organism and actually had clearance to sell it. It would have killed ALL plant life on Earth. We would have soon followed. Don’t let the site fool you, it’s a real chapter from a real book talking about a real event.

IMHO, Biologics are the most potentially devastating weaposn of all.

The statement “The US will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities” is laughable to anyone with even a passing professional acquaintance with the current and proposed Service budgets. This is the standard left wing position on nuclear weapons and defense that moderates and conservatives have battled since the late1940s. Some of these reductions will do no harm but it is the next tranch of policy changes and weapons defunding that will likely create unacceptable risk to US security.

Also read Ken Alibek’s book on the USSR/Russia’a biological and chemical weapons truly scary.

I agree chucklonestar, I saw a debate about that a while back.…the pro’s far outweighed the cons. Anyway, I agree with down-scaling the Nuclear arsenal to a point, but what if we’re the only one’s doing this? If nuclear war does breakout, we’ll be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Democratically elected presidents are elected to screw over our national defenses? Didn’t know that.

Mr. Obama hates the idea of American power. He may love America in an abstract, political way, an America of his imagining where only poor people are nice and only non-christians are holy. But he rejects traditional American values such as self reliance, fair play, hard work, individual liberty, Christian faith and most of all the belief that American power has been a huge positive for the world. In OB’s worldview, America is a white, racist, oppressor. Disarming the US and dismantling US military culture (the real source of US military superiority) is goal number 1 for OB.

Good Evening Folks,

This policy is quite sensible. MIRV’ed warheads is an indicator offensive intent, the single war head is and indicator of defensive use. It appears some don’t see the difference.

The US currently has a conventional force that can respond to any current nuclear threat and is developing future conventional force and weapons that will negate the need for any nuclear weapons, right now nuclear weapons are little more then a symbolic legacy of the failed 20th. Century and are very expensive.

An item not mentioned by Greg is that the Tomahawk Blocks 1 & 2 Nuclear Cruise Missiles (I know Boomer it’s just software) are be taken out of service.

I don’t expect nuclear weapons to disappear, there will always be desperate rogue states that thinks a nuc gives them regional bragging rights and power but the fallacy of nuclear annihilation among rational mature states is starting to come apart. No country has ever had the ability to nuc an opponent into submission and never will. All the Nuclear attack will do is make the attacked madder and more determined to fight, re. Pearl Harbor.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Finally someone who got it right , after reading all of the crazy talk Byron Skinner shows there are still people on the planet using their brain . The U.S. has proven that when it needs to it can take down countries , regarding nuclear capabilities , this country currently has the ability to burn the earth 10 times over . Most countries that could pose any credible threat could be converted to ashes by one U.S Navy SLBM equipped sub let alone all the other nuclear capable systems . The President of the United States takes an oath to defend the country , most of the comments seem to come from people who are clouded in their history and have a mind short on common sense . The United States has always regardless of the statements made , had a Flexible Response Doctrine , which includes the use of Nuclear weapons .
President Obama is no weak leader afraid to take on the enemy . Our enemies cant wait till hes out of office so they can come out of hiding , hes killing them by the dozens , more than any other president in the 21st century . And remember at the end of the day he is still the president , I did not vote for Bush like Bush , but he was the elected leader , and during that time my president . The fact that this country could vote in a black man with all the bad racial history of this country is the reason we are still the most powerful country in the world because we are not stuck on stupid .

But you don’t understand, Obama just has to say it with the Lame Stream Media repeating it and it becomes the truth.

The real danger of this treaty is the limit on launchers. If our SSBN’s ever became vulnerable we are in real trouble.

Real leadership from a president would be to tell the world that our nuclear weapons have deterred aggression and helped the cause of peace so we will keep the levels we have and prudently modernize the delivery systems and the nuclear weapons infrastructure. If you are our ally and friend you have nothing to worry about if you are our enemy and seek to harm us or our allies well.….….…..

Byron Skinner, you are bucking to be nuclear waste.

I guess you missed the section where it said “The Tomahawk nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N) will be retired.”

Keep drinking the cool aid real ninja. I bet you expect Barry to soon lower the sea levels like he said he would too.

Does this Byron skinner guyvwork for the white house? Every post I a defense of Barry gutting our defenses.

So curt is admitting that Russia and china have offensive MIRVd weapons ( and will continue to) while Barry wants to show how the USA is all peace and love without such weapons. One who buys this sort of view obviously considers the USA the problem not our heretofore adversaries.

This is barrys policy on everything — blame america cut her sown to size so we are no a ‘threat’ to his allies.

Ok I have to defend Byron on this part, he and I had already discussed it previously. Nuclear Tomahawks have been gone since the 90’s because the ruskies through such a fit about no one being able to detect or defend against them. Tomahawks are Alpha — nuc/ Bravo — anti ship/ Charlie — land attack conventional/ Delta — land attack sub munitions. On the other side we have two major deterences that keep people at bay or at least used to, 1st one is our fleet ballistic missle subs — constantly moving, near impossible to find, accurately deadly missles. The second one that has actualy defended us against numerous invasions dury our history is the second amendment, many a world leader has mentioned this as our greatest deterence and why attack by conventional forces on US soil would be fatal to them. Obama is now trying to back door this deterence by signing the international arms treaty that will actualy give Hilary the go ahead to take away our arms the way her and her useless husband always wanted to, since it is international law she can bypass congress through her state department authority.

Dow, for some one who cares about US nuclear forces you know shockingly little about them,
the only ICBMs in US inventory is Minuteman III, most of them are already deMIRVed under START I and SORT, by swaping 3 W62 for 1 W87 warhead. Nobody is talking about deMIRVing the SLBMs — Trident 2.
The Russians are keeping their MIRVed ICBMs because otherwise they wont be able to deploy the alowed amount of warheads, they dont have enough missles.

Nukes are EVERTHING; Tell the truth, who would you really choose to invade if you were forced to make a choice. Germany, or Pakistan (Don’t let Pakistan’s now estimated 110 nuclear warheads sway your decision).

Who cares if the remaining warheads don’t penetrate deep command and control bunkers. Do you really think that will make any difference when Moscow, Kiev, Vladivostok, Los Angelos, New York, San Francisco, Dallas, Maine, Chicago etc are all vaporised and 10s, if not 100s of millions are dead? (1.4 Billion Dead in the first 3 hours as at 1993 stockpiles-UN). It seems to me that the way you all are talking that you and your families and everything you love and cherish are going to be left unscathed and everyone else is going to get vaporised.

And you know what, the sad thing about a nuclear war, is that I guarantee that in the last few seconds you have left before the heat vaporises you and your kids, that you will NOT even know what started the exchange, or what country’s weapons they belong too. I bet you won’t give ashit as to who is winning the ‘war’.

Starting a nuclear war seems a piece of cake, lets see how clever mankind is in stopping it, or is that too obvious.

a

Wow.…what a patriot. “..or have it mended by someone else.” So I guess having us attacked or potentially maimed is preferable to an African American President from a liberal tradition.

I’d lecture you on why much of this benefits our strategic posture.…..but I figure it wouldn’t get through your tinfoil hat.

I was merely pointing out that MIRV missiles are no more or less offensive (or defensive) than any other missile. To the potential target, all weapons are offensive. Conversely, to the person holding the weapon, all weapons are defensive. So to the US, all nuclear weapons are offensive except our own. Of course, the same is true of every other nuclear power.

um.….they’re nukes, not some other thing. If there was a nuclear war; first we’d all die, and second we’d be bringing a nuke to a nuke fight.

What all the paranoids forget is that there is a major advantage in US strategic nukes over Russia, etc.……WE KNOW ours will hit the target and go off. The Russian stockpiles are largely unusable, and many I suspect (though I’m not eager to find out) if they fired them they’d have a high attrition rate from malfunctions and catastrophic flight failures

Permit me to remind you that no nuclear weapons were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, the consensus among credible historians is that use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the swift and unconditional surrender of Japan.

Hey Greg, how about reigning in all the bashing of the President, or is that OK on an official DoD website? Disagree with policy if you feel it’s wrong, but I don’t see rationale disagreement; all I see on here are nonsense rants against liberalism and any military policy that doesn’t sound like a rightwing talking point.

I thought we were going to address all this non–productive off-topic garbage, or am I to take the fact that it’s give a free ride here as condoning this behavior?

The only difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is where it is pointed. A weapon pointed at me is offensive, one pointed by me at someone else is defensive. No nuclear weapon signals intent.
A MIRV warhead is especially valuable in maintaining sufficient retaliatiory capability with a small force because the retalitory value of each launcher that survives goes up significantly. Conversely, since the bad guy can never be sure that his missiles will work, MIRVs are not nearly so valuable for offensive use. The missile could fail or the holes could be empty when the missiles arrive. So actually, if you go back to a MAD paradigm, MIRV is defensive in nature as it ensures sufficient retailitory capability.
Your point on bombing a country into submission with nuclear weapons is both factually wrong (worked against Japan) and misdirected. We don’t want to nuke someone into submission, we want them to not use chemical or biological weapons. So you are essentially saying that in a conflict, threatening someone with the possible use of nuclear weapons if they use any WMDs will result in them being more likely to use them against us? Wow, that is counter intuative.

*** > Does anyone find this SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DISTURBING than all this talk about nukes?!?!!?: http://​www​.foxnews​.com/​p​o​l​i​t​i​c​s​/​2​0​1​0​/​0​4​/​0​7​/​o​b​a​ma-…

Try learning a bit about nuclear strategy before you open your mouth, it is not as simple as pressing a button and everybody dying. The lack of MIRVs means our missiles are more vulnerable to interception, and nuclear tipped Tomahawks are a very important asset to our attack submarines.

Unfortunatetely this issue is being dragged into the political areana. A number of us, engineers, were RIF’d back in the 1990’s from NSWC. The Tomahawk team was gutted and Trident was crippled. In only in the last few years that the folks in Washington D.C. have decided that components in these systems are becoming obsolete and they need to be reengineered. Those of us that were left are veteran’s. We bluntly refused to move to Huntsville!.…..The fleet has 18 Ohio class submarines, 14 Trident, 4 Tomahawk. More that likely 4 submarines are being sacrificed for a ARM’s reduction treaty with Russia. The rest you can figure out.

Are you upset that dear Obama is being bashed? Your ilk didn’t give a damn when Bush was being insulted for 8 years straight. A military policy that sounds like a right-wing talking point would be damn more sound than whatever the left cooks up.

Ignoring the truth about the enemy we are facing for political correctness. Got to love it.

Yep its a part of a new Nuke Reduction Treaty!
http://​www​.bloomberg​.com/​a​p​p​s​/​n​e​w​s​?​p​i​d​=​2​0​6​0​1​0​8​7​&​a​m​p;a…

This so-called “president” is either a complete fool or just plain evil…or perhaps both. How much more damage can he do before the next election? God help us all if the American people are stupid to reelect this idiot! Time to stop watching American Idol and start learning about the things that matter.

Military​.com is not a DoD website.

http://​www​.military​.com/​a​b​o​u​t​u​s​/​a​b​o​u​t​u​s​h​o​m​e​.​htm

Hey Ninja — obama is not killing anybody and he definately is not a front line leader. Yeah went to the sand box got his video made with the troops (20 min worth) and got the heck out of the AO, yet lied and said he spent the whole day and night with them. Now either he is lying or all the troops over there are, I know who I would believe first.
And knock off the bad Americans and slave injustice crapp — every nation in the world has had slaves at one point in there history, many much much longer than us why dont you go parade for them as well?

To meet compliance with SORT (signed by Pres Bush II) the US 450 ICBMs, with 500 warheads. So all this de-MIRVing does is remove 50 warheads.
The U.S. goal under the SORT treaty (signed by Pres Bush II) is to reduce from 1,600 warheads deployed on over 500 missiles in 2003 to 500 warheads on 450 missiles in 2012.

Point taken, good catch. It still seems rather disappointing that a military “related” website, many of whose readers are former military/defense workers seem to be completely partisan and often insane. My point remains that if you disagree with the policy, fine, post something substanitive.….

I find the Jihad part WAY too politically correct, but getting rid of Islamic Extremism and other polemic (and hollow) phrases justified. We can’t be courting the Middle East (Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia) and other “allied” Muslim Nations while somehow implying religion is the problem.

At the deeper level it’s also inside baseball. He’s signaling he isn’t Pres. Bush, while also sending a message to the National Security advisors to put a little more substance into their writings. The idea is to focus a bit more on Terrorism and a bit less on Islam.

Pennst98 please lecture us on the “benefits” of this new strategic posture of bending down and licking the boots of the rest of the world to “apologize” for “American arrogance.”

My ilk? I’m curious as to what exactly you think that is? I’d be willing to bet you don’t know a damn thing about me. If you did you’d know I have no “ilk”. I’m an independent thinker, not a cheerleader for the moronity on either the left or right.

As far as President Bush goes, great rebuttal. Do your kids get away with “they started it” as a justification for their inexcusable behavior?

This place is filled to the brim with right wing loonies…

Thank you Obama administration for starting to make sensible military foreign policy.

America’s military annual budget roughly equals that of the entire rest of the world combined. Our conventional forces alone could destroy any conventional adversary, at any time, any where, period.

Our nuclear arsenal is a DETERRENT you fanatical christian zionists lunatics!!!

What part of going from 1,000 nuclear weapons to hundreds of nuclear weapons “screws over our defense?” We still have enough nukes to wipe out the face of the earth, and then send another volley to get the cockroaches. Grow up.….

well wat happens when a nuke w/ no return address is detonated here? We just gonna say, oh well, we lost over 100,000 Americans, but since Yemen is not a nuclear armed country, we just let it go? I don’t know wat to make of this, but one day we may be faced with a decision to use tac nukes if we ever got hit. This nuke will be small, probably in a shipping container. SO, who gets it IF it does happen, God forbid? I used Yemen as an example. I worry more about P-stan than any other moslem country, how much of thier military are Taliban sympathizers? Iran? How do you get a bomb that deep? A low yield MOP? Its coming, i really hope sanctions work, but they won’t. There will be hell on earth someday soon.

Damn, i really see alot of hate directed towards the CIC. There is 1 thing i gotta give him his props for. This admin. has ramped up the attacks in the NWFP, and they are running like rats. I am more concerned about a terror group getting thier hands on a nuclear weapon, or a bio-weapon, and WHO do we hit? I think after 8 yrs of Cheney&Co, there had to be a change. Wat a mess we are in. I guess history will be the judge. I do agree that back in WWII, the atomic bombs dropped shortened the war, saving American, allied, and Japanese lives.

Remember, China and Russia separately have expotentially more conventional forces and weapons than the United States. There are three reasons why our enemies, and particularly China and Russia, have not invaded the United States. The three reasons are: the nuclear weapons arsenal; the Special Operations capability; and the private gun owners. If any one of those 3 deterances suffer we will be vulnerable to attack.

Good Morning Folks,

To Curt. I used the word “indicator” to denote intentions or perceptions by others.

Secondly Japan was already a defeated country and most historians today have doubts about the effect of the two nuclear explosions in Japan. As far as quantifiable real damage done to Japan’s war fighting abilities the sinking of most of its merchant fleet by US Submarines and the Fire bombing had a far more devastating effect on Japan then the nuclear weapons.

Only one real comment here and that was on nuclear waste. With nuclear weapons all of the core radio active materials are recoverable and converted into lower grade material that is not convertible back to weapons grade.

This has been going on for quite some time with obsolete Russian and US weapons that have been dismantled. The reprocessing has been talking place at the Hartford Nuclear Plant in Washington State. In fact the Russian are currently developing a business model where they will lease the fuel rods from Hartford to EU reactors sites and take them back when they are spent for disposal.

One little item not mentioned here is that in 2001 when G. W. came into office the US had over 4.500 nuclear devices, when he left office that number fell to below 2,000.

Now back to myth and ideology.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

That is not true. The US conventional forces are unmatchedd in the world. Half of the rest of the world is US alies.

Go ahead dumbasses, this makes all our allies under the US nuclear umbrella now under threats so what does Japan, South Korea and Taiwan do? Build their own nukes. Way to go Dude ya just made nuclear prolifiration easier for everyone concerned “except the USA we will die by this BS.
mmf isn’t that sex code for male/male/female?

Sir, Hanford has been cocooned years ago and is a U.S. national landmark and Superfund site. http://​www​.hanford​.gov/

A Company called USEC, Inc blends weapons grade material into Nuclear fuel LEU (MOX). http://​www​.usec​.com/

idiot, SK could easily defeat NK, Japan and US could easily repel China, and Taiwan has never been under the US nuclear umbrela. If NK or China use first nukes the answer will be overwelming and deadly. Read something on the subject before posting.

If the nation with the strongest navy in the history cannot defend it‘s boomers then what hope the russian or chinese boomers have?

I find it interesting that you give Props to the Obama Administration because they ramped up attacks in NWFP. I have to assume you are referring to the Drone attacks that have definitely increased vastly since Obama took office. The reason I find it interesting that you mention this is because Obama was one of the biggest critics of the Bush Administration for the use of Drone attacks in NWFP. When Bush was doing it, it was bad. When Obama does it, he should receive Props?

This just makes his loss in 2012 more likely. Since POTUS has the last say in use of nukes, it’s very unlikely he would have used them in situations he does not want them to be used, regardless of what the doctrine says. Also it is likely that if someone like bush was in office and there was a truly massive bio-attack he would have used the nuke if it was a logical thing to do again reardless of what the doctrine said.

The only issue that I see if there’s going to be anything left to use.

The US does not have any tactical nukes. Which is something people don’t seem to realize. And yes more than likely there won’t be a missile with a clear launch place coming here, but a ship, truck or a plane, untraceable. And besides, what if we do trace it to some Yemen AQ cell. We are not going to nuke Yemen. Yemen gov-t kills AQ.

So if perceptions is the issue, all US missiles are offensive, MIRV’d or not, big deal. That is the point of deterrence, you want the other guy to fear you. SACs motto should not have been “Peace is our Profession” but instead “Thermo-nuclear War is our profession, and we are good at it”.

Japan may have been defeated but they were bound and determined to go down in a blaze of glory. Outside a few, self-serving, largely discredited historians who came up with revisionist history in the 1970s, the idea that Japan was going to quit in a couple of weeks without the nuclear bomb is fantasy. But the Nuclear Bomb was something they could surrender to. It convinced them there was no hope. That is why it is a good deterent.

George Bush also rightly declared Arms Control with the Russians a Cold War relic. Why do we need it. I have no problem with the bulk of the new policy, other than taking a potential option off the table in responding to WMDs and thereby lessening the deterrence factor.

To be sure, the President is at least naive, not to mention ignorant if he believes the world can be “nuclear weapons free” in our lifetime. That said I do not believe that this new NPR is all that bad. I was assigned to counter terrorist duties with the Air Force on two of the three legs of the Nuclear Triad. Our duty was a SWAT response to the Security Forces guarding the nuclear capable bombers and the ICBMs [Minuteman 3 and MX]. The MX [10 warheads each] was already taken off line, presumedly for the other treaties sign. Remember that each today warhead is ~ equal to 10 atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War 2. 1550 warheads will certainly be more than enough to deter all our enemies. Of course, there will be a definitive line that the United States should not cross to degrade an effective deterance to an attack by one of our enemies. Now our collective finger is off the trigger, we still are pointing the gun.

UH, Trident 2 slbms were on the older OHIO classes, Most have the Trident D5 which is an ICBM that can reach any target in the world from anywhere. and 1 MRV will not be more stable because the warheads are arranged around the circunfrence of the missle, 4 MRV’s would actualy be more stable. But it’s obvious there is going to be some major back dooring of our defense system that is not being said out front, Not to mention unemployment is going to go up with the loss of these systems, but I guess they can always become security guards at the storage depots for the warheads.

The point here IS NOT the weapons grade material. We have plenty of material in the inactive nuclear stockpile, We could make reactor fuel out of it for a long time. The issue is the capability of deploying a weapons plantform and its maintenence. The Ohio Class Submarines are the ultimate platform for deterence. Its a mobile platform that is virtually undetectable. Our enemies are truely detered by it. Which is why when they got the first chance, with a novice in the room, they pressed the issue and he gave it away.

You’re actually off-base on this. There is better intel coming out of some of the places like Waziristan which have little to do with Obama (other than intel-gathering methods maturing/becoming available during his administration). The increased attacks appear to be due to the better intel rather than a more aggressive CIC — and Obama is not the reason for the increase in intel that I know about.

You really should be more moderate in your language.

Also, what you cite as obvious fact is just not quite so straightforward.

Russia’s conventional forces are barely registering. They have 1/3 of our population and much smaller military that they are cutting furhter down. They don’t have any new equipment in quantity. And more importantly their readiness level is at 0. So forget their conventional forces. China is a completely different story, but their armed forces are of the same size as ours, despite a gigantic advantage in population. Their equipment is quite worse and their readiness is probably mediocre. In a head to heaad conflict however they can win by simply eating millions of casualties, assuming they can replace weaponry and ammo. They will replace soldiers easy enough. But where are we going to fight Chinese conventionally?
NAVY is what truly keeps America safe.

mmf133 you leftist America bashing loons wouldn’t don’t understand the need for a military, let alone sound military policy. “Fanatical Christian zionist lunatics?” Even a damn godless atheist idiot like yourself should realize a weak deterrent is less effective than a strong one!

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how SSBN’s operate understand they operate ALONE. What do you think there is a carrier battle group parked over top of them for protection.

Has any of America’s enemies, co-belligerents, allies stated that they wished us to disarm our nuke’s?
Did any of our enemies say they would disarm their nukes also?
Did iran, Syria or North Korea jump up and say they would disarm their nukes?
Did not Venezualan dictator Chavez say he wants help frm the Russian’s to obtain nuclear weapons, to form a military relationship with the Russians?
In a room filled with outlaws, bandits, warlords and religious zealots who are carrying weapons at their belts ready to use the US will be standing un armed. Has anyone in Washington ever seen the old movie “Shane”?
We will become the squatters and farmers.
The ones armed will be Jack Wilson and his handler.
I don’t expect Obama POTUS (PBUH) will ride in as Shane and save the day either.

The reason these other countries want or have nuclear weapons, is because the US invented them, perfected them, used them, stockpiled them, and has even recently threatened to use them. The US also has a record of invading countries. The only ones they haven’t invaded or attacked, have been other nuclear armed countries. Now what is that telling other countries that don’t tow the US line?

The only doctrine there is regarding nuclear weapons is, don’t use them. Prototypes 1 & 2 killed jointly 347,000 people (98% civillians). Things have come along way since those firecarckers.

Blame America eh? Seems like all you want our enemies to lord over us.

Trident D5’s are SLBMs (SUbmarine Launched Ballistic Missiles), and no SLBMs are included in the “de-MIRVing”, only the 450 Minuteman III missiles, which have a total of 500 warheads

The LGM-30G Minuteman III is hardly cutting edge anymore. The removal of those fitted with MIRV’s makes them even more vulnerable to interception.

We should have continued work on the LGM-118 Peacekeeper series and made that our standard land based ICBM. We are currently faced with having to replace the Minuteman III in the coming decades. This is something that MUST be done, but if we get more people like Obama, will they break the nuclear triad?

Seriously people, 1550 nuclear warheads is not enough?

How can the capability to wipe out 90% of life on earth NOT be an effective deterrent? For those of you who are seriously, honestly expecting any nuclear weapons to be used in anger ever again, i think you might need to readjust the way you view the world. We are so dependant on others (economically, geo-politically and diplomatically) that this kind of scenario is just not going to happen. Why? because it would do more harm than good.

At least this way you guys get to save some money (taking care of & maintaining nuclear warheads is not something you can pay someone minimum wage to do) which you can spend on usefull, practical items like healthcare, or education or making sure your banking system does not implode whilst STILL being able to completely annihilate any country you wish in a storm of gamma radiation.

“There are three reasons why our enemies, and particularly China and Russia, have not invaded the United States.“
Not mentioned is the fact that neither has the ability to move, support and sustain, or operate a force beyond their own borders. But, don’t let logic or fact get in the way.

Mr. Obama hasn’t given away anything.
Truth is our nuclear force is getting older and more difficult to maintain. By treaty, we are limited in our development of new nuclear weapons. Retiring some weapons into storage and refurbishment keeps replacement parts for the weapons that we really do need. How many do we need for defensive use, or even offensive use? Probably less than what we now have.

By the way, nuclear weapon design has universal constants that no country can avoid. Perishable or rare materials, aging-out of weapon designers who have actually tested weapons instead of using computer models, corrosive and poisonous (re)processing and storage limits mass production to nations that don’t care about their environment or workers, etc.

“MIRV’ed warheads is an indicator offensive intent, the single war head is and indicator of defensive use. It appears some don’t see the difference.”

What are you smoking?

MIRVing increases the survivability of a warhead and makes sure that the target you want destroyed is destroyed, and a single warhead is very easy to intercept, and unlike us the Russians have a viable ABM system protecting Moscow and by extension most of their stuff west of the Urals

“The US currently has a conventional force that can respond to any current nuclear threat and is developing future conventional force and weapons that will negate the need for any nuclear weapons”

No we don’t. We have been bent heavily towards conventional forces since 1992 and guess what?

North Korea and Iran are getting their grubby mitts on nukes is because they doubt we would ever use them. And they (along with all other aspiring nuclear powers) believe that once they have the bomb, they would have us by the nut sack

“right now nuclear weapons are little more then a symbolic legacy of the failed 20th. Century and are very expensive”

Okay now I know you’re talking out of your rump because nobody with even elementary knowledge of these weapons is this stupid

“America’s military annual budget roughly equals that of the entire rest of the world combined. Our conventional forces alone could destroy any conventional adversary, at any time, any where, period”

And guess what? Our conventional forces are what’s so expensive

Back in the Eisenhower Administration we were nuke heavy, SAC had overriding priority and the Army only had a couple thousand troops to it’s name.

And guess what? Just adjust the Ike era defense budget for inflation…2,000 Bombers is a crapload cheaper than 2,000,000 soldiers

“Our nuclear arsenal is a DETERRENT you fanatical christian zionists lunatics!!!”

Yes they are, and they have done that job

Our conventional forces are insufficient for that task, and elimination of our deterrent won’t stop Iran or North Korea or a dozen others, Hell China could use their meager arsenal to hold us hostage and ask for immediate debt repayment with savage interest.

3rd Armored may seem impressive driving down the streets of Baghdad, but all that luster is easily lost under a mushroom cloud.

Yeah right, we should elect Palin, she could defend us from her front porch you idiot!

But it was OK when Reagan wanted the same thing?http://​bit​.ly/​R​g​n​N​u​k​e​Cut

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement