Anonymously contributed:
U.S. to Replace Nuke Delivery Platforms
Monday, Feb. 14, 2011
- Global Security Newswire
The Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget request calls for the United States to replace the land-, air-, and sea-based components of its nuclear deterrent, potentially setting the nation on a course that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars over five decades, Time magazine reported (see GSN, Jan. 7).
The administration today is rolling out its budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The move toward replacing all three components of the nation's nuclear "triad" stems from the conclusions of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which asserts that "retaining all three triad legs will best maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems or vulnerabilities."
"Strategic nuclear submarines ... represent the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear triad," says the document, a Defense Department-led analysis of strategy and forces focusing largely on the next five to 10 years. "Today, there appears to be no viable near or midterm threats to the survivability of U.S. (submarines), but such threats -- or other technical problems -- cannot be ruled out over the long term."
The Navy earlier this month indicated preparations were under way for building a new generation of submarines capable of firing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles (see GSN, Feb. 4).
"The Navy is committed to ensuring that an affordable replacement ballistic-missile submarine is designed, built, and delivered on time with the right capabilities to sustain the most survivable leg of our triad for many decades to come," said Rear Adm. David Johnson, the Navy's head of submarine acquisitions.
In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates instructed the Air Force to move toward development of a next-generation strategic bomber (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2010).
"A major area of new investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber," Gates said on Jan. 6.
The Defense Department has also begun considering blueprints for a potential successor to the nation's Minuteman 3 ICBMs, according to Time.
"Land-based ICBMs are an integral and enduring part of the nuclear triad," Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation to lead the U.S. Strategic Command. Studies now in progress "will shape the plan and resource strategy to recapitalize our ICBM force beyond 2030," he said.
Washington should consider trimming the nation's nuclear deterrent down to a "dyad" through the elimination of its land-locked nuclear force, Jeffrey Richardson, a senior scientist with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, wrote in late 2009 (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).
The prospect "will provoke debate from certain camps, most notably, the pro-nuclear camp that feels unconstrained by fiscal resources and strives for a risk-free world," Richardson wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
U.S. leaders should acknowledge that the nation's strategic nuclear deterrent "should mitigate possible risk and provide a hedge against potential scenarios, but also acknowledge that the elimination of all risk is unachievable," he wrote (Mark Thompson, Time, Feb. 13).
U.S. to Replace Nuke Delivery Platforms
Monday, Feb. 14, 2011
- Global Security Newswire
The Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget request calls for the United States to replace the land-, air-, and sea-based components of its nuclear deterrent, potentially setting the nation on a course that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars over five decades, Time magazine reported (see GSN, Jan. 7).
The administration today is rolling out its budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The move toward replacing all three components of the nation's nuclear "triad" stems from the conclusions of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which asserts that "retaining all three triad legs will best maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems or vulnerabilities."
"Strategic nuclear submarines ... represent the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear triad," says the document, a Defense Department-led analysis of strategy and forces focusing largely on the next five to 10 years. "Today, there appears to be no viable near or midterm threats to the survivability of U.S. (submarines), but such threats -- or other technical problems -- cannot be ruled out over the long term."
The Navy earlier this month indicated preparations were under way for building a new generation of submarines capable of firing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles (see GSN, Feb. 4).
"The Navy is committed to ensuring that an affordable replacement ballistic-missile submarine is designed, built, and delivered on time with the right capabilities to sustain the most survivable leg of our triad for many decades to come," said Rear Adm. David Johnson, the Navy's head of submarine acquisitions.
In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates instructed the Air Force to move toward development of a next-generation strategic bomber (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2010).
"A major area of new investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber," Gates said on Jan. 6.
The Defense Department has also begun considering blueprints for a potential successor to the nation's Minuteman 3 ICBMs, according to Time.
"Land-based ICBMs are an integral and enduring part of the nuclear triad," Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation to lead the U.S. Strategic Command. Studies now in progress "will shape the plan and resource strategy to recapitalize our ICBM force beyond 2030," he said.
Washington should consider trimming the nation's nuclear deterrent down to a "dyad" through the elimination of its land-locked nuclear force, Jeffrey Richardson, a senior scientist with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, wrote in late 2009 (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).
The prospect "will provoke debate from certain camps, most notably, the pro-nuclear camp that feels unconstrained by fiscal resources and strives for a risk-free world," Richardson wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
U.S. leaders should acknowledge that the nation's strategic nuclear deterrent "should mitigate possible risk and provide a hedge against potential scenarios, but also acknowledge that the elimination of all risk is unachievable," he wrote (Mark Thompson, Time, Feb. 13).
Comments
Nobody's gonna buy anything. We are broke. It is all a lie. We added 12% to the national debt in one year and will do this for the next four years.
We are spending like hell-bound soldiers. Next year we will be in debt $150,000 for each taxpayer.
Every year, state and local governments spend 50% of the GDP,while only taking in 40% of GDP in taxes.
We are run by fatally incompetent, undisciplined, irresponsible monkeys.
Democracy, like Marx predicted, is doomed by the excesses of it citizens.
And the 1% at the top of the economic food chain? They'll all have well planned escape routes to avoid being caught in the chaos as America comes totally unglued.
February 17, 2011 10:52 PM
So do you know anyone in the "1% at the top"? What "escape plans" have they made? What, you think they are planning their "escape" secretly? Man, you are out there.
Me, I'm collecting the recyclable containers at the Forensic Science Center.
Oops.