Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
More Nukes! More Nukes!
Chant it with me, “MORE NUKES!” Or, so it would seem this is the plan for the president elect who tweeted yesterday that we must strengthen and expand our nuclear capability.
The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016
Never one to back down, President-Elect Trump clarified the remarks by telling MSNBC’s Morning Joe team “Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” Media speculation is that these statements were in response to Russia’s Putin saying “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems.” The 80’s are back, H/T to Mitt Romney.
The left will, as if on cue, go berserk about how Trump is threatening world peace and will incite the next world war, the big big one where nukes fly and babies die. This is hardly the reality. What is really going on here is the next president showing decisively that the wobbly legged foreign policy of the current occupant of the White House is coming to an immediate end. Trump is not starting an arms race; rather, he is acknowledging the arms race already in progress that began when President Obama sold our nuclear deterrent capabilities for the pottage of a signed treaty.
As R. James Woolsey wrote before the New START Treaty was ratified:
The Russians are engaging in a comprehensive modernization of their nuclear forces, which senior Russian military officials say is their top priority. We cannot deal effectively with them or with the growing number of nuclear-weapon states around the world if we are strategically weaker, undefended and clueless about our adversaries’ capabilities.
The arms race is here whether the left likes it or not, and it is actually the direct result of Obama’s policy of “leading from behind” in foreign policy. What Trump’s statements show is an acceptance of this reality, and of the reality that we are on our heels in this race just as we were after Carter had decimated our military. The U.S. nuclear forces are aging and doing so at an accelerated rate when compared to other nuclear capable countries that are modernizing their forces. We must do what is necessary to secure our place at the top of the nuclear pecking order before the race for arms becomes a race for mere survival.
Published in General
And our not doing so is one of the major failings of our nuclear program. While I’m on board with the basic premise behind START (that we draw down equally with Russia), the implementation has been problematic. The test ban is only tangentially related to the overall reduction goals. It’s much more of a bow to environmentalism than an olive branch of peace.
Nukes are no different than any other weapon in terms of morality. There is nothing special about them. If we so chose, in two decades, we could have mass drivers on the moon that would be able to do just as much damage, and be unstoppable. Would they be worse than nukes, or would nukes still get the bad mojo. We could if we we choose, mass produce chemical weapons, allowing us to kill everyone in a city and leave the rest untouched. Let it decay and move in, taking over the infrastructure. More or less immoral than nukes? More or less than bombing the city to rubble? Flame Throwers are pretty bad, are they less moral than bullets?
My point here is that war sucks, weapons kill and maim people, including civilians. It is a horrible thing no matter the weapon used. No amount of wishing a weapon would not be used will stop its use. Crossbows used to be considered so immoral the Church banned them. Fat lot of good that did. The only deterrent to use of a weapon is for the other guy to decide he has no chance to win using it.
And here, we differ. I am for one nation having Nukes, America. Everyone else can disarm. We keep ours. Or, we get rid of ours and do mass drivers on the moon. Now, THAT is the high ground ;)
Of course many deny this reality of human nature.
Realistically, I’m good with only us having them. Philosophically, less so.
Practically, we aren’t going back to 1945. And since War Games was just a movie, “the only choice is not to play”, we must be armed, prepared and perceived as willing.
Agreed.
Well, philosphically, only *I* should have them, but what are the odds??
Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention. I’m actually out of the country with only my cell phone and intermittent WiFi. So I’m not feeling up to quoting and commenting in detail — hand cramps. But I’ll do my best to keep up and contribute anything worthwhile when I get back home.
It’s important to remember that there’s always something to learn, not just about the efficacy of our weapons, but as a way to defend against others’ weapons as well. Mr. C’s career in Underground Nuclear Testing (UGT) was geared toward “nuclear effects.” Knowing this information is invaluable in developing nuclear hardened electronics and such (some of this carries over into space (satellite) technology, where electronics also suffer harsh conditions). There are facilities that simulate aspects of a nuclear detonation (where Mr. C ran experiments after the test ban), but there’s nothing like the real thing… as you may imagine.
These are not “dumb” detonations just to make a point. There’s some hard core science and engineering going on.
Brian (@Brianmcmenomy), I want to kiss you right on the lips for this. Y’know, in a non-gay kind of way.
The contract to develop a new strategic bomber was awarded to Northrop Grumman earlier this year.
The contract for a new silo-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to replace the Minuteman III is currently pending an award decision by the government. Three contractors submitted proposals.
Note that both of these are contracts to build new delivery systems, not new nuclear warheads.
It’s something, but it’s not everything. I don’t know if there have been enough advances in solid rocketry to justify a new design rather than merely new production.
For anyone interested in the details of an ICBM flight in addition to what @thekingprawn already posted, here is a pretty good animation with the important events labeled. The timeline is very compressed to make it watchable (e.g. they cut out the 15-20 minutes in the middle in which the separated, spinning reentry vehicle quietly flies thousands of miles through space before plunging back into the atmosphere over its target).
The Minuteman III is the only currently deployed ICBM in the US arsenal. It is operated by the Air Force and launched from missile silos in the Great Plains. Test launches are conducted over the Pacific Ocean from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast. The Navy has its own system called the Trident II which @thekingprawn worked on. The Navy prefers to call Fleet Ballistic Missile or FBM, although the technology is substantially similar. They are launched from submarines. (As an aside, I love to imagine the FBM was invented by 10-year-old boy in the postwar period: “What are the three coolest, most advanced technologies in the world? Submarines, rocket ships, and nuclear bombs. Let’s combine them all into one system!” Presto, the FBM.)
The Minuteman III is nearly 60 feet long, about 66 inches in diameter, and weighs about 78,000 lbs fully loaded prior to launch. The vast majority of that weight is solid rocket propellant that is entirely burned off in the first few minutes of flight. At that point what remains of the whole apparatus is travelling well over 10,000 mph far above the upper reaches of the atmosphere, and still ascending due to its upward momentum. After it reaches precisely the right point in space (position and velocity), the warhead is released on a 10-20 minute ballistic trajectory (i.e. freefall) to its target. Hence the name, ballistic missile.
There have been many advances in composite materials, solid state electronics, and manufacturing techniques that render the old (currently deployed) designs obsolete. Lighter, stronger materials, more advanced and safer propellants, and more advanced design techniques that allow slimmer safety margins to squeak out additional performance. The electronics in particular are almost entirely obsolete to the point of being unavailable anymore.
A new design is also an opportunity to incorporate lessons learned from problems or weak points that have emerged with previous designs.
Indeed. I carry more computing firepower in my pocket than the missiles have.
You probably carry more computing firepower in your pocket than ALL of the missiles have.
Combined.
Hmm… KP carries a lot of firepower around in his pants, apparently.
And that’s the nut, here. Unbound thinking. The guys that won WWII had re-wrought the world. They weren’t going to brainstorm with preconceived notions or self-imposed limitations. They were like: what’s the best way to blow schnitt up? Well, check this out…
Yep. It’s not just the missile, or the warhead, but the whole ship which is a weapon system. Every part of the boat exists to the end of providing a survivable, continuous nuclear deterrent. Here is one of the better documentaries available about a Trident. It’s a world unto itself, almost unimaginable even when filmed and shown to the world.
https://youtu.be/aR8TQMnxKyY
Awesome. Haven’t watched it. Will watch it. Will pass it on to my brother-in-law, whose son is busy right now, earning his dolphins. Thanks.
We obtain the warheads from DOE – they are assembled at the Pantex plant.
Yep. My point was just that these new systems will carry existing warheads from the stockpile or the retired systems they replace. The US is not planning to build any new warheads.
The next bomber should be a robot.
I’ve seen that movie.
It doesn’t end well.