US Nuclear Arsenal Down to 300 Weapons?

[ORAC]

Battleland: New Nuclear Math: It’s About Time (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/02/15/new-nuclear-math-its-about-time/)

n8H7Jibx-c0&feature=player_embedded

The Obama Administration is considering slashing the nation’s nuclear arsenal to as few as 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, Robert Burns of the AP reports (http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-14-15-11-12). That’s an 80% cut from the 1,550 currently permitted under Washington’s treaty with the Russians.

Certain circles will scream it’s unilateral disarmament. But it seems plenty for everyday MADness. It might even bring back those heady days of 1991 when presidents George W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev were scrapping nuclear weapons wholesale, and it seemed like there really might be a new world order.

A pair of Air Force analysts declared two years ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html)that the nation would be adequately defended by 311 deployed atomic weapons. If that’s not sufficient for this nation, we deserve the fate J. Robert Oppenheimer reckoned might be ours: “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

[Jollygreengiant64]

1. What happens if they get into a new cold war type situation?

2. What will happen to the UK's nuclear defence?

3. In what world would the USA, the most powerful nation on earth, sink so far? That's almost like comparing the British Empire to what we are today.

4. What happens to the global dynamic?- How will Kim Jong Junior fare his chances (as a very crude example)

5. Who are they kidding?

[Pontius Navigator]

JGG, I tend to agree. While it is absolutely unconsciousable that anyone would use nuclear weapons in this day and age I would rather the US has enough to share the joy in rogue states like Iran or NK.

Two or three might do the trick but who knows?

[E L Whisty]

I would not be so sure PN. Such decisions are made by politicians and damn few of them have consciences.

[Blacksheep]

Hmm. . What exactly is the definition of a deployed "strategic" nuclear weapon? As opposed to a deployed "tactical" one?

In the bad old days of the Cold War a city would be the target of at least three, just to make sure. Today one can be lobbed through the town hall window to do the job. Tactical weapon yields are tailored to the target's size and distribution, specifically for use against military formations and no-one is saying how many of them are deployed. :rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

And is a weapon a missile or the warheads? One missile 10 warheads?

[ORAC]

Tactical weapon yields are tailored to the target's size and distribution, specifically for use against military formations and no-one is saying how many of them are deployed.

U.S. Prepares for Future Nuke Disarmament Talks With Russia (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120215/DEFREG02/302150010/U-S-Prepares-Future-Nuke-Disarmament-Talks-Russia?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

For the next round of negotiations with Russia on nuclear weapon reductions, the United States would like to focus on nondeployed nuclear weapons and what are known as nonstrategic or “tactical” nuclear weapons, according to State Department officials...................

[Jollygreengiant64]

But is the idea of deterrent not based on a Strategic deployment? Firing off a salvo of hundred foot long candles is going to be a lot harder to defend against compared to the US trying to sneak a few tactical weapons into position.

The MOD hasn't been lending it's infallible logic machine to the US government has it?

[racedo]

And people believe them ?

[kokpit]

I would suggest that the more capable the US ABM system becomes, the more inclined they (US) may be to have a shared reduction in strategic weapons, it smacks of a win-win situation to me.

There's no talk of non-strategic, the Russian's (NS) arsenal has little immediate impact (excuse the pun) on the US, that's Europe's problem, whilst the US may be content that they can deploy theirs globally by a variety of means.

[GreenKnight121]

Hmm. . What exactly is the definition of a deployed "strategic" nuclear weapon? As opposed to a deployed "tactical" one?

Deployed strategic nuclear weapon: ICBM with warheads installed sitting in a launch silo, SLBM in a submarine with electrical power supplied (either externally or internally), long-range bomber with nuclear warheads in its bomb bay (either on the ground or in the air).

Deployed tactical nuclear weapon: nuclear bomb in the magazine of an aircraft carrier at sea or in port, nuclear artillery shell at a forward base or with a deployed unit, etc.


Non-deployed nuclear weapons are those sitting in bunkers in the home country, or missile warheads not installed on their missiles, etc.

[VIProds]

Sorry, am I missing something here ?

USN has 14 Ohio class subs containing 24 Trident missiles each having 8 100Kt Warheads i.e. 14x24x8= 2,688 warheads ??

To get down to 300 warheads, they just need two Boomers to do the job.

[PTT]

From the article:
The sea leg of the plan would involve placing 24 Trident D-5 missiles, each with a single nuclear warhead, on each of our Ohio-class submarines.

[Whenurhappy]

300-odd weapons does not, in any way describe their size, possible use or disposition. However, 300 is a significantly large arsenal, especially when tied to means of delivery that are precise (I know, slightly oxymoronic) and difficult to intercept, especially by potential 'rogue states'.

The current US arsenal, drawn from OS, apaprently contains many obsolescent free-fall weapons and other devices, simply held for parity purposes with the Russians. Whereas we in the West rarely think about the strategic impact of nukes, just spend a few days in Moscow speaking with Defence and Foreign Ministry officials (as I did 18 months ago) and one will soon realise that nuclear parity means everything. A constant thorn in the Russians' side are the independent arsenals held by the UK, France and, err, NATO.

In sum, the risk in reducing the US arsenal is not Russia (or any other state, for that matter - as there is enough to go around) but it is the political damage that Barack Obama will inflict on the liberal polity. The Republicans will milk this for all it's worth. Not only is he accused of being a foreign-born Muslim (he is not) he will now be accused of being a 'Commie Spy'. You just need to see some of the risable stuff from teh New American Institute and other 'Right thinking' bodies to feel just a little bit uncomfortable. Now Dr Strangelove, where were we?

[Jollygreengiant64]

PTT, What a silly idea that is. 300 warheads seems to indicate a forecast absence of a significant enemy state. In which case this organisation is hardly going to have the resources to find 1 SSBN, let alone an entire fleet. So why hold back? Just get rid of all the boomers except for the few required.

Also, what yield are these warheads likely to be? The existing <Megaton, lower 00Kiloton range, or higher >megaton yields more akin to Russian standards? Obviously having heavier weapons is a way to negate the effects of fewer weapons, but it leaves fewer options if a country did decide to start harvesting their mushrooms. How could you instigate a first strike with 300 small yield weapons? And if you wanted to retaliate, what damage could you seriously expect to deliver? Deterrent? Nope. Weapon? Barely better than a pea shooter against a serious enemy.

[Gravelbelly]

You just need to see some of the risible stuff from the New American Institute and other 'Right thinking' bodies to feel just a little bit uncomfortable.

If you'd tried, you couldn't have got your timing better :)

How could you instigate a first strike with 300 small yield weapons? And if you wanted to retaliate, what damage could you seriously expect to deliver? Deterrent? Nope. Weapon? Barely better than a pea shooter against a serious enemy.

:D

Avoiding your suggestion of "first strikes" (hmmm - decapitation)...

Let's see. Every major city, most large towns have massive casualties and are rendered economically useless. EMP effects frying all of your key infrastructure control, machinery, banking, finance, telecomms, bureaucratic record-keeping. All key military infrastructure destroyed. Medical infrastructure completely overwhelmed. Logistic infrastructure completely overwhelmed (remember folks, civilisation is only nine meals away). The choice of whether to go for groundburst or airburst, and the resulting fallout effects. Most critically of all (given that we've now seen inside several dictators' palaces) no way of making or buying new gold-plated taps, marble flooring, smartphones and designer clothing; no more luxurious living for the regime's hangers-on and "loyal supporters".

If you seriously think that's not a deterrent, and "no better than a peashooter", then you are a very strange individual indeed...

[PTT]

PTT, What a silly idea that is.Not my idea ;)

[TEEEJ]

SAMXXV wrote


NATO is a joke. The Germans/France etc refuse to commit troops (but France will send the French Foreign Legion to it's own teritories). The Belgiums have ageing F16's-but have no weapons for them. The Dutch are in the same position as Belgium. The Austrians are full of wind & weewee, The Swiss spend megabucks on their defence but could be devastated within 12 hours. The Scandinavian countries can be discounted as they are terrified of Russia. Iceland (USAF Rekyavic) would be destroyed within hours by Russian SSBN's.

Sam, have you not been keeping up-to-date?

Germans and French committing troops. You do realise that German and French Special Forces were involved in Afghanistan?

International Security Assistance Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force)

Did the Belgians use up all their weapons in Libya?

ugfW0WSLrto&feature=related

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4411.html

Did the Dutch have no weapons because they supplied them to Denmark for use over Libya? Did the Dutch fly their combat air patrols with no weapons on their F-16s?

Continuation of the Dutch contribution to the mission in Libya | Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (http://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/dossiers/continuation-dutch-contribution-mission-libya)

Denmark Asks Netherlands for F-16 Bombs: Report | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110609/DEFSECT01/106090301/Denmark-Asks-Netherlands-F-16-Bombs-Report)

Keflavik ceased to be a US facility in 2006. It must have been the threat from those pesky Russian SSBN? :rolleyes:

Naval Air Station Keflavik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_Keflavik)

Iceland Defense Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_Defense_Force)

NATO take turns to air police Iceland.

Icelandic Air Policing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing)

[M609]

Norway and Denmark provided about 12% of the strike aircraft, but struck about one third of the targets in Libya, at least that was what Robert Gates told media last year.
Speech (http://www.acus.org/natosource/text-speech-robert-gates-future-nato)

Norway and Denmark combined has about the same population as Paris......

[Whenurhappy]

SAM XXV

I'm not sure which NATO you are talking about. Neither Switzerland nor Austria are members of the Aliance, but in the latter case, Austria is a troop contributing nation; indeed a numbe rof their personnel were injured recently during attack in Mitroveca, in northern Kosovo.

Norway is well armed and fiercely proud of its Armed Forces and although they champion soft power, they don't mind using it when necessary. Sweden, forget any concept of neutrality! They are not a NATO member yet, but may as well be. They participate din the non-fly zone and frequently their troops in AFG mix it with the locals.

However I agree with you that many European countries are (now) pacific states. This is because of their history. Step across the Channel, as you are about to do, and the histories of most central and eastern European countires is grim, grim, grim. I was reminded of this fact just over a week ago when I was taken to visit the former KGB HQ in one of the Baltic States. I've seen lots of cruelty in the course of my duties and have a pretty good idea of what man can do to man, but watching a video of a series of executions conducted by the KGB (about 2 mins apart) - shown in the execution chamber - was enough to make me sprint from the room get some fresh air (-20C), and then be sick! The point I an trying to make is that for countries east of France and Germany (and not forgetting their terrible histories), the last 20 years has been the longest period of comparative peace and stability (nothwithstanding the Balkans basket cases). SO this account why that some of them are not particularly martial countires, but they will also defend their new-found freedoms.