US Nuclear Arsenal to be rebuilt

[MKSheppard]

Linka

U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan
The administration's proposal would modernize the nation's complex of laboratories and factories as well as produce new bombs.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer
April 6, 2006

The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.

The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.
Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe.

Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area, could not repel a terrorist attack.

But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.

The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs left from the Cold War.

D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race. The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its inventory of weapons.

The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition.

The U.S. built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and last tested a weapon underground in 1992. Since the Cold War, the nation has had massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to deter potential attacks. By contrast, it would increasingly rely on the capability to build future bombs for deterrence, D'Agostino said.

The blueprint calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to respond to changing military requirements. Similar proposals in the past, such as for a nuclear bomb to attack underground bunkers, provoked concern that they undermined U.S. policy to stop nuclear proliferation.

The impetus for the plan is a growing belief that efforts to maintain older nuclear bombs and keep up a large nuclear weapons industrial complex are technically and financially unsustainable. Last year, a task force led by San Diego physicist David Overskei recommended that the Energy Department consolidate the system of eight existing weapons complexes into one site.

Overskei said Wednesday that the cost of security alone for the current infrastructure of plants over the next two decades was roughly $25 billion. Security costs have grown, because the Sept. 11 attacks have led the Energy Department to believe terrorists could mount a larger and better armed strike force.

Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department security consultant who is now an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized the plutonium consolidation plan in House testimony, saying it would delay the difficult work too far into the future. Stockton added in an interview that the plutonium transfer at Livermore could be accomplished in a few months.

Until now, Livermore lab officials have sharply disagreed with the idea of removing plutonium from their site, saying it was essential to their work. On Wednesday, a lab spokesman said the issue was "far less controversial" and the "decision rests in Washington."

The Bush plan, described at a hearing of the strategic subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, would consolidate much of the weapons capacity, but not as completely or quickly as outside critics would like.

The overall plan would not be fully implemented until 2030.

A crucial part of restarting U.S. nuclear bomb production involves so-called plutonium pits, hollow spheres surrounded by high explosives. The pits start nuclear fission and trigger the nuclear fusion in a bomb.

The plutonium pits were built at the Energy Department's former Rocky Flats site near Denver until the weapons plant was shut down in 1989 after it was found to have violated environmental regulations.

In recent years, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has tried to start limited production of plutonium pits and hopes to build a certified pit that will enter the so-called war reserve next year. Los Alamos would be producing about 30 to 50 pits per year by 2012, but the Energy Department said that was not enough to sustain the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

In his testimony, D'Agostino estimated plutonium pits would last 45 to 60 years, after which they would be unreliable and might result in an explosion smaller than intended. Critics outside the government sharply dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits degrade over time and that the nation can keep an adequate nuclear deterrent by maintaining its existing weapons.

[theski]

So who the fuck is going to pay for this tripe... OH yea US...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Well, we've finally found the dictator with WMD...

[MKSheppard]

So who the fuck is going to pay for this tripe... OH yea US...

Uh; this is long overdue; remember what Boy Clinton did? He shut down our Tritium production facility at Hanford; Tritium decays; we need to remanufacture our bombs to make sure they cause a lot of light and peace.

[Mr Bean]

Well, we've finally found the dictator with WMD...

Good kneejerk reaction Ein.

If you acutal read the fucking text you might notice this wonder

Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe.

That sounds like a good idea eh? We gots tons of 70's and 80's Era bombs sitting around, if we are going to maintain a 1 for 1 replacement it's simple good maintance.

Of course we could always start building heaps of them agian but if you acutal read the planned production runs you'll see that Bush will be LONG gone out off office before the first nuclear weapon is assembled.

[fgalkin]

Well, we've finally found the dictator with WMD...

We found the WMD's, still haven't found the dictator.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[SirNitram]

I was kinda hoping for the URRW stuff to go through. Sure, unlikely. Sure, smaller bang-per-kilo. But it's hard to argue with warheads that will last that long.

[Beowulf]

Critics outside the government sharply dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits degrade over time and that the nation can keep an adequate nuclear deterrent by maintaining its existing weapons.

Except, you know, the fact that Pu is radioactive, and therefore the amount of Pu in any one pit is continually decreasing, and being replaced by reaction products.

[theski]

So who the fuck is going to pay for this tripe... OH yea US...

Uh; this is long overdue; remember what Boy Clinton did? He shut down our Tritium production facility at Hanford; Tritium decays; we need to remanufacture our bombs to make sure they cause a lot of light and peace.

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT

The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition.

so dont bullshit me that its all about old weapons..

[Mr Bean]

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT

The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition.

so dont bullshit me that its all about old weapons..

It's a seperate program indepenant of the replacement program, you have to dig abit but you'll find they are two seperate iniatives, so yes it is all about the old weapons. However the Times reporter inculded a mention of the new weapons design in the report.

[theski]

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT

The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition.

so dont bullshit me that its all about old weapons..

It's a seperate program indepenant of the replacement program, you have to dig abit but you'll find they are two seperate iniatives, so yes it is all about the old weapons. However the Times reporter inculded a mention of the new weapons design in the report.

Goes to research before opening mouth again.. Thanks Bean

[Ma Deuce]

Anyone know what's happening with the plans to restart production of the W88 warhead? Last I heard, in 2003 Los Alamos had produced the first cerifiable W88 plutonium pit since the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was shut down in '89, and that actual pit production could commence as early as 2007, but I've heard nothing since.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it so important to keep the numbers of nuclear weapons at current levels that you should spend all this money to make it happen?

And why doesn't anyone think that it will look hypocritical for the US to run around stamping out nuclear proliferation by force if possible, while simultaneously ramping up new nuclear weapon designs and nuclear weapon production programs at home?

[The Guid]

I quote Tom Lehrer: "First we got the bomb, and that was good. Cause we love peace, and brotherhood..."

[kheegster]

Why is it so important to keep the numbers of nuclear weapons at current levels that you should spend all this money to make it happen?

And why doesn't anyone think that it will look hypocritical for the US to run around stamping out nuclear proliferation by force if possible, while simultaneously ramping up new nuclear weapon designs and nuclear weapon production programs at home?

Indeed...I would have thought that the ageing of both the US and Russian arsenals would be a golden opportunity to disarm to lower levels, say a few hundred warheads.

[Falkenhayn]

Indeed...I would have thought that the ageing of both the US and Russian arsenals would be a golden opportunity to disarm to lower levels, say a few hundred warheads.

I wouldn't bet on it. Russian territorial security is "Invade and we will shower you with a rediculous number of nukes", not to mention it is the last tattered scrap of Great Power status, and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church blessed them.

That and Russia never really stopped developing, purchasing and deploying ICBMs, read the Topol-M3. The two pillars of Russian power are Nukes and Natural Gas.

[kheegster]

I wouldn't bet on it. Russian territorial security is "Invade and we will shower you with a rediculous number of nukes", not to mention it is the last tattered scrap of Great Power status, and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church blessed them.

That and Russia never really stopped developing, purchasing and deploying ICBMs, read the Topol-M3. The two pillars of Russian power are Nukes and Natural Gas.

Still, it's a chance to consolidate their arsenal by reducing numbers while increasing the overall quality. For example I'd feel that 400 Topol-Ms would be superior to 100 Topol-M + 900 obsolete weapons.

[phongn]

Still, it's a chance to consolidate their arsenal by reducing numbers while increasing the overall quality. For example I'd feel that 400 Topol-Ms would be superior to 100 Topol-M + 900 obsolete weapons.

Would 400 Topol-Ms be enough to achieve Russian nuclear war aims?

[Vympel]

That and Russia never really stopped developing, purchasing and deploying ICBMs, read the Topol-M3. The two pillars of Russian power are Nukes and Natural Gas.

It's just Topol-M (SS-27), not Topol-M3.

Indeed...I would have thought that the ageing of both the US and Russian arsenals would be a golden opportunity to disarm to lower levels, say a few hundred warheads.

Russia and the US signed a treaty called SORT a few years back- quite vague and loose compared to the (now defunct) START II, but basically, it commits bout countries to reducing their warheads to at least 2,000 each.

Russia currently has 771 strategic delivery platforms across the Strategic Rocket Forces, the Navy, and the Air Force, capable of delivering 3,319 nuclear warheads. That's down 77 delivery systems from the year before, or 160 warheads. It'll keep going down, I suspect, until all of the aging systems are withdrawn- specifically the original Topol (SS-25)- which unlike the SS-18 (Mod 4, 5 and 6) and SS-19 (Mod 3) hasn't proven as capable of having its service life extended, and was built with a shorter service life to begin with. The SS-24s (rail-mobile and silo-mobile) have also finished being withdrawn.

Topol-M deployment has slowed somewhat (last year only two new missiles were deployed) in the face of Russia's acquisiton of "as new" SS-19s from Ukraine, though this year the Rocket Forces are getting their first regiment of land-mobile Topol-Ms (the ones currently deployed have been silo-based).

I'm not sure how many delivery systems/ warheads the US is currently packing.

[Vympel]

Would 400 Topol-Ms be enough to achieve Russian nuclear war aims?

It's close to the SORT level range. Assume 400 warheads on 400 Topol-Ms (speculation based on their throw-weight that they could carry more aside, it's pretty well understood they're laden with NMD-defeat technology), then factor in the Navy (assume the Delta IIIs are gone)- that's 384 warheads on 6 Delta IVs, 432 warheads on 6 Boreys, 120-360 warheads on 1-3 Typhoons depending on whether they're equipped with Bulavas like the Dmitry Donskoi, and the Air Force, which is 872 cruise missiles on 78 bombers (more, if you count the Tu-160s that keep coming off the production line).

Heck, actually, that's over the maximum by a few warheads.

Fact Sheet on the Moscow Treaty:

On May 24, President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin signed the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. Under this Treaty, the United States and Russia will reduce their strategic nuclear warheads to a level of 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012, a level nearly two-thirds below current levels.

Of course, we know Russia is planning to develop a new "heavy" class ICBM (like SS-19/SS-24/Peacekeeper, rather than SS-18) in the near future.

[MKSheppard]

Why is it so important to keep the numbers of nuclear weapons at current levels that you should spend all this money to make it happen?

To maintain our deterrent as being capable of destroying a large sized country completely and totally.

And why doesn't anyone think that it will look hypocritical for the US to run around stamping out nuclear proliferation by force if possible, while simultaneously ramping up new nuclear weapon designs and nuclear weapon production programs at home?

Oh yes, maintaining our nuclear arms levels at 3,000~ or so warheads is hypocritical, nevermind that that's down from 25,000~ in 1990.

[phongn]

I'm not sure how many delivery systems/ warheads the US is currently packing.

Johnston's Archive estimates 1050 ICBM RV, 2016 SLBM RV and 1016 gravity bomb + cruise missiles as of January 2006, for a total of 4122 strategic nuclear devices (out of a total of 4562 devices). He also estimates 4227/4567 strategic/total devices for Russia.

SORT limits forces to ~2200 devices, so about half on each side have to go.

As for kheegan's comments, I thought he meant a few hundred devices total, as opposed to 400-odd Topel-M ICBMs + assorted other delivery systems.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it so important to keep the numbers of nuclear weapons at current levels that you should spend all this money to make it happen?

To maintain our deterrent as being capable of destroying a large sized country completely and totally.

And THAT is necessary because ...?

And why doesn't anyone think that it will look hypocritical for the US to run around stamping out nuclear proliferation by force if possible, while simultaneously ramping up new nuclear weapon designs and nuclear weapon production programs at home?

Oh yes, maintaining our nuclear arms levels at 3,000~ or so warheads is hypocritical, nevermind that that's down from 25,000~ in 1990.

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where I was comparing present-day American nuclear non-proliferation rhetoric to domestic nuclear development, not American domestic nuclear development between 2006 and 1990. Nice red-herring, though.

[NeoGoomba]

So out of the ~3,000 nuclear weapons the US and Russia are supposed to have, how quickly would all of them be launched? I mean, say we launch against Russia for some reason, or vice versa, whats the maximum number of nukes an alpha strike would consist of? Is it the full 3,000 that the treaties entail? And wouldn't you really not need too many more than that? Since if your alpha strike is successful the other side is wiped out, and you'd only need a few more to keep the other Nuclear Powers at bay.

Or am I just totally missing the point of deterrance by going for an economical approach to mass destruction?

[phongn]

So out of the ~3,000 nuclear weapons the US and Russia are supposed to have, how quickly would all of them be launched? I mean, say we launch against Russia for some reason, or vice versa, whats the maximum number of nukes an alpha strike would consist of? Is it the full 3,000 that the treaties entail? And wouldn't you really not need too many more than that? Since if your alpha strike is successful the other side is wiped out, and you'd only need a few more to keep the other Nuclear Powers at bay.

I've read that during the Cold War, the USSR had a "spread the pain" targetting plan to ensure that nobody suddenly became an instant-superpower after the exchange. Also, there are a lot of targets to take out - and some targets may need a number of nukes to take out.

Or am I just totally missing the point of deterrance by going for an economical approach to mass destruction?

You need to figure out what you need to destroy, why you need to destroy it, figure out how many weapons you can afford and are allowed, etc.