Obama's budget calls for new ICBMs, new missile subs, and new nuclear bombers

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Calls on bankrupt nation to spend hundreds of billions to replace the entire "nuclear triad." Another shining example of Obama pandering to the status quo.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110214_1414.php


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.

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 (http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf), which asserts that "retaining all three triad legs will best maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems or vulnerabilities."

[Aaron Brachowitz]

And this from the president who enchants his global fans with lofty talk of abolishing nuclear weapons. Does that come after the five-decade lifespan of the new triad weapons?

[The President]

Aren't we going to spend hundreds of billions over the next 50 years maintining what we already have? Maybe more?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Aren't we going to spend hundreds of billions over the next 50 years maintining what we already have? Maybe more?
Yes -- I think the "hundreds of billions" quoted in the article is a very low estimate. It will probably be several trillion to design, build, maintain and operate a fleet of ballistic missile subs, several wings of nuclear bombers, and several wings (?) of ICBMs in silos.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

You know what would be a bold step? Eliminating land-based ICBMs. They are the most destabilizing weapons -- use them early or risk losing to a first strike. Plus they make large sections of America a big nuclear target for the heaviest silo-busting nuclear weapons. That would be change we can believe in.

[Apache Leap]

Yes -- I think the "hundreds of billions" quoted in the article is a very low estimate.Doesn't a single nuclear sub cost hundreds of billions?

[Rickson]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/confessions-of-economic-hit-man.html

Perkins also explains what happens to foreign leaders that don't play ball and take the bribes.

Also of note to me, because I have just been thinking about this myself, Perkins mentions how cautious and vulnerable the President of the United States is. From assassinations to character attacks, the President is dealing with people who have the ability to take him down.


He doesn't do anything or say anything that isn't 100% controlled....

When they do try to act on their own they get Kennedy'd, Reagan'd, etc.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Doesn't a single nuclear sub cost hundreds of billions?
Not hundreds. Certainly several billion, especially with development costs added in.

[The President]

You know what would be a bold step? Eliminating land-based ICBMs. They are the most destabilizing weapons -- use them early or risk losing to a first strike. Plus they make large sections of America a big nuclear target for the heaviest silo-busting nuclear weapons. That would be change we can believe in.
The only thing I know is if he did that, you would be complaining about him getting rid of land based ICBMs.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

The only thing I know is if he did that, you would be complaining about him getting rid of land based ICBMs.
Then you haven't read any of my posts on the topic. But thanks for lumping me in with the generic Obama-haters.

[oirg]

You know what would be a bold step? Eliminating land-based ICBMs. They are the most destabilizing weapons -- use them early or risk losing to a first strike. Plus they make large sections of America a big nuclear target for the heaviest silo-busting nuclear weapons. That would be change we can believe in.

I like this idea, although I think that the whole idea of a nuclear war is to devastate your opponent. I think that large chunks of the US would still be a target even if there were no land-based nuclear weapons.

[independent]

Doesn't a single nuclear sub cost hundreds of billions?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/05/04/01.xml&headline=Gates%20Says%20U.S.%20Navy%20Plans%20Are% 20Unaffordable

If you're talking construction, it's more like $7 billion.

[ElDucky]

Don't the UK and France only have subs for their nuclear arsenals? Subs are the MAD weapon, so you really don't need anything else.

[Patrick Bauer]

You know what would be a bold step? Eliminating land-based ICBMs. They are the most destabilizing weapons -- use them early or risk losing to a first strike. Plus they make large sections of America a big nuclear target for the heaviest silo-busting nuclear weapons. That would be change we can believe in.

I concur.

[Apache Leap]

I think that large chunks of the US would still be a target even if there were no land-based nuclear weapons.Mostly the coasts, so that shouldn't be a problem.

[oirg]

Mostly the coasts, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Then you agree that destroying the coasts will devastate the US. I thought so.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Don't the UK and France only have subs for their nuclear arsenals? Subs are the MAD weapon, so you really don't need anything else.
The "triad" is a hedge against the invention of some magic bullet that suddenly renders subs vulnerable (but going on 50 years it hasn't been invented yet). So you add in missiles (which can be blown up on the ground) and bombers (which can be blown up on the ground or shot down en route). Redundancy by design. Added bonus -- more pork to spread around and more general/admiral slots to command all the hardware.

[Apache Leap]

Then you agree that destroying the coasts will devastate the US. I thought so.Just the bad parts/parts I don't care about. So it's all good.

[The President]

Then you haven't read any of my posts on the topic. But thanks for lumping me in with the generic Obama-haters.
Your welcome! Although you deserve all the credit.

[FormLetter]

What about a satellite-based laser system that can pinpoint any spot on the planet?

[Harry]

What about a satellite-based laser system that can pinpoint any spot on the planet?
What about sharks with lasers?

[FormLetter]

Hey if you think those two are equivalent in the context of this discussion, then I'm glad you aren't tasked with anything remotely important.

[Harry]

Hey if you think those two are equivalent in the context of this discussion, then I'm glad you aren't tasked with anything remotely important.
Good point.

(red text for the impaired)

[2pac Shakur]

Calls on bankrupt nation to spend hundreds of billions to replace the entire "nuclear triad." Another shining example of Obama pandering to the status quo.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110214_1414.php

Aren't we in violation of the NPT by doing this?
Doesn't seem like this is working towards disarmament.

[SFbayDreaming]

While it would be wonderful if everyone would just get rid of all nuclear weapons immediately, that's not realistic. It will have to be a multi-step process achieved with a series of treaties and counter-proliferation enforcement against "rogue states." The US certainly cannot unilaterally disarm or unilaterally allow our deterrence threat become ineffective while China and Russia are maintaining theirs.

Except for MO, aren't most ICBM bases in low-population areas like ND and SD? Wouldn't that encourage China/Russia to not target moderate sized cities b/c they would rather bomb a fleet of missiles instead?

@Letter -- Harry was showing how absurd *your* point was. We need real ideas, not Reagen-esque science fiction.

[FormLetter]

Well, it is happening...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=laser-downs-uavs

[2pac Shakur]

While it would be wonderful if everyone would just get rid of all nuclear weapons immediately, that's not realistic. It will have to be a multi-step process achieved with a series of treaties and counter-proliferation enforcement against "rogue states." The US certainly cannot unilaterally disarm or unilaterally allow our deterrence threat become ineffective while China and Russia are maintaining theirs.

Except for MO, aren't most ICBM bases in low-population areas like ND and SD? Wouldn't that encourage China/Russia to not target moderate sized cities b/c they would rather bomb a fleet of missiles instead?

@Letter -- Harry was showing how absurd *your* point was. We need real ideas, not Reagen-esque science fiction.

When we signed the NPT in 1970 we promised to work towards disarmament. Here we are today, 40 years later, deciding what would be the best way to modernize our enormous arsenal.

Sounds like more of a violation than Iran's alleged centrifuge.

[2pac Shakur]

The wording of the NPT's Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."[9] Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."[10] The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued 8 July 1996, went beyond the text of Article VI in its unanimous conclusion that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

[Paro]

"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."



I love this quote. Effectively it is saying that nobody who is a threat is fielding or even working on nuclear attack submarines remotely capable of hunting down our current ballistic missle subs, but we should spends hundreds of billions of dollars to create the next generation of ballistic missle subs.

[HatCapitol]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/confessions-of-economic-hit-man.html



He doesn't do anything or say anything that isn't 100% controlled....

When they do try to act on their own they get Kennedy'd, Reagan'd, etc.

Carter'd? Oh wait, nothing happened to him....

[HatCapitol]

I love this quote. Effectively it is saying that nobody who is a threat is fielding or even working on nuclear attack submarines remotely capable of hunting down our current ballistic missle subs, but we should spends hundreds of billions of dollars to create the next generation of ballistic missle subs.

The only thing less assailable than our subs is the argument that we need to scrap them! :usa:

[Apache Leap]

While it would be wonderful if everyone would just get rid of all nuclear weapons immediately, that's not realistic.Better make sure you get rid of boards with nails in them too.

Or, even better, worry more about the carpenter than you do about his tools.

[Paro]

The only thing less assailable than our subs is the argument that we need to scrap them! :usa:

I don't think we should scrap all of them. I just don't think that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to make the next generation, when the current generation is decades ahead of the nearest threat.

[HatCapitol]

I don't think we should scrap all of them. I just don't think that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to make the next generation, when the current generation is decades ahead of the nearest threat.

Yeah, I could have worded that better, I was referring to the argument you cited, that we should scrap our current subs and build new ones.

Personally, I'd like to see swords beaten into plowshares. Reduce the fleet and use some of the nuclear material to build powerplants. At least I would think that's possible, maybe it's not though. We do need more nuclear power. Definitely don't build new subs though.

And where are they positing that these new weapons are going to come from? There's no competing superpower anymore. The Chinese are not a leader in innovation, and their most advanced weaponry is well behind ours. It just seems like a cold war mentality that's arguing for this stuff.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

And where are they positing that these new weapons are going to come from? There's no competing superpower anymore. The Chinese are not a leader in innovation, and their most advanced weaponry is well behind ours. It just seems like a cold war mentality that's arguing for this stuff.
Yes...when you read the documents, what comes through most is a strong urge to maintain the comfortable status quo and avoid a hard analysis of actual strategic needs -- "We know we're going to maintain the triad indefinitely, so now let's make a strong case for it."

[SFbayDreaming]

You also have to keep in mind that the policy is to replace the delivery system over the next 40 years. That's a long time.

SLBMs are the most survivable; however, they lack accuracy. They can only be targeted against cities and not against missle silos and air force bases. The other two legs of the triad are important to maintaining flexible responce options.

[JohnLocke]

Wow, all these Obama apologists are cracking me up. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Dismal Science]

Nifty picture of Obama's budget from Greg Mankiw's blog:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OBHcwOa1IFc/TV2JoMezRZI/AAAAAAAABN8/6iG9rmFw7Zo/s1600/obama-long-term-policy.png

[SFbayDreaming]

@JohnLocke -- Obama signed a big arms-reduction treaty that was just ratified over GOP objections. Also, his administration has made significant strides to secure loose nuclear material that could otherwise be stolen by terrorists or Iran. That is a continuation of the efforts Obama made while a US Senator.

Those who do not understand the basic facts have not earned the right to make commentary on those facts. Clearly, you still need to do your homework.

@formLetter -- Anticipating your possible retort, I will concede that I didn’t know about the laser thing. However, that has not been very widely advertised in the news. No one can know everything about everything.