- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 26,096
- Likes
- 9,073
- Points
- 113
I don't want to comment either way about the policy, but I wanted to know what the random populace of OT Forumers thought about this. I also thought it might be a good avenue to explain some not-so-widely-known facts about nuclear weapons. Though I guess that if this is the first time you've heard abut this, this could fall into the category Thucydides wrote about:
The administration has publicized that they would like to unilaterally reduce nuclear warhead count below New START Treaty limits. The President has spoken to other foreign powers and the UN about stopping proliferation and banning tests.
On another note...
DOD, DOE, and the National Nuclear Weapons council all concur that our nuclear weapons base is getting older, and it's getting close to time to start replacing systems, not components. This is not a cheap undertaking, though. We haven't had a large-scale nuclear design program since the end of the Cold War, and now it's starting to catch up with us. Of the Strategic Triad of Bombers, ICBMs and Submarines:
-the B-1s have been retired from being nuclear carriers, B-2s capped at 20 (they cost over 1B each) and B-52s (a 50-y/o program!) are down ~30% to less than 70 total.
-The Minuteman III missile system is 40 years old, and the AF needs money to keep it going until (projected) 2030
-The Ohio-class submarines will begin retiring at the end of the 2020's, and the SSBN(X) program has just passed Milestone A, allowing the Navy to continue efforts to design for a 2019 build start and 2027 or so launch. But these have been quoted as anywhere from 4.9B to 12B per copy (in testimony, Navy's said they'll try to keep it in the 4-5B range) and you need around 10-15 of them to do the required national strategic mission.
Thoughts about the weapons, our policies, worldwide posture, etc?
The administration has publicized that they would like to unilaterally reduce nuclear warhead count below New START Treaty limits. The President has spoken to other foreign powers and the UN about stopping proliferation and banning tests.
On another note...
DOD, DOE, and the National Nuclear Weapons council all concur that our nuclear weapons base is getting older, and it's getting close to time to start replacing systems, not components. This is not a cheap undertaking, though. We haven't had a large-scale nuclear design program since the end of the Cold War, and now it's starting to catch up with us. Of the Strategic Triad of Bombers, ICBMs and Submarines:
-the B-1s have been retired from being nuclear carriers, B-2s capped at 20 (they cost over 1B each) and B-52s (a 50-y/o program!) are down ~30% to less than 70 total.
-The Minuteman III missile system is 40 years old, and the AF needs money to keep it going until (projected) 2030
-The Ohio-class submarines will begin retiring at the end of the 2020's, and the SSBN(X) program has just passed Milestone A, allowing the Navy to continue efforts to design for a 2019 build start and 2027 or so launch. But these have been quoted as anywhere from 4.9B to 12B per copy (in testimony, Navy's said they'll try to keep it in the 4-5B range) and you need around 10-15 of them to do the required national strategic mission.
Thoughts about the weapons, our policies, worldwide posture, etc?
Last edited:
