Trump wants more nukes

[Jaskalas]

Might as well just flush $billions down the toilet. Newer shiner Nukes add no value to the older ones whose only useful purpose is to scare potential enemies. You can't have Single Payer Healthcare, but can have useless Weapons. Sad.

I would not expand, but they do need to be replaced to be usable.

 

[Chaotic42]

I don't agree with expanding our arsenal, but we should make sure that it is modernized. I don't mean the incompetent over-budget by-committee modernize, I mean we should get folks who know what they're doing.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Trump on Twitter...

"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"

Sweet Jesus mother****ing tapdancing Christ. That's real? I thought you were joking...

 

[Jhhnn]

I would not expand, but they do need to be replaced to be usable.

I doubt that. They're refurbished & everything tested (short of detonation) on a continuous basis. They'll work as intended should the need arise.

The winners of nuclear war will get to celebrate victory from their oxcarts.

 

[JSt0rm]

Might as well just flush $billions down the toilet. Newer shiner Nukes add no value to the older ones whose only useful purpose is to scare potential enemies. You can't have Single Payer Healthcare, but can have useless Weapons. Sad.

'murica.

Crazy how much of our tax dollars go to anything and everything but improving the lives of people who pay those taxes.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sweet Jesus mother****ing tapdancing Christ. That's real? I thought you were joking...

Get ready Its gonna get crazy.

 

[pauldun170]

It's understandable to want to maintain a nuclear component.
It's understandable to improve capability.
Numbers produced do not improve capability.

Modernization and and enhancing capability of our nuclear forces is already underway.

It would be helpful to pay attention to the news on a regular basis and not have the attention span of a poop nugget.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-gamble/104217/
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/obama-nuclear-weapons-109528

from forbes one year ago

However, there is one facet of national security — arguably the most important one — where President Obama is turning out to be a real hardliner. That area is nuclear weapons. Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that’s what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House
...
A new ballistic missile submarine. The U.S. Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are the most survivable part of the nuclear triad, but the subs will begin retiring at the rate of one per year toward the end of the next decade. To have a replacement ready, the Obama Administration is pushing ahead with the Ohio Replacement Program which will commence construction of a new class of subs in 2021. There will be twelve such vessels, each carrying 16 ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads. General Dynamics' Electric Boat division, builder of the Ohio class, is leading development of the next-generation subs, and will likely perform most of the construction. A separate Navy program is extending the life of the Lockheed Martin D5 missiles carried on the Ohio class, and at least initially on its successor. Both the missiles and their improved warheads will be operational for another 30 years.

A new strategic bomber. The airborne part of the nuclear triad currently consists of 76 aged B-52 bombers and 20 newer B-2s, both of which also perform non-nuclear missions. However, a senior Air Force officer told Congress earlier this year that the bombers “are becoming increasingly vulnerable to modern air defenses,” so last month the service awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman for development of a “Long Range Strike Bomber” that will provide 80-100 very stealthy successors beginning in 2025 (loser Boeing is protesting the award). Meanwhile, all of the nuclear missiles and gravity bombs carried on the bombers are being upgraded to extend their lives, improve their accuracy, and assure their safety. A new air-launched cruise missile is also planned, but the administration is taking no chances, pouring billions of dollars into enhancing the performance and connectivity of the existing fleet.

A new intercontinental ballistic missile. The third leg of the nuclear triad consists of 450 Minuteman III missiles deployed in hardened silos at three bases in the western U.S. The Air Force is spending $7 billion to modernize the propulsion systems, guidance, warheads and other elements of the Minuteman force, but the force’s projected service life only extends to 2030. In 2014, the command responsible for managing the missiles conducted an analysis of alternatives for developing a next-generation “Ground Based Strategic Deterrent,” meaning a new ICBM. InsideDefense.com reports that the Air Force will begin operating the new missile in 2027. Missile silos and launch control centers, which have become quite decrepit, will be renovated for decades of additional service. A parallel effort is under way to upgrade the warheads carried on ICBMs, substituting more powerful weapons from the retired MX missile.



An enhanced command, control & communications network. Credible deterrence requires a resilient command system that can ride out a surprise attack and then execute appropriate responses (there are numerous retaliatory options in nuclear war plans). The network of assets supporting this system includes sensors that can detect an attack, flying command posts, hardened underground operations centers, secure communications satellites, and a complex array of links between them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that administration plans for modernizing the nuclear command and control system will cost $52 billion between 2015 and 2024, with the biggest outlays going to Boeing for flying command posts, Lockheed Martin for satellites, and Northrop Grumman for sensors and networks. Raytheon will also likely be a key player in nuclear-related sensors and networks.

New tactical nuclear systems. Although the Obama nuclear posture has sought to minimize the role of nuclear weapons outside the area of strategic deterrence, the administration faces a practical problem in countering thousands of tactical nuclear systems that Russia has deployed in Europe. Under the doctrine of “extended deterrence,” the U.S. must have credible retaliatory options for dealing with the regional threat that these weapons pose in order to reassure its overseas allies. The administration therefore plans to equip at least some Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters with a capability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, and is upgrading the inventory of nuclear munitions suitable for conducting such operations.

A revitalized nuclear weapons industrial base. Much of the responsibility for supporting the U.S. nuclear posture resides not in the Department of Defense, but in the Department of Energy. DoE is expected to spend $121 billion between 2015 and 2024 on its nuclear-weapons functions, over a third of the $348 billion spent on the nuclear enterprise during that period. A big chunk of that money will go to the laboratories and industrial facilities involved in researching, refurbishing, modifying or demilitarizing nuclear devices. Although the U.S. no longer builds new nuclear warheads, it is constantly reclaiming nuclear material from old devices and enhancing the features of warheads already in the stockpile. That requires extensive investment in revitalizing the plant and equipment at facilities that often trace their origins to the dawn of the Cold War.

Some might quibble with using the word “buildup” to characterize this sprawling effort, since the Obama Administration does not plan to exceed weapons levels specified in arms reduction agreements. However, the reality is that President Obama is backing efforts to upgrade and replace every nuclear delivery system in the U.S. arsenal, plus the warheads they carry, plus the command networks and industrial base that supports them. None of his recent predecessors undertook nuclear efforts this ambitious — the Arms Control Association says the life-cycle cost of the new submarine alone will be over $300 billion through 2080 — and whether the arsenal shrinks or grows will be left to his successors. So for all of the criticism about Mr. Obama being weak on defense, when it comes to the most fearsome weapons humanity has devised, he will be remembered as the president who kept America on top.
.

 

[JSt0rm]

No contraction for me, Russia and China are our enemy. Plain and simple.

Then why did you vote for and support the candidate that russia wanted?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Then why did you vote for and support the candidate that russia wanted?

I never voted for Barack Obama and i think you're an asshole for trying to claim i did.

 

[momeNt]

We need to be investing in anti-anti-missile systems in order for our outdated payload to be delivered.

I'm sure Trump understands, doesn't matter how many nukes you have if Russia blows them up while there are somewhere over the ocean or over Canada - whoops.

 

[dank69]

I never voted for Barack Obama and i think you're an asshole for trying to claim i did.

I was getting worried we hadn't seen a conservative use the I'm rubber you're glue defense for awhile. Thanks buddy.

 

[JSt0rm]

I never voted for Barack Obama and i think you're an asshole for trying to claim i did.

You are a Russian.

 

[hal2kilo]

I doubt that. They're refurbished & everything tested (short of detonation) on a continuous basis. They'll work as intended should the need arise.

The winners of nuclear war will get to celebrate victory from their oxcarts.

Yea, we're just sitting around watching them rot. I bet they know nothing about the D5 Life Extension Program. It's still fun watching idiots blather about things they know nothing about.

 

[Balt]

Maybe he can use his twitter skills to bring down the price of replacing the Ohio class submarines.

Not sure I'd want to be 500ft below the surface in a bargain bin sub, though.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I was getting worried we hadn't seen a conservative use the I'm rubber you're glue defense for awhile. Thanks buddy.

My pleasure, i'm glad i could make your day.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You seem to act as if arming the United States with the best and state of the art nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

7100 warheads not enough? How many times do you want/need to be able to destroy the planet?

 

[pcgeek11]

The U.S. currently has:

• No reprocessing capacity to extract plutonium
• No uranium enrichment capacity
• No plutonium production reactors in service

We'll get right on that Mr. President.

Jobs.

 

[Victorian Gray]

yay, back to the days of duck and cover!

I remember it well. Along with the regular testing of air raid sirens and the emergency broadcast network over the radio and tv.

 

[theeedude]

Rick Perry will design some new ones for him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Rick Perry will design some new ones for him.

He has glasses for that?

 

[dank69]

He has glasses for that?

 

[Victorian Gray]

 

[ivwshane]

Jobs.

Yep! More white welfare please!

 

[MrSquished]

He wants to add nukes but demolish the Dept. of Energy which oversees the nation's nuclear stockpile. Imagine that.

 

[crashtech]

I doubt that. They're refurbished & everything tested (short of detonation) on a continuous basis. They'll work as intended should the need arise.

The winners of nuclear war will get to celebrate victory from their oxcarts.

Last I read on this issue, there were some real concerns about the age of some of the components. Links to back your assertion would prove interesting, even if the value of a nuclear deterrent is not as clear as it once was.