Apparently for the last decade or so we have been giving short shrift to our nuclear arsenal. Old designs, a self imposed test ban, nothing has rolled off the drawing board for decades, been produced and put in the field, these too, lie all weapons age. We are it appears not keeping up, as gates says below;

Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead. The United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities. China and Russia have embarked on an ambitious path to design and field new weapons.



U.S. nuclear arsenal faces crisis
Posted October 29, 2008 12:57 PM

by Frank James


How much have you heard on the presidential campaign trail about the growing weaknesses in the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

I don't recall hearing much about it at all, which probably says more about the way we view things in the post-Cold War world than we did during that anxious period of modern history.

But still it's no less true that the U.S. has real problems with a nuclear arsenal that's aging and a growing shortage of people who know how to turn that around.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to drive home that point yesterday during a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The inescapable conclusion from what he said it that our nuclear arsenal faces a crisis.



Here's a lengthy excerpt from his speech:

There is another element equally important to our arsenal's credibility: the safety, security, and reliability of our weapons. Let me first say very clearly that our weapons are safe, reliable and secure. The problem is the long-term prognosis, which I would characterize as bleak. No one has designed a new nuclear weapon in the United States since the 1980s, and no one has built a new one since the early 1990s.

The U.S. is experiencing a serious brain drain in the loss of veteran nuclear weapons designers and technicians. Since the mid- 1990s, the National Nuclear Security Administration has lost more than a quarter of its workforce. Half of our nuclear lab scientists are over 50 years old, and many of those under 50 have had limited or no involvement in the design and development of a nuclear weapon. By some estimates, within the next several years, three-quarters of the workforce in nuclear engineering and at the national laboratories will reach retirement age.

Our nuclear weapons were designed on the assumption of a limited shelf life and that the weapons themselves would eventually be replaced. Sensitive parts do not last forever. We can and do reengineer our current stockpile to extend its life span. However, the weapons were developed with narrow technical margins. With every adjustment, we move farther away from the original design that was successfully tested when the weapon was first fielded. Add to this that no weapons in our arsenal have been tested since 1992. So the information on which we base our annual certification of stockpile grows increasingly dated and incomplete.

At a certain point, it will become impossible to keep extending the life of our arsenal, especially in light of our testing moratorium. It also makes it harder to reduce existing stockpiles, because eventually we won't have as much confidence in the efficacy of the weapons we do have. Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead. The United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities. China and Russia have embarked on an ambitious path to design and field new weapons. To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.

For several years, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have pursued a Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, a program to field a safer, more secure warhead. New designs build in enhanced safety features and high reliability that can be assured without actual underground testing. The program would reinvigorate and rebuild our infrastructure and expertise, and it could potentially allow us to reduce aging stockpiles by balancing the risk between a smaller number of warheads and an industrial complex that could produce new weapons if the need arose.

The Congress has so far refused to fund the program beyond the conceptual phase, and this year funding was cut even for that. The reason, I believe, lies in a deep-seated and quite justifiable aversion to nuclear weapons, in doing anything that might be perceived as lowering the threshold for using them or as creating new nuclear capabilities. Let me be clear: The program we propose is not about new capabilities -- suitcase bombs or bunker busters or tactical nukes. It is about safety, security and reliability. It is about the future credibility of our strategic deterrent and it deserves urgent attention. We must take steps to transform from an aging Cold War nuclear weapons complex that is too large and too expensive to a smaller, less costly, but modern enterprise that can meet our nation's nuclear security needs for the future.

U.S. nuclear arsenal faces crisis: The Swamp

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Ironically, while Obama promised to gut nuclear weapons he is gonna oversee the biggest expansion in the use of deterants and funding for new warheads in history.

what makes you think so?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I think Obama realizes if Russia builds all-new nukes while our stockpile is broken, we are geopolitically screwed.

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

The world is pretty much on the brink of proliferation, on his watch we will likely see at least 4 to 6 more countries go nuclear and some due to our support.

We haven't built a new warhead in God knows how long, the last test was half a generation ago and if he serves out two terms, by the time he leaves office there will be no-one who has worked on developing a new missle left working within the USAF's nuclear oversight divisions.

Bi-partisan commitees in Congress (with the make up of the bodies there are more Dems than Republicans) who hve said we need better technology, more tests, better BMDS systems and his own chair of the Senate Homeland Security committee wants us to stop destroying weapons as per our agreement with Russia.

yes well just because it may be the right thing to do, doesn't mean we will, last year the RRW prgm. had its budget zeroed out, what makes you think this congress will be any more amendable to spending money on it?


I can hear it now; people are out of work and starving and we are spending money on what? Snniiippp.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

ture, but since when did that matter?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

There was an article in the Nov/Dec issue of Forgeign Affairs called "The Logic of Zero...
Foreign Affairs - The Logic of Zero - Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal

While I have a lot of trouble trying to agree with the position that we should trust other nations to play fair and disarm... it's very hard to explain (from an objective point of view) why we can have the weapons that we tell other nations they can't have.

because there was a treaty signed as the realization by many as to keeping as many nations without such is better for mankind than all of them having them...

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I agree with those ideals... but here enters my difficult choice. I don't want a world where we all live in fear of nuclear disaster. but if we have a mass disarming then the ones left holding the bombs will have a massive amount of power.

Moreover, the physics of nuclear weapons aren't that complicated. (In a relative sense)

I think we should all be more worried about the missle tech developments. That scares me more.

visit iran, you'll have a first hand look...

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

The missile defense program buys us some time. I think we do need to upgrade our weapons, though.

I don't think Russia has the balls to do anything to us. We consume oil like crazy and that's what is keeping the Russian economy alive. They will test us for a while. They'll make moves in tiny, who-gives-a-shit countries like Georgia until something big happens.

Israel will take care of Iran, I think. If Iran develops the bomb, Israel will almost be forced to run one of their famous secret missions.

If India and Pakistan get into nuclear war, that takes care of the source of the remaining Taliban fighters, and we can bring back telemarketing jobs to America.

North Korea could get the bomb, I suppose, but they're so poor. They couldn't really afford a large arsenal, so dismantling that would be rather easy.

The only wild card is Venezuela. Let's say Ahmadinejad gives his pal Hugo a nuclear bomb. There's no telling what he could do.

Also, I'm going to guess that Afghanistan and/or Iraq will get the bomb. We've helped them out. Now it's time for us to fuck up and hand them the deadliest weapon in the world so they can threaten us and their neighbors.

Hopefully the Pentagon can make his handlers understand.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I don't think Iran will be handing over bombs to anyone anytime soon... it will be a while before they have enough working nukes. As for us giving bombs to Iraq or Afag, it's really unlikely. And I agree that we need to work on getting Iran under control but... lets be honest. We need to do it for OUR national interests. I understand the nessicity of keeping up a "for the common good" front. And it may be that this really is in the common good (this time). But we need to keep as many nations out of the Nuclear club as possible.

Realisticly Iran with a nuke is no more of a threat then they are now. Iran with an advanced weapons delivery system is a much bigger threat then they are now. Iran with both high tech missles and a nuke is bad bad bad news.

__________________
I have a Theory that the truth is never told between nine to five hours" - HST