U.S. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

Viktor wrote:Yes while it points out NATO hypocrisy it also shows Russia determination not to disarms tactical nukes or even think about it.

It gives Russia deterrent in front of massive NATO buildup that would most surely occurred.

In my view Russia must start preparing for an eventual LRTNF/Eurostrategic breakout, given that NATO is still determine to expand into former Soviet space.

The reference for the LRTNF/Eurostrategic is from the book "Weapons of World War III" whose author is William J. Koenig whuch I own it shows in the chapter "War of the Missile" that NATO and US planners were very worried of the RSD-10 Pioneer and other IRBM's.

A bit old, still good.
LMAO when i saw the floppy.

Operational American strategic nuclear forces, 2014
                                   
                         Delivery Vehicles / Warheads
Minuteman III W78/Mk12A = 200 / 220
Minuteman III W87/Mk21 = 250 / 250
ICBM (total) = 450 / 470                  

Trident II D-5 =  288 / 1,152

B-2 = 20
B-52H = 93

I wonder why USA didnt develop any new MIRV ICBM

US Nukes Cost $348B Over Next Decade

WASHINGTON — The US government will spend an estimated $348 billion over the next decade to maintain, upgrade and operate its nuclear arsenal, according to a new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

That figure is slightly down from a Dec. 2013 estimate of $355 billion, but still represents an average price tag of $35 billion a year — major costs in an era when the Pentagon is focused on finding savings.

The Pentagon's share of the $348 billion total is estimated at $227 billion, or about $6 billion more than the 10-year estimate published in 2013. The Department of Energy's total has shrunk by $13 billion in the newer estimate, down to $121 billion.

The drop in overall cost is due in part to "budget-driven delays in several programs, including a three-year delay for the new cruise missile and its nuclear warhead and longer delays in some programs for extending the useful lives of nuclear warheads," the CBO wrote in its report, released Thursday.

The overall breakdown looks like this:

$160 billion for strategic nuclear delivery systems and weapons;
$8 billion for tactical nuclear delivery systems and weapons;
$79 billion for nuclear weapons laboratories and their supporting activities;
$52 billion for nuclear-related command, control, communications, and early-warning systems;
$49 billion representing CBO's estimate of additional costs that would be incurred over the coming decade if the growth rates for the nuclear program's costs are similar to the average.

Costs were estimated by looking at nuclear budget lines, examining long-range plans for each relevant program, and projecting each one out.

"Over the next two decades, the Congress will need to make decisions about the extent to which essentially all of the U.S. nuclear delivery systems and weapons will be modernized or replaced with new systems," the authors of the study wrote. Indeed, there are major upgrades planned to the bomber, nuclear submarine and ICBM fleets, something the CBO calculated into their long-term projections.

The CBO projects $40 billion to be spent on the bomber fleet during this time period, which includes an expected ramp up in the Air Force's new Long Range Strike-Bomber. The nuclear submarine forces are estimated at $83 billion over 10 years, while ICBMs will cost $26 billion over the next decade.

The command and control subcategory of systems dropped $1 billion, the result of planned reductions in costs at Strategic Command and Global Strike Command.

US Navy Spends $302Min on Trident Nuclear Missiles - Pentagon

George1 wrote:I wonder why USA didnt develop any new MIRV ICBM

the U.S does not really need ICBM's with their Europe nuclear airforce weapons. in the case of war fighter and bomber aircraft will be fitted with EU-stationed Nuclear warheads and be send in attack-raids against Russia to prevent interception by ABM systems that proved effective in trials.

another reason fighter/bombers are fitted with these weapons is in some sort of desperate hope of catching Russia's Nuke trains before they are capable of launching. an MIRV is never going to hit the target. its more effective and cheaper to just distribute the Mirv warheads over several aircraft and try to get them.

its an desperate strategy im not sure NATO aircraft can pull-off against Russia's airforce and air defense. but EU's side of NATO was never meanth to defeat russia, just keep Russia busy when its being blown up to ruins so the U.S can roll in and engage with fresh forces Russia thats been fighting EU forces.

its why i absolutely hate seeing europe acting like some prostitute to the U.S, in case of conflict the EU would be blown to ruins again to satisfy warmongering jerks like MCcain and Nuland that deserve to be locked up in an nuclear reactor undergoing an meltdown.

im sure other (ex) eu forces here share my opinion, but im definatly willing to take up arms against U.S bases here if they dont want to leave voluntarily.

Moscow Content With INF Treaty, Wants More States to Join

Russia's Ambassador-at-Large Grigory Berdennikov said that despite divergent positions on several issues, Moscow and Washington agree that the INF Treaty should become a multilateral agreement.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Moscow does not consider it appropriate to review the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Washington – but would like more countries to join the treaty, Russia's Ambassador-at-Large Grigory Berdennikov said.
"The treaty has proven its viability," Berdennikov told RIA Novosti, adding that despite divergent positions on several issues, Moscow and Washington agree that the INF should become a multilateral agreement.

"Some states, that are still left out of practical work in this sphere, are very content with their position: no one exercises any serious pressure on them and they resort to the argument, well-accepted by the public, that they don't have to do anything because the United States and Russia possess the largest numbers of nuclear weaponry. This is wrong," the diplomat said.

The INF Treaty, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, bans nuclear and conventional ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers (300-3,400 miles).
Last July, Washington stated that Russia tested a ground-launched cruise missile, thus violating the INF agreement.

The Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed these accusations calling them groundless and noted that Moscow has a number of complaints of its own regarding Washington's compliance with the treaty.

In late January, Russian General Staff head Valery Gerasimov said that Moscow is concerned with US actions aimed at creating a global anti-missile defense system. According to Gerasimov, these actions are in breach of INF.



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150218/1018430952.html#ixzz3S6lTAeJ9

US Navy Tests Submarine-Based Ballistic Missile System

Lockheed Martin stated that the US Navy conducted its 155th successful test of the Trident II D5 submarine-based ballistic missile.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US Navy conducted its 155th successful test of the Trident II D5 submarine-based ballistic missile, the missile’s manufacturer Lockheed Martin said in a statement.

“These latest test flights demonstrate the reliability of the D5 missile and the readiness of the entire Trident Strategic Weapon System every minute of every day,” Mathew Joyce, Lockheed Martin Vice President of Fleet Ballistic Missile Programs said in the statement on Monday. “The Navy program office, the submarine crews and the industry team never rest to ensure the safety, security and performance of this crucial deterrence system.”

Lockheed Martin explained that the test was conducted in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday using special test configuration kits. The Navy regularly conducts unarmed tests of the D5 missile, which is part of the United States’ submarine-based Trident nuclear arsenal.

The D5 missile was first deployed on the US Navy’s Ohio class submarine and the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy Vanguard submarines in 1990. The D5 missile can travel 4,000 miles and carries multiple nuclear warheads.

The submarine-based Trident nuclear ballistic system has been deployed since the 1950s as a key element of the United States’ nuclear deterrent posture.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150224/1018656853.html#ixzz3SccIgQG5

Moscow to NORAD Head: Yes, We Can Contain Your Missiles Better Now. Sorry.

Moscow has said it fully understands US concerns over Russia’s growing military deterrence capabilities, and treats them with compassion.

The Russian Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the defense industry, Dmitry Rogozin, has answered US concerns over Russia’s growing military deterrence capabilities.

“I am very sympathetic. And I fully understand you!” the politician wrote in his microblog on Twitter.

His response was a reaction to the concerns voiced by the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) over Russia’s growing military potential; America's long-time missile defense arch-rival has been intensifying its military deterrence capabilities.

Adm. William Gortney told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written testimony on Thursday that Russian heavy bombers had flown more out-of-area patrols in 2014 than in any year since the Cold War.

“We have also witnessed improved interoperability between Russian long-range aviation and other elements of the Russian military, including air and maritime intelligence collection platforms positioned to monitor NORAD responses."

This is giving the Kremlin "deterrent" options "short of the nuclear threshold," Gortney said.

"Should these trends continue over time, NORAD will face increased risk in our ability to defend North America against Russian air, maritime and cruise missile threats," he noted.

The anxiety remains that the Russian deployments of aircraft and ships into Crimea and the Kaliningrad region could give Moscow a platform for the deployment of weapons that concern the US.

"They can range critical infrastructure in Alaska and in Canada that we rely on for a homeland defense mission," Gortney told senators, explaining the reach of the long-range Russian cruise missiles.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20150313/1019436965.html#ixzz3UIAktCRf

what anti-submarine tactics russia will use to destroy usa submarines ?  usa subs are quite stealtheir and they carry nukes . Do russians know where  americans subs are sitting in ocean  carrying nukes ? russian subs are called as Balck holes , so does it mean usa can't detect russians nuke subs in warfare .  

Is russia lagging or leading in anti-nuclear submarine warfare with usa .      

Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Does Russia know where usa subs are in pacific and european waters targetting russian cities with nuclear warheads missiles ?

doesn't matter... they don't have the anti submarine capability to destroy all western SSBNs before they can launch their weapons... and destroying them after they have launched their weapons might be satisfying, but of no practical use.

It would actually be easier to equip all Russian major cities and major military facilities with S-500 and shoot the SLBMs down.

Besides the whole concept that has kept the peace during the cold war was deterrence... you attack me and we both end up totally destroyed.

As soon as one side even just thinks they could get away with winning a nuclear war then there will be serious problems. (ie not backing down when they should...)

Moscow demands that US return home its foreign deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons

Russian diplomat said US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki "openly distorts facts, claiming that the US nuclear weapons in Europe are under US constant control"

MOSCOW, March 24. /TASS/. US must return its foreign deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons home, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said Tuesday

The spokesman said US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki "openly distorts facts, claiming that the US nuclear weapons in Europe are under US constant control and are never transferred to other countries."

Lukashevich commented on Psaki’s recent statement that the deployment of US nuclear armaments on the territory of its European NATO allies and the joint measures with NATO non-nuclear member states to practise the skills of their use corresponded to the Treaty on the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation.

"In actual fact, NATO’s so-called ‘joint nuclear missions’ stipulate the participation of the alliance’s non-nuclear member states in joint nuclear planning and the practice of the skills of using nuclear weapons with the involvement of carrier aircraft, their crews, the infrastructure of aerodromes and ground provision services of these states," the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

Modernization of US Nuclear Triad Imperative to Deterrence - STRATCOM

US Strategic Command Commander Cecil Haney said that the modernization of the US intercontinental ballistic missiles, missile submarines and strategic bombers was highly important to maintain a strong deterrent capability.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Modernizing the United States’ aging nuclear triad of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear submarines is imperative in order to maintain a strong deterrent capability, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Commander Cecil Haney said at a press briefing on Tuesday.

“When you look at the triad — the responsive nature of our intercontinental ballistic missiles, the survivable nature of our ballistic missile submarines, and the flexibility and visibility of our bomber leg — each of those provide unique characteristics that are so important to strategic deterrence in the 21st Century,” Haney said.

Haney’s statement came in response to a question regarding whether the United States needs all three nuclear capabilities at a time of budget constraints.

Haney also said that STRATCOM has put off some nuclear modernization programs to focus on other projects in a limited budget environment. But, he added that nuclear modernization could not be postponed longer, pointing to the aging nuclear submarines as an example.

While the maintaining US nuclear capabilities takes up less than 3 percent of the US defense budget, modernization would bring that level of spending to between 5 and 6 percent, he added.

Haney described the investment in nuclear modernization as an insurance policy for deterrence well into the future. He noted that the United States needs to respond to nuclear modernization in Russia and China in order to preserve a safe, secure, effective and credible deterrent in the future.

“The cost of not doing it can be more of a problem than the cost doing it,” the STRATCOM Commander said.

US Congressional Budget Office estimates project that the United States will have to spend approximately $35 billion annually to achieve the US Barack Obama administration’s goals to maintain and upgrade the US nuclear triad. From 2015 through 2024, the total cost would amount to approximately $348 billion.

The cost of upgrading the US nuclear arsenal will reach $1 trillion in the next three decades, according to The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

The US Strategic Command is one of nine unified commands in the US Department of Defense that is charged with nuclear command and control, space operations and global strike. The Command is also responsible for critical communications, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150324/1019962153.html#ixzz3VLHyjOLE

spending a trillion$ just for nuke upgrades . I believe, in coming years US has to cut short its military budget even more .

No objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear arms in Europe — Russia’s NATO ambassador

US non-strategic nuclear arms are still deployed in the territories of non-nuclear members of the alliance, for instance, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey

MOSCOW, May 15. /TASS/. There are no objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear arms in Europe, Russia’s Permanent Representative at NATO Alexander Grushko said on Friday.

"I am speaking about the practice of the so-called nuclear mission of NATO member countries. This problem is not new. It came into being even before the signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968," he said. "The matter is that US non-strategic nuclear arms are still deployed in the territories of non-nuclear members of the alliance, for instance, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey."

"However a number of non-nuclear NATO states have airborne vehicles, planes capable of carrying nuclear weapons," the Russian diplomat noted. "It is categorically forbidden by the NPT treaty. Its article 1 bans nuclear countries to hand over control over nuclear arms or other nuclear explosive devices to anyone, directly or indirectly."

"Now, the partners are pretending to be hearing about this problem from us for the first time. It is absolutely wrong," he underscored. "It is a systemic problem impacting the implementation of the NPT treaty."

"Up till now, Europeans allocate their territories to deploy such nuclear arms, undertake to give specially equipped planes with specially trained crews to deliver such weapons should a conflict erupt, take part in NATO’s collective exercises to drill nuclear weapons handling skills," Grushko said.

"As of today, there are no objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear weapons in Europe," he stressed. "The mere presence of US nuclear arms in Europe is a destabilizing factor."

Moscow is confident that "an essential condition for maintaining strategic stability, for placing nuclear weapons under control and continuing their reduction is returning to the basic notions of the NPT treaty," the Russian diplomat said. "And, for example, withdrawing all nuclear arms in national territories, as Russia did. The United States must pull out these nuclear bombs to its territory. IT would be a serious contribution to strategic stability and security in Europe."

B-52 bombers to exercise over Sweden

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6170058

George1 wrote:No objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear arms in Europe — Russia’s NATO ambassador

US non-strategic nuclear arms are still deployed in the territories of non-nuclear members of the alliance, for instance, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey

MOSCOW, May 15. /TASS/. There are no objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear arms in Europe, Russia’s Permanent Representative at NATO Alexander Grushko said on Friday.

"I am speaking about the practice of the so-called nuclear mission of NATO member countries. This problem is not new. It came into being even before the signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968," he said. "The matter is that US non-strategic nuclear arms are still deployed in the territories of non-nuclear members of the alliance, for instance, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey."

"However a number of non-nuclear NATO states have airborne vehicles, planes capable of carrying nuclear weapons," the Russian diplomat noted. "It is categorically forbidden by the NPT treaty. Its article 1 bans nuclear countries to hand over control over nuclear arms or other nuclear explosive devices to anyone, directly or indirectly."

"Now, the partners are pretending to be hearing about this problem from us for the first time. It is absolutely wrong," he underscored. "It is a systemic problem impacting the implementation of the NPT treaty."

"Up till now, Europeans allocate their territories to deploy such nuclear arms, undertake to give specially equipped planes with specially trained crews to deliver such weapons should a conflict erupt, take part in NATO’s collective exercises to drill nuclear weapons handling skills," Grushko said.

"As of today, there are no objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear weapons in Europe," he stressed. "The mere presence of US nuclear arms in Europe is a destabilizing factor."

Moscow is confident that "an essential condition for maintaining strategic stability, for placing nuclear weapons under control and continuing their reduction is returning to the basic notions of the NPT treaty," the Russian diplomat said. "And, for example, withdrawing all nuclear arms in national territories, as Russia did. The United States must pull out these nuclear bombs to its territory. IT would be a serious contribution to strategic stability and security in Europe."

Dutch Volkel Airbase has an separate U.S facility on its grounds, where NO dutch millitary serviceman is allowed unless unarmed and under american escort.

the U.S sells this as "giving 22 B-61 Nuclear bombs for use by the Netherlands". while in reality the situation is much more ...unsettling and pissed off the necessary Dutch air force officers in the past.

1. the EU staged Nuclear weapons where only intended for U.S armed forces use. always where and always will. no local government in the EU has acces to these U.S nuclear weapon sites or any authority. its like an island of full U.S authority within an country.

2. in Dutch Volkel AB, they are not 22, they are 68. they just conveniently only counted the first bunker above ground.

3. the B-61's on Volkel are scheduled for replacement in 2015/2016 for the B-83, where the B-61 is an tactical one the B-83 is your multitude Hiroshima effect bomb.  1.3 MT or so... i cant recall its exact capable yield.

with some common sense, every simpleton knows, that these weapons will NOT be used by any EU pilot as they will never drop an strategic-grade nuclear weapon in their own home's backyard. for the ones here keeping track of U.S airforce deployment in Europe may know there is always an "visiting" U.S airforce unit present nearby Volkel AFB. currently the F-15's of the U.S are temporarily stationed in Leeuwarden AFB. 1 hour drive from Volkel AFB.

the reason the Netherlands hosts these kind of weapon's for the U.S is obvious. if the U.S can not have Europe, nobody will. the Dutch government just is insured of good money for keeping it secret and selling out its own people.

the reason the Netherlands hosts these kind of weapon's for the U.S is obvious. if the U.S can not have Europe, nobody will. the Dutch government just is insured of good money for keeping it secret and selling out its own people.

Pssshh, don't say that because you will be branded a lunatic and conspiracy theorist...some here don't like to hear facts about US intentions or its drive for WW3 in its failure of world hegemony.

[quote="Airbornewolf"]

George1 wrote:No objective reasons to keep tactical nuclear arms in Europe — Russia’s NATO ambassador

US non-strategic nuclear arms are still deployed in the territories of non-nuclear members of the alliance, for instance, in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey





the U.S sells this as "giving 22 B-61 Nuclear bombs for use by the Netherlands". while in reality the situation is much more ...unsettling and pissed off the necessary Dutch air force officers in the past.

1. the EU staged Nuclear weapons where only intended for U.S armed forces use. always where and always will. no local government in the EU has acces to these U.S nuclear weapon sites or any authority. its like an island of full U.S authority within an country.

2. in Dutch Volkel AB, they are not 22, they are 68. they just conveniently only counted the first bunker above ground.

3. the B-61's on Volkel are scheduled for replacement in 2015/2016 for the B-83, where the B-61 is an tactical one the B-83 is your multitude Hiroshima effect bomb.  1.3 MT or so... i cant recall its exact capable yield.

If Russia knows what you mentioned which they surely would then why dont they cry out loud in front of media that how usa is breaking treaties . Atleast show usa real face

@ Werewolf, i have not been called that here yet. people do not have to believe me, im putting out the info i learned from my own service and still active contacts. what people do with my comments is up to themselves. and if people think im an conspiracy nut, i only ask them to look up "operation Gladio" and ask themselves if what i am saying is so far fetched and crazy.

@ max Steel, its all Politics. of course Russia knows these things. but while the U.S.A makes an moron of itself on the world stage Russia seems content to just counter the direct problem in the shadows while remaining calm in the political scene. its most effective in long term. also, long-term goal of Russia is to draw the EU in the Eurasian association agreement. it gains nothing by publicly stating things that the Western media just will cover up. its employing soft power for its goals.

it does not take away the weapons are still there, but Russia's nuclear forces can counter that. besides, unlike NATO. Russia did not mothballed it air defense forces.

US spokesman assures that this "Security Political Signal" should in no way be taken as nuclear war "sabre rattling"     :
US B-52 Bombers over Sweden to send Moscow a ' Security Political Signal '

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150522/1022467151.html]http://sputniknews.com/military/20150522/1022467151.html