Obama plans to cut up to 40 percent of nukes

[cory777]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – A government document reveals that the Obama administration is planning to cut the U.S. nuclear stockpile by up to 40 percent by 2021.

The Energy Department document provides details of the reductions that President Barack Obama has called for on a path to eliminating nuclear weapons. The reductions continue a trajectory of cuts that already has reduced U.S. stockpiles by about 75 percent since 1989.

In May the administration said that it had 5,113 nuclear warheads.

The new document says the administration would like to reduce that number to a range of 3,000 to 3,500.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_nuclear_stockpile

[meowomon]

1. OK, I'm falling back in love with Obama.

I'll keep the bumper sticker on just a litle bit longer and maybe I'll fall completely and madly head over heels again like I was in November 2008.

[Xenotime]

33. Me too.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

34. I am afraid it may be an unrequited love, however

From 5000 to 3500? Which is still enough to destroy the entire planet several times over?

Your early and easy accolades do us all disservice.

[Radical Activist]

2. Where the hope and change?!?!?!!

Oh, here it is.

[inna]

3. I think that's what he got his Nobel for. That was the expectation, anyway.

I'll believe it when I see it happen, but still... at least some good news, for once. KR

[Socal31]

4. Is there really a difference?

We only need enough nukes to ensure MAD against Russia, China, and any future States with nuclear weapons and the ICMBs or submarine/bomber platforms to deliver them.

[happyslug]

21. During the 1960s that was determined to be no more then 500 bombs

Thus out of the 4000 plus bombs we have, we need to cut more then 85% of existing Nuclear weapons NOT just 40%.

Why did the US go with over 4000 bombs in the 1960s? This goes back to the bomber madmen of WWII, you believe you could defeat an enemy by just bombing. When Studies were done after WWII about the Bombing of Germany it was found to have HELPED Germany more then it hurt Germany (Germans did NOT want to move out of their neighborhoods to the newer and larger factories in the Suburbs the Nazis had been building, the Allied Bombing Convinced them to do so, so only after the allied Bombing was Germany able to go to full War production).

The rest of the studies decided to ignore the physical positive effects of the bombing and found that the main affect of the bombing was to increase the resolve of the people being bomb to support their Government war efforts. The actual Bombing had minimal effect for most workers survived the bombing and could be put into production repairing the damage and getting things back into production. Overall the bombing was ineffective except in regards to things that was hard to replace OR could be kept destroyed by the bombing (i.e. Highways, Railroads, Dockyards, Airports, Electrical Generation facilities, Water and Sewerage plants, and that is why these are high priority targets of any air attack today).

During the 1950s when these reports hit, the US Air Force decided the problem was NOT that bombing was ineffective, but they had NOT dropped down enough bombs. With Nuclear weapons you could do more destruction with one bomber then you could with all the conventional bombers of WWII and thus the Air Force went Bomber crazy. 500 Bombs was all that was needed, but the Air Force decided to make sure each target was hit you could NOT rely on one bomber, but two, sometime three and to make sure those bombers arrived over the target you had to knock out any possible air defense unit on the way, and since these could be "Mobile" i.e. moved, every possible location that Air Defense unit could use had to be hit. Furthermore to make sure these units were hit you had to assign at least two different planes to each target with two different Nuclear Weapons.

Just think about the previous paragraph and you quickly see how we came to have over 4000 bombs, to make sure at least 500 bombs hit the primary targets. When the US Navy was let in on the Air Force Planning in the mid 1950s the US Navy thought in terms of 500 or so bombs, and found the Air Force Crazy. When the British Royal Air Force (RAF) was left in about the same time, the RAF thought the US Air Force was Crazy (And out of that RAF View came a book that later became the Movie "Dr Stranglove or I how I learn to love the bomb".

Note all of the above was in the 1950s when bomber was supreme. In the 1960s Missiles came in and became part of the attack mission, and the US Navy seeing that Congress was agreeing to the Air Force view (Remember the "Missiles Shortage" of the 1960 Campaign? It was alleged the Russians had more Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) then the US and the US needed to catch up (In reality the US had twice as many missiles as the Soviets).

Just pointing out HOW we came to have 4000 Nuclear bombs when all we needed was no more then 500, and that was known in the 1950s.

[MicaelS]

28. It wasn't just bombs, they wanted massive numbers of ICBMs, too

General Curtis Lemay wanted 10,000 (TEN THOUSAND!) Minuteman ICBMs.

General Tommy Power wanted 20,000.

[jberryhill]

31. 500 devices was not a credible retaliatory strike capability

If the goal is deterrence, instead of first strike, then the object is to maintain enough devices and delivery methods such that even a retaliatory strike would result in annihilation.

The entire point is not to use them at all, but if one does not have faith in a rational opponent, then a retaliatory strike capability is the conclusion reached.

[happyslug]

38. 500 Cities GONE is NOT a Deterrent????

Lets be honest, the reason the US production stopped at 4500 bombs was that killed off 98% of the Soviet Population. To get the next 1% we had to double the number of bombs (i.e. the 10,000 bombs Curtis DeMay wanted). That was even to much for Congress and the number stopped at 98% of the Soviet Population.

The Soviet number seems to be in response to America (i.e. the same groups advocating more missiles and bombs because the US had so many missiles and bombs). China seems to have kept and lead on such advocates (As have France and Britain, all three could produce more bombs but could NOT justify them). The American deterrent was also that if Russia Attacked Europe we would bomb Moscow, anything else was useless. Any use of Atomic Weapons, even on a tactical basis would have escalated to a nuclear exchange. The Fear of Western Europe was what if the US refused to risk the US in an attack on Europe (Quote from De Gaulle "Would the US risk Chicago for Paris?). The sole purpose of tactical nukes was to escalate any fighting so that the US would launch a full scale nuclear attack. Thus the deterrent was NOT the local tactical bombs BUT the possibility of full scale nuclear exchange and for that all we needed was 500 bombs (And that could include some tactical bombs in Europe to start any escalation).

As to France and Britain the sole purpose was to destroy Soviet offensive capability if the US decided NOT to participate in such a fight, and they NEVER had more then 500 bombs between them for that was all they needed even if the US stayed out of the fight. Thus we keep coming back to 500 as the most bombs needed, for that is all we need to destroy the world so why do it 8 times over? The 4000 bombs were NOT a deterrent it was a claim to fame and for domestic consumption (as propaganda) NOT for actual use in any actual war.

As to the 500 bombs, look at the top 101 Cities in the US, if ALL were gone, could the US Fight a war in Europe? The top 100 population centers include any city with a population over 200,000. As we go to the next 400 targets we are hitting smaller and smaller targets. The return on the bang is marginal at 100, less so at 500 thus why do we need 4000 bombs as a deterrent? Please note many of these cities have much larger suburbs, for example Pittsburgh is #58 on this list, for it is a small city, but if you include its suburbs (All within a hydrogen bomb blast area) it is the 22 largest Metro Area. Thus the MSAs area is a better guide for such targets, but can the US support a war in Europe with ALL of its population centers with more then 50,000 people destroyed?

List of largest 101 US population Centers:
http://www.city-data.com/top2/c544.html

List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MTAs) the 322 American Metro Areas goes down to population with Metro Areas with population as low as 55,000 people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

[jberryhill]

40. "500 devices" does not mean 500 cities gone

After a first strike, it more likely means 500 devices gone.

You don't seem to have gamed the entire scenario that you spell out.

IF any confrontation - in your example an invasion of Europe - is going to escalate into a full scale exchange, then the clear option is for the Soviets to launch a surprise first strike on the US nuclear capability itself.

This leaves you with two options:

1. Launch on Warning - If you are not going to have enough to obliterate the Soviets after their first strike, then our strike needs to get off the ground before their strike hits. This is unstable, because of the possibility of a false alarm or other error.

2. Launch on Impact - This is more stable, because it is not subject to false alarm or other error. You are going to lose capacity, but you are not in the LoW "use 'em or lose 'em" dilemma.

The point is that if you have enough surplus capacity to survive a first strike in which you will LOSE capacity, but have enough left over for annihilation, then you eliminate any temptation for a first strike by the other side.

That position requires more than 500 devices.

The world has changed, so the primary US-Soviet game is not as relevant as it was, so now the point is to ratchet down while maintaining stability.

A first strike designed to degrade or impair those 500 "sufficient" devices, as well as command and control procedures for them, introduces uncertainty about whether you could get those devices off the ground. That uncertainty is destabilizing. The point was to obtain certainty. That is the objective of deterrence.

[happyslug]

41. Any attack will be on HOW the US can supply, and 100 bombs can do that

With the top US ports and Air ports out of Commission, the US will be out of any war. We are done. That was the SOVIET plan if an nuclear exchange took place and I suspect it was the US plans as to the Soviet Union. Once you understand SUPPLY, 100 bombs is all that was needed, 500 is overkill, 4000? Ego/Domestic political reasons NOT deterrent.

The First Strike fear was a Political issue created by the Military Industrial Complex to justify the expense of producing more and more DELIVERY devices (where the real money was) and of course the DELIVERY devices had to have something to deliver, thus the excessive number of bombs.

No one really expected a First Strike, for it had to get all missiles/bombers/subs etc (And the Soviet were depended on US Wheat, thus a first strike, if it worked, would lead to even longer bread lines in the Soviet Union). Once it was determined that a First Strike was impossible do to the fact all one needed was 100 bombs to destroy anyone's offensive capability unimportant, First Strike stopped being a military concern. Thus no one planned to launch a first strike for they was no benefit in such an attack. On the other hand people who wanted to BUILD Military toys and get Congress to pay for them, they had an interest to push for a First Strike Capability and did so (and to defend against such a capability, even if no one could really come up with a way it would work). First Strike was all lobbying to justify military spending NOT actual defense. It is the same lobby pushing for Star Wars and its ability to STOP missiles. More about defense spending then actual defense.

[jberryhill]

43. "No one really expected a First Strike"

How can anyone expect a surprise attack?

[Amonester]

22. I read 2,000 is enough to end (almost) all LIFE on this planet.

But hey, let's not be 'pure' and let us 'approve' the fact that 'it's better than what we have', even if the RW nuts will still accuse Dems to be 'soft on terror'.

At least, I read that a few 'deep water' unicellular creatures would manage to survive and start the whole dinosaur cycle again.

[Wilms]

5. I hope that doesn't mean a larger budget for Predators and the like. n/t

[deacon_sephiroth]

6. K&R

In a word... "hotdamn"

[deacon]

7. The opposite of bush/cheney. n/t

[rhett o rick]

8. Good work mr. President. nm

[theaocp]

9. Sounds great

Now do it and stop telling me what you plan to do. Crow about it afterward.

[old mark]

10. 1 more check mark in the good column....Thank you Mr. President...

It was needed and I am sure the RWers will be swarming on this...this took guts, and I appreciate it.

mark

[zipplewrath]

11. This is one huge area

For all the complaints I have about the current administrations actions, this is one huge area that is just not getting attention. I suspect it is intentional on their part, probably some concern about appearing "weak". But he is sustaining the draw down that has been going on since '89. AND, he has been leveraging that with the rest of the world to get Russia involved in reductions. At some point in the near future it will give us some greater credibility in discussing the world wide control of these weapons as well.

This is the BFD, and it's all just going on very quietly.

[Phoonzang]

12. Has anyone in the administration considered fitting the leftover ICBMs with conventional warheads

and using them as a "cheap" global strike weapon? If I remember correctly the things are accurate to within a few yards. I wonder if they if they could even be used as really,really, really, really long range artillery support for pinned down troops. Eh...probably not. I wouldn't want to be the guy sitting there waiting for the hammer to drop and hoping that I'm not in the radius of uncertainty.

Or maybe we could do something less destructive with them, like launch micro sats. The Former option will garner more votes in 2012 though. /realpolitik

[hack89]

15. That would most likely trigger a nuclear war

How would you know what kind of warhead a ballistic missile has until it impacts? If Russia or China saw a ICBM heading in their general direction what do you think their reaction would be?

[jberryhill]

32. That's Russia or China

One assumes that conventional ICBM's wouldn't be used against an opponent which has either distant early warning capability or a retaliatory capability.

One also assumes it wouldn't be used without notice to anyone that does.

[hack89]

42. All big ifs

you don't know how good China's or Russia's EW and nuclear command and control is - what if they are forced to make instantaneous decisions based on partial or incorrect information? Considering that many likely targets are close to either one, and considering the consequences of nuclear war, are you really willing to put that much faith in the idea that either country has the ability to make perfect decisions every time based on perfect data.

It would would be less destabilizing to invest in other technologies for long range conventional strike - converting ICBM strikes me as a false economy.

[jberryhill]

44. I didn't say it was a good idea

But in some hypothetical where we would use one against BadLuckistan, such a strike would be coordinated with the Russians for some objective of mutual interest.

[RC]

47. Let them in on the launch. Invite them even.

Most secrets only protect the wrong doers in the first place.

[hack89]

49. What if we were attacking an ally of China or Russia? nt

[RC]

60. Read post 12 & 15.

[sir pball]

37. Yes, they have.

Prompt Global Strike

As of 2010 the Air Force's prototype is a modified Minuteman III ICBM.<4> However, a major problem with an ICBM-launched weapon is that it may trigger the nuclear warning system of Russia or even China, which caused George W. Bush to shelve plans for the system.<5> It is currently unclear what designs or precautions would be certain to assure these countries that a launched missile is not nuclear-tipped. Potential measures include a low-trajectory missile design or allowing Russian and Chinese inspection of missile sites.<4><3>

[Statistical]

51. That is the big danger.

There should be no blurring of the lines between conventional and nuclear weapon systems.

Many people don't realize but we came very close to ending the world many times in the past 50 years due to human failures, system failures, and mistakes.

I remember reading about one incident after we had installed a new early warning sat. It worked very well in the summer than one winter evening it notified NORAD of a full launch. Thousands of independent confirmed Soviet missile launches. The secondary sat confirmed the same thing. Essentially the Soviets had launched EVERYTHING.

Many in NORAD wanted an immediate counter value strike (ignore soviet military and aim for soviet population centers try to exterminate the enemy). The claim was that by waiting for confirmation we reduced the number of retalitory weapons which will survive first strike. Luckily cooler heads prevailed and NORAD waited for early warning radar tracks as the "missiles" passed over the north pole. Both EWR in Alaska and northern US showed nothing. There was some debate on is the EWR was satabatoged or if the Soviets had figured out a way to blind it. After enough time had lapsed that the first of the missiles should have struck the US and there were no reports on impacts it became obvious something was wrong.

Turns out the sats were confused by the combination of strong solar activity, a full moon, and newly fallen snow.
It created an strong IR reflection that the sat saw a missile launches. All the testing and calibration for the system had been done in the Summer.

We don't need anything that blurs the line between conventional weapons and nuclear ones.

[Vinca]

13. I'll reserve judgement and see how it turns out in the end.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Exactly. We've been sold this bridge before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/weapons_111701.html

I don't even remember what happened to that 1,700 number under Bush. It was announced, and waiting on ratification, and then I never heard anything about it again.

[Soylent Brice]

14. K&R

:thumbsup:

[happygoluckytoyou]

16. BY 2021---> any chance any pres could ever just do something DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE

[Statistical]

56. Dismantling nuclear weapons faster would require building new facilities.

We only have a single facility for production and dismantling of nuclear devices; Pantex. Ts at max capacity (3 shifts a day, 24/7, roughly 350 days a year) and just dismantling the previous arsenal cuts (with no new reductions in force size below 5,113 warheads) will take about 6 years. We still haven't dismantled all the weapons that Bush Jr cut and likely won't get to Obama's previous cuts for 3 or 4 years.

Obviously more cuts will then take even longer. Larger the cut the longer the time. The only way to make it go faster is to build new weapon facilities.

Dismantling weapons has to be done very slowly, and very carefully. Remember some of them were built 50 years ago. The people who built them are long dead. Designs have changed dozens of times of the years. differing components, specs, designs. Sometimes documentation is wrong, missing, or incomplete.

Starting to get the picture?

[eilen]

17. What do they do with them?

What happens to the warheads and the nuclear components? Why can't we do it this year? 2021 is a very long time in the future-- 11 years. A lot can happen in 11 years.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. The Pantex plant was already running at capacity doing dismantlement.

You can only put so much through that straw.

The warhead pits can become fuel for nuclear reactors. Hell, we might even sell some of them to Russia. Happened before. It's good quality fuel.

[Statistical]

54. Actually Russians sold it to us for fuel.

A somewhat amazing stat:
Roughly 10% of all electricity in the US in the last decade came from dismantled nuclear weapons.

[No Elephants]

18. Non event. Even if done, we'll still have enough to destroy the world several times

over, not counting ones we've "misplaced."

[frylock]

45. i don't understand why this is a big deal either

[Statistical]

55. nuclear weapons cost trillions to maintain and protect.

The cost never goes away. The actual construction is trivial compared to the never ending cost of maintenance, repair, inspection, testing, and protection. Every second of every day forever we are spending money on these weapons which hopefully will never be used.

A 30% reduction means a 30% reduction in number of warheads which need to be maintained, inspected, tested, repaired, and guarded.


Anything that reduced the arsenal is a good thing.

The second reason is we aren't going to go from 5,000 to 0 overnight. It will happen in steps. Less is better right?

[No Elephants]

58. Yes, less is better, but this is not the kind of event some posts imply

[Botany]

19. Obama does the right thing time after time

:applause:

[paparush]

20. Good Start. Howzabout we cut the overall Defense budget by half of that amount

THAT would be some change I can believe in.

[fascisthunter]

23. this is good

hope it gets done

[bowens43]

24. meaningless nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. Barack Obama = Ronald Reagan

Let's see.
Both started off popular, with strong mandates, which eroded in the first term.
Both actively sought reduction, if not the total destruction of nuclear weapons.
Both suffered from economic crises when they took office.
Both suffered from energy based crises when they took office.
Both increased military spending.
Both had military occupations of choice.
Both had commanding presences behind a podium.
Both had strong supporters who often felt he did not do enough to pursue their goals.
Both had pragmatic political skills often overlooked by their political foes.


After that, the comparison really falls apart. Obama is trying, slowly, to reinsert science to the lofty position it once held. Reagan used faith based science at the start, after which it was honed to perfection by W. Reagan caused the AIDS spread to become an epidemic by refusing to fund research or even acknowledge its appearance in the US; Obama is seeking to apply real medicine to serious problems. HIs stance on antibiotic use in feed animals is simply wonderful.

I hated the Reagan administration, for many, many reasons, but I must admit, his pursuit of removing all nukes from our planet was excellent.

[closeupready]

26. I support this.

(And eventually, world nuclear disarmament.) K&R

[meow mix]

27. meanwhile, nuclear tentsions will be escalated with the expansion of a "missle shield"

fail.

[joebaur42]

35. West Wing

The West Wing had a great quote about nukes.

The US and Russia have the capability to blow each other up ten times over. Surely once is enough.

[AlphaCentauri]

36. I imagine they'll be substituted by more destructive bombs

[Statistical]

53. More destructive that nuclear weapons?

[Posteritatis]

59. I imagine they won't. (nt)

[craigmatic]

39. We should stop producing them all together. It's not like we'll ever use them anyway.

[Statistical]

52. We don't produce them.

We haven't produced a nuclear warhead in almost 20 years. We also haven't developed a new delivery system either.

We are simply using a shrinking pool of Cold War era systems. We perfected the killing of massive number of people some time. There is no need for "new" nuclear weapons.

[frylock]

46. only 3500 nooks?! wow!

:bfd:

[amandabeech]

48. Excellent! n/t

[Statistical]

50. I support this.

What a lot of cold war planners never considered is how effective boomers are.

Silos can be hit, bombers can be destroyed on the ground as such a multiplier was added and as the Soviet missile fleet grew the multiplier grew.

MAD is based on on countervalue not counterforce. Our goal in a counterforce objective was to kill the POPULATION not the military.
That takes a thousand of so warheads in 200kt range each. However the multiplier was based on scenarios where the Sovets destroyed 50%, 75%, 90% of our warheads still on the ground.


SLBM (sea launch ballistic missles) changed all that but we never reduced the arsenal. At any time we have 7 boomers at sea. They have two crews so each boomer stays out at sea for about 10.5 months a year (the rest used for retrofit & repair).

The boomers can be anywhere in the world and receive launch orders from anywhere in the world. They are virtully undetectable and travel very slowly, very very deep, and very quietly. They simply sit there and wait for the order everyone hopes never comes.

There is no counter for boomers. They are the "auto-win" button. As such we no longer need a multiplier. Hell we really no longer need any land based or air based weapons at all (UK went to a sub only deterrent a decade ago).

[Zorra]

57. I plan on being the richest and most benevolent person on earth in 2021.

But will it happen?

Doubtful.

I wish all nukes would be eradicated tomorrow. And cutting them by 2021 is better than nothing, unless, of course, we get nuked before then. Or unless republicans take over and scrap the plan.

Seems like a lot of these long range plans never come to fruition.