Comments for FAS Strategic Security Blog

Comment on Extensive Nuclear Missile Deployment Area Discovered in Central China by 乐官军

乐官军 — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:31:54 +0000

哈哈哈，连陆基发射基地都找到了，美国他妈的逼确实厉害，干你奥巴马的女儿，哎~！你们不是想知道中国核规模吗？告诉你们吧，中国有3500枚可以打击美国任何地点的导弹，并且这一数字还会继续增加。

Comment on USAMRIID Suspends Select Agent Research by becky mizzell

becky mizzell — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:08:55 +0000

My son died on april 21, 2012…he was on life support for 2 months and I had to make the decision to turn off the ventilator and let hin die,,,he lived for 2 days and died.I was at his bedside for 2 months. I want him to be known as a good man, honest, generous, loved by his family and friends, He fought hard for a long time to stay with us…he was very ill for a long time.I am attempting to have “chris’ law” passed where no one under 21 can be involved in these experiments unless their parents are informed first and have a chance to counsel with them first, and also, if a young soldier comes out out of the military with a service connected medical problem, the family or parents are to be informed so they can be sure their loved one receives proper medical treatment, My son was only 17 when he enlisted into the military and had the experiment only 1 week after his 18th birthday. This is unacceptable in my mind, because my son was too young and inexperienced to make an informed decision, and also because these experiments were outlawed the year before he enlisted,

Comment on NATO’s Nuclear Groundhog Day? by Ted Seay

Ted Seay — Tue, 22 May 2012 08:42:45 +0000

[SIGH] Cue “I Got You, Babe”, and get ready to go over the exact same ground on NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements again now that the DDPR has concluded…

…and again…

Comment on NATO’s Nuclear Groundhog Day? by JAN

JAN — Sun, 20 May 2012 16:14:03 +0000

Eastern Europeans are also against nuclear weapons and I see no reason why the location of U.S. warheads in NATO. But their leaders are of the view that NATO threatens them.

NATO Summit in Chicago once again confirm its nuclear status quo in Europe, surely?
NATO Summit in Chicago is also the war in Afghanistan.
The Chicago Summit: Whither NATO after Afghanistan?Foreign Minister of the Republic of Poland Radosław Sikorski
http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20120517PISM/PISMaddress.pdf

Comment on NATO’s Nuclear Groundhog Day? by Frank Shuler

Frank Shuler — Fri, 18 May 2012 17:56:45 +0000

I always find it interesting that the people of Western Europe are against nuclear weapons and see no reason today for the American warheads in NATO. The politicians in Germany, Belgium, Italy, etc. are all against nuclear weapons based in their country and certainly are reluctant to spend even a dime to support the cost of maintaining such a NATO nuclear mission. Yet, the B61s remain. Only Greece has withdrawn from such a mission.

Curious to your opinion why?

Frank Shuler
USA

Comment on New Report: US and Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons by Distiller

Distiller — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:06:52 +0000

The Russian setup, having all kind of delivery systems nuclear-capable, is considerably more robust than the U.S. setup. Especially the lack of nuclear warheads for tactical use by the Navy is a mistake.

Don’t agree with your comments on openness. Part of the deterrence game is to let the other side guess where the stuff is. And I also disagree that they have no mission. Their mission is to keep the option of a flexible response, to keep potential enemies from playing salami tactics and sub-strategic-threshold aggression games. And don’t forget: As the final line in the sand a small tactical nuclear warhead exploded at high(er) altitude could be quite useful. Plus the use of tactical nuclear weapons at sea is a totally different chapter, and I guess it should be seen seperatly from the question of their use in land warfare.

Russia’s reasoning, that the U.S. should withdraw it’s tactical warheads from foreign soil is actually reasonable and – let’s be honest – symbolic only, since it would take only hours and those warheads are ready for use at any point of the globe. But it would be a gesture. That the U.S. isn’t willing to go even that little step, while at the same time isn’t willing to accomodate Russian misgivings about strategic missile defence is a message in itself. And no-one inside the beltway should be amazed that Russia focuses on Yars and Borei/Bulavas as a response. And I actually don’t see any uncertainty about Russia’s internal position on the issue, or the need to re-evaluate. They keep their options open in case of war and see tactical nuclear weapons as a natural extension of their conventional capabilities. (Why do I have to end up defending Russia??)

Comment on B61 Nuclear Bomb Costs Escalating by Frank Shuler

Frank Shuler — Sat, 12 May 2012 17:14:06 +0000

Early in the Obama Administration in 2009, Senator Carl Levin chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee that reviewed the DOD-DOE budget request for nuclear weapons. When the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) was first presented, Senator Levin thought it was certainly a candidate for cancellation. Tactical nuclear weapons in general and the B61 gravity bomb in particular seemed out-of-step with political realities in Europe where US tactical weapons were being withdrawn from Germany and Great Britain and there was little interest in the NATO nuclear mission from the European countries. The US Air Force also seemed disinterested in the tactical nuclear mission; certainly not at the expense of a new strategic bomber or the conventional “Prompt Global Strike” program. Also, the USAF had the updated B83-1s for the strategic mission (B-2 & B-52s) with an enduring inventory of additional B83-0s in reserve. It seemed like the B-61 was an easy target for budget elimination. Then something unusual happened. Senator Levin was surprised to learn that the B61 LEP was the “single most important nuclear project of the Obama Administration”. (paraphrased, quotation mine) I think Sen. Levin was stunned at the push-back of the Obama security team for this program. The project was approved and the B61-12 born.

The question is why? What makes the B61-12 weapon so important? Is it just the design; the multi-tasking ability to be carried by both the B-2 (strategic) and the F-35 (tactical) aircraft? Perhaps the B61-12 is optimized for future UCAV use? Or, is there a Pentagon project today “in the black” that will use the B61-12 bomb?

There is more to this story than simply a design that allows the DOD/DOE to combine B61 inventories to “save space” in the American nuclear arsenal.

What is it we don’t know?

Frank Shuler
USA

Comment on New Article: French Nuclear Modernization by Keith

Keith — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:48:52 +0000

HK,

Thank you for your reply. I would like to ask one question about it.
You stated “The difference between C-4 and D-5 is not simply about age. The D-5 has significant greater capability both in terms of range, accuracy and payload.”

Does this mean that if the US were to introduce a replacement for the D5 that had less capability you would not consider it a modernization? In order to narrow the scope of our discussion I propose a new design missile that has less range (10% or greater) and less payload (still MIRVed but capable of carrying 2 fewer warheads) but with similar accuracy (no more than 5% increase).

I understand and agree with your point about D5 being vastly more capable than C4 but I would consider the new missile above to be much more of a modernization even though the capabilities are less. Improvements in other areas that do not directly affect the capability of the missile (produce-ability, maintainability, lower cost, etc.) would still provide an improvement to the strategic capabilities of the US.

Comment on US Releases Full New START Data by Hans Kristensen

Hans Kristensen — Fri, 04 May 2012 19:57:36 +0000

Here is finally an answer to the question that Frank Shuler and others have raised about the mysterious deployment of B-52G bombers at Minot AFB that is listed in the New START aggregate data. The mystery: there are no B-52Gs at Minot, so why does the New START list them at the base? I asked both Minot and Air Force Global Strike Command. Here is the answer:

“There are no B-52Gs at Minot AFB, N.D. They are at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC), Davis Monthan AFB, Ariz., where aircraft are regularly decommissioned. In accordance with accounting requirements, we have them assigned to Minot and as visiting Davis Monthan.” Actually, “the B-52Gs have been at DM since (approx), mid-1990s.”

Apparently, nuclear-capable bombers are only allowed to be based at certain bases under New START, and Davis Monthan is not one of them. So they had to do a little accounting magic.

Comment on New Report: US and Russian Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons by 971

971 — Thu, 03 May 2012 06:06:59 +0000

Well, nothing surprising in this issue as far as ‘m concerned.
Non-strategic nuclear forces did have an increasing role to play in NATO-Russia relations since the beginning of START protocols. It appears to be more and more the main bargaining chip of both sides.
Russia not withdrawing/reducing its arsenal of non-strategic weapons as a precondition to similar efforts coming from NATO in Europe rather than as a goal, appears to me a logical response.