Aging U.S. nuclear arsenal slated for costly and long-delayed modernization

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  A nice, breath of fresh air in the middle of all the political talk. Here is article about the rising costs of maintain our nuclear arsenal. On the low end to maintain what we have will cost at least $350 billion, to over $1 Trillion on the high end.
  
  These cost are not just for the bombs, but also the delivery vehicles. We need new missiles, subs, and aircraft to maintain the current nuclear triad.
  The Minuteman III missile is in need of a replacement in the next 20 years, and we have over 400 of those.
  The Ohio class sub is set to retire in 2028 I believe, and costs are estimated to be $10 billion per boat.
  
  Also, there is the aging infrastructure to ensure the bombs work. Those totals are extremely high, Over 100 Million for each building.
  We are now facing questions we have not been asked since the Cold War. And, each administration as punted on the issue.
  
  What makes it more interesting is, even if we decrease our arsenal from what it is now 1,533, to let's say 750, it would be in the hundreds of billions to maintain that.
  
  In the age of declining budgets, maintaining our nuclear weapons, is still needed. Yet, no one is talking about it. We can't cut everything.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-nuclear-arsenal-is-ready-for-overhaul/2012/09/15/428237de-f830-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1272517 wrote:What makes it more interesting is, even if we decrease our arsenal from what it is now 1,533, to let's say 750, it would be in the hundreds of billions to maintain that.

  I'd agree with this with the caveat that we are strategic in the make-up of those 750 nukes. For example, there's a huge difference between a 15-20 megaton ICBM city buster and a small tactical nuke of 100 kilotons.
  
  Frankly I'd concentrate on maintaining the smaller tactical nukes since they would be the more likely used weapon of relative mass destruction in an escalated "conventional" conflict as opposed to the outdated mutually assured destruction Cold War policy of aiming ICBM's at specific enemy cities.
  
  Hell, we don't even know who the enemy is anymore.
  
  I'd keep and maintain 100 of the Castle Bravo-level nukes and then focus most of the maintenance on the 500-600 tactical nukes of various weapon yields.
• Footwedge

  We need about 50 healthy nukes. The rest of the program is just military bloat and unnecessary Keynesianism. Ike had it right. we didn't listen to him then...and we don't listen today either.
• brutus161

  

  Footwedge;1272616 wrote:We need about 50 healthy nukes. The rest of the program is just military bloat and unnecessary Keynesianism. Ike had it right. we didn't listen to him then...and we don't listen today either.

  Umm....no.
  
  I do agree that drawing down the numbers some is good, 50 is way too low.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;1272598 wrote:I'd agree with this with the caveat that we are strategic in the make-up of those 750 nukes. For example, there's a huge difference between a 15-20 megaton ICBM city buster and a small tactical nuke of 100 kilotons.
  
  Frankly I'd concentrate on maintaining the smaller tactical nukes since they would be the more likely used weapon of relative mass destruction in an escalated "conventional" conflict as opposed to the outdated mutually assured destruction Cold War policy of aiming ICBM's at specific enemy cities.
  
  Hell, we don't even know who the enemy is anymore.
  
  I'd keep and maintain 100 of the Castle Bravo-level nukes and then focus most of the maintenance on the 500-600 tactical nukes of various weapon yields.

  Interesting. I'd favor the subs more, as they are more responsive, and have the more credibility in terms of deterrence power.
  But, yeah, the tactical have the more "usage" in terms of various yields.
  Problem is, B-2's and fighters have the problem of deploying them effectively and quicker in a battlefield. Subs are harder to detect than the bombers, plus can provide a quicker response if needed.
  
  Still, myself, I'd keep a triad of three types, just over 250 on the subs, over 100 in the plains on missiles, and the rest for the B-2.
• brutus161

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1273189 wrote:Interesting. I'd favor the subs more, as they are more responsive, and have the more credibility in terms of deterrence power.
  But, yeah, the tactical have the more "usage" in terms of various yields.
  Problem is, B-2's and fighters have the problem of deploying them effectively and quicker in a battlefield. Subs are harder to detect than the bombers, plus can provide a quicker response if needed.
  
  Still, myself, I'd keep a triad of three types, just over 250 on the subs, over 100 in the plains on missiles, and the rest for the B-2.

  Absolutely perfect.