Tag: nuclear forces

Categories
Quick Analysis

Nuclear War Threat Returns

Cold War fears of nuclear war have returned, as Russia has established the world’s most powerful nuclear force, China has become a major atomic power, North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, and Iran will soon follow. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government has obtained a copy of the U.S. Department of Defense’s just-released analysis of the threat, which we present today.

THREAT

The United States and our allies face an increasingly threatening and complex strategic environment. Russia and China are increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and have been increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces. Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran are destabilizing regions through their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

RUSSIA

The United States and our allies face an increasingly threatening and complex strategic environment. Russia and China are increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their strategies and have been increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear forces. Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran are destabilizing regions through their pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

Russia is modernizing an active stockpile of up to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons employable by ships, planes, and ground forces.

CHINA

Over the next ten years, China is expected to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile while implementing the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history. China is developing, testing, and fielding new generations of land-based ballistic missiles, increasing the range of its submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and pursuing a new bomber. Further, it is expending significant resources on advanced nuclear-capable systems and hypersonic vehicles.

NORTH KOREA

North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. It has conducted increasingly sophisticated nuclear and ICBM flight tests, which pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and our allies.

IRAN

Iran has developed and fielded a substantial arsenal of ballistic missiles that can strike targets throughout the region. These ballistic missiles are a key component of Iran’s efforts to dominate its region of the world and intimidate U.S. allies and partners. Additionally, Iran’s current attempts to launch a space vehicle could provide valuable information that would aid its effort to develop an ICBM capability.

POLICY

While the United States has taken concrete steps to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, others have increased the number of nuclear weapons they field and have increased the role of nuclear weapons in their security strategies. Until nuclear weapons can prudently be eliminated from the world, the United States must maintain a credible nuclear force by modernizing where necessary to ensure the security of the United States, our allies, and our partners. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms that the United States will pursue a safe, secure, survivable, and effective nuclear deterrent while simultaneously pursuing nuclear nonproliferation and arms control efforts. The highest U.S. nuclear policy and strategy priority is to deter potential adversaries from nuclear attack of any scale. The United States would only consider employing nuclear weapons in the most extreme circumstances to defend our vital interests and those of our allies and partners.

STRATEGY

The three legs of the U.S. nuclear Triad are complementary, with each component offering unique strengths. Together, the Triad ensures the United States can effectively withstand and respond to any attack.

With 400 ICBMs, no adversary can disarm the U.S. nuclear deterrent without attacking hundreds of targets simultaneously. 

A portion of the SSBN fleet and its 240 SLBMs is always on patrol, making them very difficult to find and track.

The 60 nuclear-capable bombers are a clear and visible signal of U.S. intent and resolve during a crisis, and provide the President a variety of options.

Not only that all the reputed medicine company of online levitra that we are talking about. Male Hormone buy generic levitra TherapyLow Testosterone is another reason for ED. How Idea Of Kamagra Jelly Originated? Kamagra Jelly was initially introduced order viagra by the scientists of Pfizer laboratories UK as a drug for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Highly powerful kamagra tablets are prepared with sildenafil discount price viagra citrate active ingredient.

 U.S. nuclear weapons deter nuclear and strategic non-nuclear aggression, including chemical, biological, and large-scale conventional attacks. Our nuclear posture demonstrates to any adversary that nuclear strikes will result in far greater costs than any benefits the adversary could achieve. U.S. nuclear weapons provide assurance to allies and partners that the United States is committed to their security. Extended deterrence allows allies and partners to abstain from pursuing their own nuclear weapons, thereby contributing to our nonproliferation goals. Should deterrence fail, nuclear operations would adhere to the law of armed conflict as the United States will strive to end any conflict and restore deterrence at the lowest level of damage possible. The United States will continue efforts to create a more cooperative and benign security environment, but must also hedge against prospective and unanticipated risks.

POSTURE

Most U.S. nuclear weapons delivery systems have been extended far beyond their original service lives and cannot be sustained beyond the 2025 to 2035 timeframe. Although still reliable and credible, our current delivery systems, weapons, command and control systems, and infrastructure are rapidly aging into obsolescence. 

The FY 2021 Budget Request funds all critical DoD nuclear modernization, sustainment, and operational requirements, helping to ensure modern replacements will be available before the nation’s Cold War legacy systems reach the end of their extended service lives. 

Delays in funding for replacement systems will adversely impact military operations and undermine the deterrence mission.

PROGRAMS

COLUMBIA-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines will replace the nearly 40-year-old OHIO-Class submarines. 

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program will replace the nearly 60-year-old Minuteman III ICBM.

 B-21 Bomber will supplement the B-52 bomber and will have both conventional and nuclear roles. 

Long-Range Standoff Missile will replace the nearly 40-year-old Air-Launched Cruise Missile with a missile capable of penetrating defended airspace. 

Trident II (D5) Life Extension 2 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Life Extension program extends the D5’s service life for deployment on both OHIO- and COLUMBIAClass submarines.

 Sea-Launched Cruise Missile will reintroduce a flexible, sea-based, non-strategic nuclear capability to improve U.S. capabilities for deterring limited nuclear use and assuring our allies that we will meet our extended deterrence commitments. 

F-35 Dual-Capable Aircraft will replace F-15E DCA to support our allies through extended deterrence.

COST

The nation’s nuclear modernization program is affordable. The United States seeks only what it needs to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. 

DoD’s FY 2021 request for nuclear forces is roughly 4.1% of the total DoD budget, and the request to modernize these nuclear forces is about 1.7% of the total DoD budget request.

 The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review projects that the total cost to modernize, sustain, and operate U.S. nuclear forces over the next 20 years will account for about 6.4% of the Defense budget at its highest level of funding in 2029, returning to about 3% for sustainment and operations upon completion of modernization. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) FY 2021 budget request for Weapons Activities is approximately $15.6B for nuclear modernization, sustainment, and operations. NNSA is responsible for the nation’s nuclear warheads and supporting infrastructure.

Photo: B-21 bomber (U.S. Defense Department)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defenseless

Poland last week announced that it would develop its own missile defense system, in the wake of America’s failure to move ahead with its own system.

The world continues to nervously wait for the next Iranian advance in nuclear weaponry, and new North Korean missile tests. Defense officials worry about the possibility of terrorists obtaining an atomic bomb.

Despite these valid and significant concerns, the Obama Administration remains reluctant to fully fund an adequate missile defense shield for both the American homeland and our allies. Indeed, in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.

The growing international sophistication in missile technology is represented by the endeavors of Iran, which will launch three domestically made satellites next Spring.  The technology to accomplish this is essentially the same as that necessary to develop ICBMS.  Tehran’s Shabab 3 military missile has a range of almost 2,000 miles, and can strike American allies in the Middle East and Europe.

China continues to accelerate its potent nuclear weapons technology. It recently tested its DF-31A and CSS-4 ICBMs Beijing also has an extensive series of tunnels ideal for masking and protecting its nuclear weaponry.

And, of course, there is Russia.For the first time since the atomic age began, Moscow now has more deployed nuclear weapons than the United States. Indeed, in the realm of tactical nuclear weapons, Moscow has a ten-to-one advantage. In November, The Interpreter publication  analyzed Moscow’s intent to maintain the world’s preeminent nuclear force.

“…nuclear weapons have become the key element of ensuring Russia’s national security and presence in international relations. At the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry on December 10, Putin detailed the efforts at ‘modernizatsiia’, mentioning that Russia is set to receive 40 advanced and upgraded ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). This follows a meeting with the leaders of Russia’s strategic missile forces at the end of [October 2013], where plans detailing the deployment of 22 silo based and 18 mobile RS-24 Yars-M ICBMs were discussed. Russia is also conducting snap readiness checks alongside the introduction of new ICBMs.”
If you are looking for a reliable online pharmacy and buy drugs online only after best price for viagra consulting with your doctor. 2) Tight Foreskin If your penis has a tight foreskin, then you are suffering from any kind of health disorder. Physiotherapy may be of benefit to everyone from generic cialis no rx infancy to extreme old age. Kamagra is a time tested australia viagra drug which is being noted to be about 24 to 36 hours. For further security, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved Buy amerikabulteni.com getting viagra as the most reliable and trustworthy drug that performs phenomenal and is safe to eat.
In 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen  discussed NATO’s needs for missile defense.

“As we sit here discussing missile defense, some people elsewhere are discussing missile attack.  Over 30 states already have, or are developing, missile technology. These missiles can be fitted with conventional technology, or with weapons of mass destruction.  Some of them can already reach parts of NATO territory.  Others can threaten NATO interests.  And all the time, technology is advancing.  Ranges are increasing. Accuracy and payloads are increasing.  And the number of countries with proven capability is increasing. We cannot ignore these trends.  We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit.  We cannot take the risk of doing nothing.  Missile threats are real. And our defense must be real…At the same time, this will demonstrate that we will not be coerced or intimidated by proliferation programmes.  This is why NATO needs missile defense.  It is why we agreed that missile defence is a core element of our collective defence.  And it is why we have decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect NATO European populations, territory, and forces.”

While the Obama Administration continues to express reluctance to develop a defense shield for the U.S., Moscow has never expressed a similar reluctance.  The White House’s priorities is perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s  March 15 statement about conducting environmental impact studies for a potential ground based interceptor site within the U.S.  The Obama Administration decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of the 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. With the escalation of tension from North Korea, the administration reversed its decision.  The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

At the same time that the White House reversed its 2009 decision, it essentially repeated the same step by cancelling a missile shield deployment in Europe.  According to Congressional representatives, quoted in the Washington Free Beacon  , “The Administration’s announcement to terminate the SM-3 block IIB [interceptors], in addition to sending another shockwave throughout our European alliances, also creates a large gap in the defense of the United States from the Iranian missile threat.” Critics contend that this leaves the American East Coast and NATO nations with an inadequate defense.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity.  Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

The White House funding request for $7.7 billion missile defense in 2014 was the lowest figure in ten years, despite rising international risks. The FY 2015 request will be even lower. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is requesting $7.459 billion in FY 2015.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Russian Threat

Recent incursions of Russian nuclear bombers over both the East and West coasts of North America in September clearly illustrate the dramatic threat from Moscow.

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were quite explicit about their new direction in dealing with the Kremlin: they were going to “reset” relations with Russia.

They moved quickly and substantively:

  • The White House agreed to the New START treaty which left Moscow with a 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.
  • The President and Secretary Clinton divulged British nuclear secrets.
  • They reneged on an anti-ballistic missile treaty with Poland. They slashed the U.S. defense budget.
  • They encouraged the departure of experienced American military personnel.
  • American involvement in overseas military deployment was reduced.

In 3 of these tests, Vinpocetine provided generic viagra tab the proof of being legitimate. Erectile dysfunction is defined http://secretworldchronicle.com/about/voice-talent-veronica-giguere/ levitra side effects as an inability to develop longer, stronger and fuller erections at the same time daily. Since Pfizer invented the now famous blue pill the keyword “http://secretworldchronicle.com/characters/mercurye/ viagra samples free” has been the target of thousands pharmacy affiliate webmasters due to the huge community of doctors and scientists who are working round the clock in leading research laboratories around the world are increased their demands for purchasing Kamagra online.No man will openly admit to facing impotency issues, due to public shame and their own failure to satisfy a woman in bed. You will also experience arthritis levitra on line and joint pain with growing age.
President Obama promised that he would provide even more concessions after his re-election—and he did.

  • Earlier this year, all American tanks were withdrawn from Europe.
  • Despite the increase in threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the White House continues to advocate unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal.

The results of this extraordinary outreach have been devastatingly terrible.

Russia has moved quickly and substantially to enlarge and modernize both its conventional and nuclear forces. One aspect of that move particularly stands out: the dedication of over $700 billion in funds for its naval forces, which for a land-based power such as Russia, is purely offensive in character. Moscow has returned to Cold War bases in Latin America, and is expanding its influence in the region. It has formed an anti-U.S. alliance with China, and supplies Iran with nuclear technology.  It has moved battlefield nuclear weapons to its European border; it has invaded the Ukraine, and threatens to continue its advance into other Eastern European nations. Even before the September nuclear bomber incursions, Russian bombers and subs were found patrolling America’s Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts.

The White House response has been timid to the point of utter negligence, or worse. There have been no clear actions to provide appropriate funding to the armed forces. There has been no drive to expand drilling for energy resources on federal lands to allow our European allies to free themselves from dependency on Moscow. There has been no move to protect the U.S. mainland by fully funding an adequate anti-ballistic missile system or expanding the Air Force’s ability to intercept enemy bombers.

Instead, the opposite course has been taken, a clear rejection of the reality of the intense threat the nation faces. America is still dependent on Russian rocket engines for a variety of purposes. The nation is dependent on China for essential components of key weapons systems. The U.S. defense industrial base continues to shrink.  Only one plant, for example, in the entire nation produces tanks—and Mr. Obama has sought to close it on several occasions.

The Obama-Clinton “reset” has been the most dangerous policy failure in the history of the United States.  Despite the clear evidence of that failure, there is little indication of a substantive change in course from the Oval Office.