nuclear-news

Unnecessary costs of USA’s new nuclear strategy

How many nuclear options does a president need to deter or to attack? WP, By Walter Pincus Reporter April 20  At a time of tight defense budgets, why does the Air Force plan to spend billions of extra dollars so that a president 10 or more years from now can have two options if he or she wants to use bombers to attack an enemy with nuclear weapons?

There has been an irrationality attached to nuclear weapons strategy ever since the United States used the first two atomic bombs to end World War II almost 70 years ago. This is just the latest example. At last Wednesday’s House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee meeting on the fiscal 2016 nuclear weapons budget, Air Force Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence, was asked why we need a nuclear-armed, long-range missile mounted on strike bombers if we also have a penetrating bomber and the B61 nuclear gravity bomb…….

future president would have the option to employ the planned, manned or perhaps unmanned long-range strike bomber (LRSB) to drop B61-12 nuclear bombs, both of which are now in development.

The proposed cost of 80 to 100 new LRSBs, at about $550 million each, could exceed $55 billion, although not all of it would be for the nuclear mission. The cost of development and production of a new B61 bomb is estimated at $10 billion, although some money would be allocated to fighter bombers attached to NATO.

That president’s other option would be to send new strike bombers — or the stealthy B-2A or older B-52s — but have them stay about 1,500 to 3,000 miles away from the target and fire new long-range standoff weapons (LRSOs) armed with the new W80-4 nuclear warheads, also now in development.

Unofficial estimates put the cost of producing the LRSO missiles and W80 warheads at $10 billion to $20 billion over the next 20 years.

How many nuclear options does that future president really need to deter a nuclear attack or respond to one?……..

On April 5, 2009, in Prague, President Obama set a goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” and got great applause. But then Obama added, “I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime.”

The treaty may have been a step forward to Obama’s goal of a weapons-free world, but the price he paid has turned out to be two steps backward. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-many-ways-does-the-air-force-need-to-deliver-a-nuclear-weapon/2015/04/20/c33eeb96-e5dc-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html

April 22, 2015 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general