From Trinity to Trident: Moving Back from the Brink

On July 16, 1945 the first experimental atomic bomb was exploded at the site known as Trinity at Alamogordo, New Mexico in the desert called Jornada del Muerto (Journey of Death) . It marked the beginning of a journey toward what could someday be the ultimate manifestation of death.

The rest is history (and some of it particularly horrific history); and that history is still being written each day as many nations (led by the model of the United States) continue to rely on nuclear weapons while others seek to develop them. Then there are those nations (most of the non-nuclear weapons nations) that are rightly calling for an end to this madness.

The United Sates should be leading the world toward disarmament and abolition, but instead we continue to utilize the archaic and flawed rhetoric of "strategic nuclear deterrence" and "national security," and have found a host of new enemies since losing the original justifications for our Cold War enemy the Soviet Union. That being said, we are, in fact, re-igniting that Cold War relationship (now with Russia) so many years later. As a result we are re-building the infrastructure that made Trinity - and over the years tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and the systems designed to deliver them to their targets - possible.

Billions have been, and continue to be, spent on the US nuclear weapons complex. These huge investments represent, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration, the resources necessary to "to transform a Cold War nuclear weapons complex into a 21st Century nuclear security enterprise." There seems to be no end in sight!

The government is in the early stages of planning for a new nuclear-capable bomber, and proponents of the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile are pushing hard to get it approved by Congress. The Air Force is pushing ahead for funding of a new generation of land-based (Intercontinental Ballistic) missiles, as evidenced by the White House's fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017) budget request.

Then there is Trident (the Ohio class submarines), what the U.S. Navy calls “the nation’s most survivable and enduring nuclear strike capability.” Not only is Trident "survivable and enduring," but it is a significant weapon system of mass destruction and ironically, should Trident ever fire its Trident missiles in anything other than one of the many tests conducted by the Navy, the conflagration that follows will threaten the very survival of humanity.

With 24 Trident missiles, each missile carrying up to 8 independently targetable nuclear warheads, and each warhead having an explosive yield of as much as 475 kilotons, just one Trident submarine is capable of incinerating much of any continent and rendering the land uninhabitable for anyone unfortunate to survive the initial blast, heat and radiation effects. The U.S. has 14 Trident subs outfitted for the Trident II D5 missile. Research has concluded that even a small scale, regional nuclear war would result in a nuclear famine of massive proportions.

Advocates of US nuclear modernization point to Russia's and China's modernization efforts to justify the need for new and improved US nuclear weapon systems. In reality, the US has led Russia and China into what is rapidly becoming a new nuclear arms race. As for ballistic missile submarines, the Russian program languished for years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and. Since then the US has added a newer and more capable missile (the Trident II D5), introduced an improved version of the W76 (100 kiloton) warhead, and increased Trident's presence in the Pacific (roughly 60 percent of all Trident patrols are in the Pacific).

With the US currently well into the research and development phase of planning for a new generation of ballistic missile submarines, the SSBN(X), it should be no wonder that Russia is responding. Although Russia stopped building new SSBNs at the end of the Cold War, it has been catching up (slowly) and is currently working to achieve parity, and has been building a new SSBN class (Borei) that has been deploying to the Pacific.   As Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists states it, "Russia is following the examples of the United States and China, both of which have significantly modernized their SSBN forces operating in the Pacific region over the past decade and a half."

All of this, 71 years after the sun rose twice over the New Mexico desert, is moving humanity closer, once again, toward the brink. Rather than lead the way toward a nuclear weapons-free world, President Obama has been leading what will become (should subsequent presidents continue to fund it) "the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House." Although word is out in just the past week that President Obama may take steps in his final days in The White House to implement nuclear policy changes, this still remains to be seen.

President Obama should take a number of immediate and practical steps to reduce the risk of either accidental or intentional nuclear war.  Beyond that, he should should heed the lessons to be learned from the relationship developed between President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (that likely brought the Cuban Missile Crisis to a peaceful resolution) and begin a conversation with President Putin to not only ease tensions, but to begin a meaningful path toward mutual security and disarmament.

It is no understatement to say that the fate of humanity rests in the hands of the nuclear-armed nations, particularly the US and Russia. Should the Presidents of the two largest nuclear-armed begin to show the other nations a path toward abolition, we can begin to move further back from the brink. And then we can begin to have the serious conversation about scrapping Trident (and all nuclear weapons) and ensuring that the sun will never again rise twice some day.

New Trident's role in Asia-Pacific Pivot???

The Obama Administration continues to doggedly pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would stretch from Chile to Japan and - Ooops! - exclude China. China, of course, has its own ideas about trade partnerships at this stage in the game, and is pursuing its own agenda.

"Obama had hoped his foreign policy “pivot” toward Asia would shift U.S. government attention away from trouble spots like Afghanistan and Iraq and toward a region brimming with economic opportunities." His strategy for exploiting "economic opportunities" seems to be the old school methodology - shift as many military assets into the region (can you say gunboat diplomacy???) as possible and see how it plays out.

The article below, which touts the need for expanding the capabilities ($$$$$$$) of the shipyard that will build the next generation ballistic missile submarines (as well as more tactical subs) for the United States, makes it crystal clear that all of this is about the "U.S. foreign policy's pivot to Asia." The article also makes it clear that it's also about "the ability to project power from the sea."

One might well ask what ballistic missile submarines bristling with enough thermonuclear weaponry  (just one Trident submarine) to incinerate and render uninhabitable an entire region has to do with any reasonable strategy for sensibly engaging economic opportunities in Asia (or elsewhere).

Should the US should be thinking more about how to deal with its future resource needs in a way that precludes (dangerous and risky) gunboat diplomacy? Do nuclear weapons have any rational place in any part of the Asia-Pacific Pivot (or anywhere else for that matter).

For now, these critical questions will not be asked while we continue the march to the (East China) Sea.

*************

EB Chief Says Nuclear Sub Demand Could Mean Major Shipyard Improvements

By Brian Dowling, January 15, 2015, Originally published in the Hartford Courant

GROTON — The head of Electric Boat said Thursday that revived demand for nuclear submarines as part of the U.S. foreign policy's pivot to Asia will result in $500 million being spent over the next decade to upgrade the company's shipyard here.

"The Department of Defense strategy tends to favor the Navy and the ability to project power from the sea," said Electric Boat President Jeffrey S. Geiger.

Considering that strategy, and the need to replace an aging fleet of the Navy's tactical submarines, the submarine program should prevail over the challenges of a shrinking military budget and the possibility of additional forced budget cuts that could reappear in 2016, Geiger said.

To handle the coming work, Electric Boat plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities and machinery. The largest chunk would pay for an expansion of the company's assembly building, which currently fits just one submarine at a time.

With Electric Boat, a division of General Dynamics, expecting to begin construction of new Ohio Class replacement submarines in 2019, the Groton assembly building will need room to piece together one Ohio Class submarine and one Virginia Class submarine.

Geiger expects that the replacement Ohio Class program will reach $100 billion, and given that Electric Boat has led its early-stage design, hopes the company would land the contract to build the submarines. But the Pentagon has given few hints at how it would award contracts.

"Whether this is going to be a competition, we don't know," Geiger said.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney said there is a dire need to replace the Ohio Class fleet. Their nuclear reactors were originally planned to run 30 years but have been extended to 42 years.

If all goes as planned, Electric Boat expects it will need another thousand workers by 2030 at its Groton and New London locations; the two now employ about 9,000. Payroll for the whole company would jump to 18,000 from its current 12,500, Geiger said.

Electric Boat has placed a bid to pick up submarine maintenance work that the U.S. military's backlogged shipyards need covered. Winning that bid could add as many as 600 jobs, according to a company presentation.

Copyright © 2015, Hartford Courant
Source URL: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-electric-boat-nuclear-sub-demand-0116-20150115-story.html

Want a new sub? Play the fear card!

Just yesterday Rear Adm. Joseph Tofalo, the U.S. Navy's director of undersea warfare, spoke out in support of the Navy's OHIO Replacement Program. He was speaking at the Sea, Air and Space Exposition in Maryland, the largest maritime exposition in the U.S., where you will find everyone who has anything to do with the Military-Industrial Complex.

Tofalo played the fear card quite heavily when he cited China's and Russia's continuing development of ballistic missile submarines as the justification for the new subs existence.  At one point Tofalo asked the audience, "Would Ukraine have resisted the Russian incursion into Crimea if Russia did not have nuclear weapons? It certainly did impact their thinking." Perhaps he wanted to say that Russia wouldn't have come anywhere near Ukraine had the country kept its nuclear weapons that it gave up after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Can you say "DETERRENCE???"

Of course, we can't put all the blame on Tofalo for such comments.  The President is leading the nuclear charge these days, and of course he IS the Commander in Chief. The brass are just doing their job. Of course, that's exactly why we are supposed to have civilian control of the order to launch nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure that gives me any comfort these days.

Continuing to increase our military pressure surrounding China and the continuing talk of missile defense in Eastern Europe, along with our own nation's continuing pursuit of new nuclear weapons does nothing to stem the tide of nuclear proliferation. There is absolutely no chance of movement towards nonproliferation and ultimately disarmament unless we make good faith efforts to sit down with the other nuclear powers in sincere dialogue - and that is not happening!

Tofalo gives Trident (and the doctrine of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence) far too much credit for keeping the peace. So we continue to arm ourselves to the teeth, and that's not a good thing. What we really have to fear is our reliance on an archaic Cold War way of thinking.

Sir! I have a plan... (Dr. Strangelove)

********************

Admiral: Crimea Proves Nuclear Subs Still Needed

Apr 07, 2014 | by Kris Osborn

National Harbor, Md. -- Navy leaders said Monday the U.S. can't afford to delay the Ohio-class submarine Replacement Program as China and Russia continue to develop new nuclear armed ballistic missile submarines.

"There are two countries on the planet today with a new SSBN in the water and sea based missiles being flight tested. Neither of those countries are the United States – they are China and Russia," Rear Adm. Joseph Tofalo, director of undersea warfare, said at the Sea, Air and Space Exposition here.
"Who would have thought, five years ago, that Russia would not be participating in the G8 summit?" he asked the audience.

The Ohio Replacement Program is now involved in early construction and prototyping as part of a technology development phase. General Dynamics Electric Boat is working on a $1.85 billion five year research and development deal. The contract contains specific incentives for lowering costs and increasing manufacturing efficiency.

The Navy has requested $1.2 billion in research and development funds as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget proposal.

Designed to be 560-feet– long and house 16 Trident II D5 missiles fired from 44-foot-long missile tubes, the Ohio Replacement Program will be engineered as a stealthy, high-tech nuclear deterrent able to quietly patrol the global seas.

Citing Iranian influence in Syria, Chinese activity in the South China Sea, and Russia's annexation of Crimea, Tofalo said that nuclear-armed countries are continuing to impact the geopolitical strategic landscape.

"Would Ukraine have resisted the Russian incursion into Crimea if Russia did not have nuclear weapons? It certainly did impact their thinking," he explained.

Russia and China were also among several countries absent from a recent 35-nation nuclear security summit, Tofalo added.

Tofalo explained how nuclear submarines have helped prevent what he called major-power wars for seven decades by providing a second strike capability for U.S. and Russia should either fire nuclear missiles at the other.

"At present, SSBNs operated by the United States Navy submarine force have over half of our nation's deployed nuclear warheads on them. We have a lot at stake here and have to get this right," Tofalo explained.

He added that the new Start Treaty with Russia, which calls for the reduction of nuclear warheads, will result in a situation where SSNBs will be responsible for 70-perecent of America's deployed nuclear warheads, he added.

Source URL: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/07/admiral-crimea-proves-nuclear-subs-still-needed.html  

Asia-Pacfic Pivot and the Dangers of Trident

Friends,

The United States' Asia-Pacific Pivot continues to move full speed ahead, as the military continues to re-position existing resources from other regions and develop new bases and weapons systems to ensure containment of China and overall control of those we consider our adversaries (read competitors for strategic resources) in this region.

Among the myriad changes are the naval base (in construction) on Jeju Island, South Korea that will serve (among other things) US missile defense destroyers and the shift in nuclear weapons toward Asia.

We have seen a shift in basing of the OHIO Class "Trident" ballistic missile submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  Currently, of the 14 total Trident subs, 8 of them are based at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State, a definite reversal of basing from earlier Cold War days.

The Trident nuclear weapons system has become what is arguably the greatest symbol of U.S. force projection around the world.  It is absolutely the most powerful destructive force ever designed and deployed, and is indeed a formidable symbol of power projection.
China has taken notice, and continues (with some difficulties along the way) to develop its submarine launched ballistic missile capabilities.  China knows, however, that it's submarine fleet would be vulnerable to U.S. control of "choke points" around the region should a conflict ever develop.

For many years, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) have issued carefully researched reports on various nations' nuclear forces.  In years past these valuable reports have been (or at least seem to have been) largely ignored by the mainstream media.  That appears to be changing along with the tensions building in the Asian region due to continued U.S. military buildup.

The Korea Herald published an article on January 13th - 60% of U.S. submarine reconnaissance focused on Pacific. The article is brief and gets directly to the point(s), stating that:

More than 60 percent of U.S. submarine-based reconnaissance activities are focused on Pacific areas including the Korean Peninsula, according to a recent report by two American nuclear experts. According to the report on U.S. nuclear forces by American scientists Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris, Washington has deployed 14 Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, to the Pacific and Atlantic operational areas for nuclear deterrence. Observers say the U.S.’ strengthened operations in the Pacific indicate its growing concerns about nuclear capabilities of its potential adversaries such as China and North Korea.

The graphic that accompanies the article:

Key to the whole Asia-Pacific Pivot is the fact that it is driven by "national security" interests and is driven by a deeply embedded Military-Industrial Complex and archaic Cold War thinking.  Nuclear weapons that, quite ironically, are central to the strategy of the pivot, are essentially useless as "weapons."  Some of the submarines that patrol the Pacific are on 24 hour alert status, are prepared to launch their thermonuclear-armed Trident II D-5 missiles quickly, on command.  

Should our submarine forces ever launch any of these weapons, not only would those who are targeted be incinerated by these horrific weapons, but people of other nations in the region would be irreparably harmed as well. Nuclear weapons, once released, are uncontrollable in space and time.  The effects simply cannot be contained, and even a limited regional war would be a disaster affecting not only the region, but would be felt on a global scale (as has been determined from studies of limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan).

Essentially, nuclear weapons can never be used, and the U.S. is creating the very conditions by which they are most likely TO be used.  Trident is at the heart of this dangerous game of nuclear risk being played out via the Asia-Pacific Pivot.  At the same time, there is no apparent diplomacy going on among the nations involved in this dangerous game to reverse the nuclear danger.

It is up to the U.S. to take the first step in this process and make a good faith effort to initiate discussions with Asian nations about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  A critical first step, besides a pledge of No First Use, would be taking weapons of Alert Status. Having weapons on alert status increased the risk of accidental (and irreversible) launch of nuclear weapons during a crisis.

Trident is an archaic, first-strike, Cold War weapons system that stays vital not only through shear inertia, but also by virtue of its extraordinary power as a symbol of U.S. force projection. The irony of this situation is that it is a weapon system that can (and must) not ever be used.  The more tragic irony is that Trident is slated for replacement with an entire new fleet of 12 submarines, with construction beginning in 2021.  This plan has been pushed through without any real debate about the issues of "nuclear deterrence" and what useful purpose Trident could serve for many more decades.

Since the government refuses to engage in such a critical discussion and debate before entering into such an expensive ($100 billion estimated construction cost for 12 subs) and risky program, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action is asking the tough questions and challenging New Trident.  

The NO To NEW TRIDENT campaign seeks to challenge the shaky foundation that underlies the Navy's plans and demonstrate that a new generation of Trident will by no means make the U.S., its allies, or the rest of the world safer.  The continued deployment of thermonuclear weapons ready to launch 24/7 is a recipe for disaster.  The only way to assure the elimination of the nuclear risk is to eliminate the nuclear weapons, and this can only come though dialogue with the other nations.

Let the dialogue begin!!!  

Learn more at the NO To NEW TRIDENT Website/Blog at notnt.org. NO To NEW TRIDENT is a campaign of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (gzcenter.org)..

Click here to read US Nuclear Forces, 2014.

URL for article in The Korea Herald:  http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140113000678