Trident Warhead Now Deadlier Than Ever

Experts at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (The Bulletin) recently blew the lid off what the US government has euphemistically called it's “Life Extension Program” for the W76 thermonuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile.

The article, “How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze,” authored by Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore A. Postol, shows how the US military, under the guise of what it calls a “life-extension program” – allegedly intended to increase safety and reliability of nuclear warheads – has vastly increased the ability of warheads to detonate closer to their intended targets.

The heart of the rebuilt W76 and its increased kill capacity is the new MC4700 arming, fuzing and firing system. This new system essentially gives the W76 capabilities it never had before; that is the capability to hit hardened targets – specifically Russian ICBM silos – with three times greater accuracy than before.

The first MC4700 "super-fuzes" were completed in 2007 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City  facility that is responsible for manufacturing and procuring nonnuclear components for U.S. nuclear weapons

The authors (in addition to detailed technical descriptions) explain this new capability in clear lay terms: “Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Warheads that would otherwise overfly a target and land too far away will now, because of the new fuzing system, detonate above the target.”

Steven Starr, a senior scientist at Physicians for Social Responsibility and an expert on the climatic consequences of nuclear war, called the report “the most frightening article I have ever read in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.” Starr has good reason for concern, as should we. This article exposes the US government's continuing pursuit of nuclear dominance over Russia.

The following sentence summarizes that concern, which is centered on the Trident nuclear weapon system: “A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” This statement refers to the fact that the 100 kiloton W76 warhead previously did not have the capability, due to its relative lack of accuracy, of getting close enough to destroy “hard” targets such as Russian ICBM silos. ”

Because of the new super-fuze, essentially 100 percent of the warheads currently deployed on D5 missiles now have this capability to hit hard targets. This capability was previously reserved for the Minuteman III ICBMs and the relatively small number of W88 (455 kiloton) warheads also used on the D5 missile.

The implications of the development of the super-fuze and its use on the W76 are existential! Whatever the intentions of Pentagon planners, this development is most certainly sending a message to Russia that the US is building a significant first strike capability. As the article says, “by shifting the capability to submarines that can move to missile launch positions much closer to their targets than land-based missiles [and with the addition of the new super-fuze], the US military has achieved a significantly greater capacity to conduct a surprise first strike against Russian ICBM silos.”

And this would be only the opening salvo of a first strike attack. The remaining 80 percent of US ballistic missile warheads would likely be used to destroy mobile missile launchers, hardened command centers and other military and (potentially) civilian targets.

Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the OHIO Class “Trident” ballistic missile submarines have become the central, and most important, element in the US nuclear triad. Based on the New START treaty signed in 2010, roughly 70-percent of the U.S.’ nuclear warheads will be deployed on Trident submarines. Trident has the ability to move undetected while on its deterrent patrols, and can be stationed in strategic locations in the North Atlantic where its missiles would have a very short flight time to Russian targets.

The D5 missile can carry up to eight warheads. Under New START, the D5s carry an average of only four to five warheads. If New Start were to fail, which is becoming an increasing possibility with the current deterioration in relations between the US and Russia, the US could choose to fully load the D5s. In that case, based on the estimates in the article, two fully loaded Tridents (with 192 warheads each) could easily destroy all of the 136 Russian silo-based ICBMs.

The Russians have most certainly been keeping a close eye on US nuclear weapons developments. They have also been closely watching the US military's fascination with ballistic missile defense, which the Pentagon touts as purely “defensive,” but which Russia rightly perceives as the US seeking nuclear dominance. The article says: “The Russians have most recently reacted to this ongoing program by publicly displaying and implementing a new and novel sea-based nuclear weapons delivery device [an underwater drone] as a hedge against US missile defenses.”

Aside from the other current US nuclear weapons developments, the development of the W76 warhead super-fuze will likely be perceived by Russia as the most threatening. This is in large part due to Russia having no satellite early warning system, and relying instead on ground-based radars. Because they are far less sophisticated than US radar systems, the Russians have “less than half as much early-warning time” (15 minutes or less) in the event of a suspected US nuclear attack.

As the authors state, “The combination of this lack of Russian situational awareness, dangerously short warning times, high-readiness alert postures, and the increasing US strike capacity has created a deeply destabilizing and dangerous strategic nuclear situation. When viewed in the alarming context of deteriorating political relations between Russia and the West, and the threats and counter-threats that are now becoming the norm for both sides in this evolving standoff, it may well be that the danger of an accident leading to nuclear war is as high now as it was in periods of peak crisis during the Cold War.”

Both human and mechanical errors are inevitable in any system, and with nuclear weapons there is no margin for error. Accidents have occurred throughout the nuclear age, and more than one has involved false radar warnings. In 1995 a Russian early warning radar system mistakenly identified a scientific rocket launch from Norway as a submarine-launched (Trident) missile. Only at the last minute did officials realize that they were not under attack.

The end of the Cold War brought with it a historic opportunity for the US to begin serious negotiations with Russia leading to nuclear disarmament. Instead, our nation continued to pursue nuclear dominance, and as a result, over 25 years later we are entering into what is unarguably a new Cold War with Russia.

Trident is now three times more deadly than ever before. The US is rapidly moving toward production of a new ballistic missile submarine fleet that will be even more sophisticated than its predecessor. The twelve submarines of the Columbia Class (that will replace the OHIO Class) are being built to sail well into the end of this century. Along with the new submarines, the Navy is already seeking a new missile to replace the Trident II D5.

How long can we go building newer and more sophisticated (and deadly) nuclear weapon systems before they end up being used either accidentally or intentionally? How long can we play this dangerous game of nuclear brinksmanship before something snaps? How can our nations' leaders, in good conscience, continue to put humanity at risk of nuclear extinction?

The Bulletin article ends by quoting Russian President Putin speaking in 2016 about how he perceives (and how Russia will respond to) the West's offensive military posture. “No matter what we said to our American partners [to curb the production of weaponry], they refused to cooperate with us, they rejected our offers, and continue to do their own thing... I don't know how this is all going to end. What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves.”

If the US is serious about reducing the risk of starting a nuclear holocaust, the President will have to begin repairing diplomatic relations with Russia. Meanwhile, a critical first step would be for President Trump to take all nuclear weapons, including submarine-launched ballistic missiles, off hair-trigger alert. This would demonstrate to the Russians that we have no intention of using our nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive, first strike, and would greatly reduce the risk of accidental launch of nuclear weapons and the resulting nuclear war.

The newly emerging nuclear arms race is a dangerous game that nobody can win; ultimately humanity will be the loser. The nuclear powers are addicted to the myth of nuclear deterrence and are driven to continue their insane pursuit of nuclear dominance. It is up to us as citizens to speak out in mass numbers calling on them to turn back from the brink and seek a path toward disarmament.

Editor's Note: This article was first published in the April 2017 Ground Zero Newsletter, which you can access by clicking here.

Read the entire article, “How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze,” at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Trident: The Harsh Reality Beyond the Bright Lights in the Skies

If you live on the west coast of North America, stretching from Northern California to Mexico, you might have seen a wild light show on November 7th and November 9th. If you did, have no fear and definitely do not listen to any conspiracy theorists; there were no aliens involved. It was just two separate test launches of the Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missile.

But really; these are significant events! The US Navy launched the two test flights from the OHIO-Class "Trident" ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) USS Kentucky, which was submerged off of Point Mugu, Southern California. The missile traveled from its launch site to the US Ballistic Missile Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands where it very likely plashed down in the precise location intended; it has been said that the multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles carried on the D5 missile can hit a target the size of a baseball diamond with extraordinary accuracy.

One of the two Trident missile test launches earlier this month (photo: US Navy)

The Kentucky finished its mid-life overhaul and nuclear refueling in April 2015, and as part of its subsequent shakedown before being pressed back into service its crew conducted the test launches to ensure the proper functioning of its missile launch systems as well as the reliability of the Trident missile itself. The Kentucky is based at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, the Navy's West Coast home port for eight of the nation's fourteen Trident submarines.

Just one of these Trident submarines, each carrying up to 24 missiles, each missile currently carrying an estimated four warheads on independently targetable reentry vehicles, is capable of incinerating an entire large continent.

A mammoth Trident ballistic missile submarine on patrol

These two test launches marked the 156th and 157th successful test launches since the missile's initial deployment in 1990. The missiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, California.

It is clear that, as Popular Mechanics stated it, the US is definitely "flexing its nuclear muscles" in a clear message to Russia that we've still got the nukes, and we're ready to use them. And Trident is king when it comes to US nukes; currently accounting for roughly 70% of deployed nuclear weapons in the US arsenal.

The Navy most likely timed the two Trident test launches with the intention of creating a public spectacle in order to ensure maximum visibility to other nations, particularly Russia. Ironically, the Russians have been keeping tabs on Trident (and other US nuclear weapon systems for some time since the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Had the US decreased reliance on Trident, a relic of the Cold War standoff between the US and then Soviet Union, following the end of the Cold War, things might now look much different on the global nuclear front. China has been building up a ballistic missile submarine fleet and the associated weapons. And of course, Russia has started building new SSBNs and is upgrading older SSBNs, and is developing a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (the Bulava).

A new Cold War is rapidly growing and heating up. Both the US and Russia have been throwing salvos of nuclear rhetoric at each other, and at this rate it might not be long before it starts looking much like it did back in the day when the two superpowers were locked in the deadly game of Mutually Assured Destruction. Dark days indeed!

The irony of all this is that we were handed an extraordinary "peace dividend" with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Had the US ramped back its nuclear weapons deployments back then, taking both land-based missiles and the Trident submarines off alert status, it would have sent a clear message that there was no need to threaten each other with extinction anymore.

Yet, in the case of Trident, the US had invested in a new missile, the Trident II D5, which was first deployed in 1990, just prior to the end of the Cold War. Neither the Navy nor Lockheed Martin were keen to mothball the new missiles or the crown jewel of the nation's nuclear triad (the Trident submarine). So Trident quietly continued to deploy, running silent and deep, essentially unnoticed here at home (although not by the Russians nor other nations).

And now the US Navy is hard at work, along with its partners in the shipbuilding sector, to develop a successor to the OHIO-Class (New Trident), scheduled to begin construction in 2021 and begin entering service in 2031.

The principal rationale given for the new submarines is the need to maintain the nation's "strategic nuclear deterrent." The principal irony of all this is that nuclear deterrence has failed a number of times (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis), and it has only been by the miracle of human intervention that the world was saved from what would have certainly been the end of civilization (as we know it).

While "experts" have argued for the strategic deterrence doctrine during the strange days of the Cold War, we now live in an even stranger new world in which we have very unstable non-state actors (that might acquire a nuclear weapon) as well as states that quite possibly do not stand the test of "stability" required for deterrence to work.

Add to that the fact the probability that  leaders of stable nation states might act irrationally under times of great duress, and the argument for deterrence crumbles. Deterrence must be 100% infallible in order to be relied upon, and that is absolutely impossible in the real world. One failure could literally bring about the deaths of billions of people.

Trident was designed at the height of the Cold War, with at least one specific purpose - to present a guaranteed second strike capability (the ability to respond to a nuclear attack) to hold the Soviet Union at bay. The design of the Trident missile also presented an unstated purpose - to present a first strike (preemptive surprise attack) capability as well. Trident was only designed to hold the Soviet Union hostage to the inevitability of Mutually Assured Destruction, in which both nations would have waged full-scale nuclear war, obliterating each other's nations, murdering each other's populations, and resulting in "nuclear darkness," which would have resulted in the subsequent deaths by starvation of much of the rest of the world's population.

US Defense Secretary Ash Carter has recently been fanning the flames by accusing "Russia of endangering world order, citing its incursions in Ukraine and loose talk about nuclear weapons." In the article in The Economic Times Carter was also quoted as saying that, "Most disturbing, Moscow's nuclear saber-rattling raises questions about Russian leaders' commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to the brandishing of nuclear weapons." Carter also referred to China in his remarks, but saved the strong stuff for Russia.

Ash Carter; Lecturing the world, while missing the "plank in our own eye."

The Economic Times nailed it with this statement: "The backdrop to Carter's remarks is the reality that after more than two decades of dominating great-power relations, the United States is seeing Russia reassert itself and China expand its military influence beyond its own shores." Therein lies the rub; The Cold War never really ended for the US. We have, ever since the fall of the Wall, had only one purpose - to maintain global hegemony through our military power.

I guess the lessons of parenthood have been lost on our nation's "leaders" (and the Military-Industrial Complex that controls them) - we can have influence on others, yet we cannot control them (in the long run at least). And yet we continue to try to exert control through our military, and nuclear weapons are the ultimate form of control by the threat of their use. It is coming back to haunt us.

The quest for nuclear weapons, and particularly Trident, has been (as one of my colleagues has called it) a Faustian bargain. Indeed, it is a deal with the Devil, and one where we cannot come out ahead. Scrapping Trident must be at the forefront of any efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, and reducing deployments and taking its weapons off alert status would be a major first step in showing good faith (while not unilaterally giving up anything of substance).

Will we, before it is too late, see the folly of our ways, realizing that it is futile to continue trying to maintain an empire the likes of which even the British never could have imagined? Will we come to see the futility of holding on to the fantasy of nuclear deterrence? Will we come to grips with the fact that nuclear weapons offer no security, and will most certainly (as any expert in probability and statistics will gladly explain) lead to either accidental or intentional nuclear war, with horrific consequences to humankind?

If only President Obama would find the convictions he left behind in Prague and sit down with President Putin to begin the necessary dialogue to begin the process of ramping back tensions between our two nations and begin the most important process of leading the world toward disarmament. Would that not be the legacy for which future generations would honor him?

Twelve arrests at Trident nuclear submarine base marking the 70th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings

Fourteen peace activists risked arrest at a West Coast nuclear weapons base early Monday morning in a nonviolent protest against the continued deployment and modernization of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

The Trident submarine base at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, just 20 miles from Seattle, Washington, contains the largest concentration of operational nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Each of the 8 Trident submarines at Bangor carries as many as 24 Trident II(D-5) missiles, each loaded with up to 8 independently targetable thermonuclear warheads. Each warhead has an explosive yield up to 32 times the yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

The activists were among a larger group with Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent action holding a peaceful protest at the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor Trigger Avenue entrance gate as employees entered the base for the Monday morning shift. The vigil commemorated the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

(photo by Glen Milner)

Seven protestors entered the roadway and blocked traffic entering the base. The banners read “We can all live without Trident” and “Abolish Nuclear Weapons.” The two incoming traffic lanes were blocked for approximately 48 minutes until Kitsap Sheriff's Deputies and Washington State Patrol officers arrived and removed the protestors from the roadway. Meanwhile, Navy personnel diverted incoming traffic around the banners via the outbound lanes.

 

(photo by Glen Milner)

Cited for being in the roadway illegally were Mack Johnson, Silverdale, WA: Doug Milholland, Port Townsend, WA; Brenda McMillan, Port Townsend, WA; and Michael Siptroth, Belfair, WA.

 

(photo by Glen Milner)

Eight others walked onto the base, blocking the roadway, and staged a die-in. While three activists dropped down on the roadway, the others poured ashes around them representing the ashes of those incinerated in the atomic bombings. Naval security personnel arrested them, cited them for trespassing, and released them a short time later.

 

(photo by Glen Milner)

Two of those who entered the base attempted to deliver a letter to the commanding officer urging him to use every power availbable to him to call for an immediate halt to the updating and expansion of the Trident fleet under his command. The two were among those arrested.

 

(ashes are all that remain... photo by Glen Milner)

In the letter addressed to Captain Thomas Zwolfer, Commanding Officer, Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, the activists said, "With the implementation of each and every step toward the refurbishing and upgrading of our nuclear arsenal, we continue to disregard prudence and morality; and with every deployment of a Trident submarine in international waters, we continue to violate international and humanitarian law that specifically prohibits the use and threat of use of any nuclear weapon (International Court of Justice decision, 1996). If we want to regain international respect we need to conform to what we expect of other nations: stop building and deploying these illegal and immoral weapons." Click here to read the full text of the letter.

Arrested and charged by the Navy were Mary Gleysteen, Kingston, WA; Anne Hall, Lopez Island, WA; Ann Kittredge, Quilcene, WA; Betsy Lamb, Bend, OR; Peggy Love, East Wenatchee, WA; Emilie Marlinghaus, Bend, OR; Elizabeth Murray, Poulsbo, WA; and Michael Siptroth, Belfair, WA.

 

(sunset at the overnight vigil at the Bangor Main Gate, Photo by Mack Johnson)

 The W-76 thermonuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missile has been undergoing a “Life Extension Program” in which the warheads are thoroughly refurbished and upgraded. The entire Trident fleet is slated for replacement, and the cost to build 12 OHIO Class Replacement submarines is estimated at approximately $100 billion (by the Congressional Budget Office).

Leonard Eiger, coordinator for Ground Zero Center's NO To NEW TRIDENT campaign: “Trident has been deployed at near-Cold War levels since the fall of the Berlin Wall as a major symbol of global power projection. This, together with the continuing Trident modernization efforts, has led to the resurgence of Russia's ballistic missile submarine force. A new Cold War is developing that, in a completely different and less stable global context than the previous Cold War, poses a new and even greater threat of nuclear war. Trident is at the heart of this new Cold War and must be addressed now, before production begins on New Trident. It is critical that the U.S. and Russian leaders change postures and come together to begin the necessary dialogue to lead the way to a nuclear weapons free world. 70 years is long enough; future generations are counting on it.

Another vision of "Apocalypse" by Kate Hudson

Editor's Note: In the United Kingdom there is open and significant debate about whether to build a replacement fleet of Trident ballistic missile submarines to replace their current fleet of four Tridents. Interestingly enough, the British Tridents carry U.S. designed and built Trident II D-5 missiles just as the 14 Trident subs in the U.S. fleet. What is noteworthy is that there is absolutely NO public debate about whether we should build the 12 Trident replacements currently in research and development by the U.S. Navy. The only "debate", and it is not much of a debate, is how to fund the massive, budget-busting $100 construction price tag!!!

Trident is a bad idea, no matter on which side of The Pond one resides (or for the rest of the world for that matter). It is a Cold War relic, a first-strike tool of mass destruction beyond anyone's worst imagination. Should just one of those subs unleash just one missile (with it's multiple thermonuclear-armed warheads) it would mean instant death for upwards of a hundreds of thousands to a million (or possibly more) people in a large city. Of course, that is not how it will likely work should Trident actually be used. Even a limited nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, still a possible scenario) would mean the end of civilization as we know it; a humanitarian disaster incomparable in human history.

As debate intensifies about the future of Britain's nuclear weapons, it's worth remembering that Trident isn't just an increasingly unpopular, expensive status symbol - it is also a weapon of mass destruction. Britain's own stockpile could kill hundreds of millions of people and current global nuclear weapons stocks have the capacity to destroy human civilization and the environment many times over.

We who resist Trident here in the U.S., and work to prevent a new generation of Trident, support our colleagues in the UK as they push for "Bairnes [children] Not Bombs!" This struggle is a global one, and we can only hope that (as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference continues at the UN) the voice of the people will drown out the voices of the nuclear weapons status quo. The world can ill afford it.

Dr. Kate Hudson, who wrote the following article, is General Secretary of the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

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

Visions of Apocalypse

By Dr. Kate Hudson, published in The Huffington Post UK, May 6, 2015

Yet this truth does not really figure in the current debates over Trident in the way that it has in the past. It seems as if we know it in the abstract, but the knowledge of that no longer holds the same terror, the same imminent sense of destruction beyond our control, that it held in decades gone by.

Perhaps the reality of modern day warfare and our extensive exposure to it via our screen-dominated culture has inured us to the potential horrors of nuclear use, whether by accident or design. Scenes from Fallujah or Gaza are far more immediate than the risk of nuclear Armageddon. As deaths through small arms reach exponential proportions, discussion of nuclear bomb deaths from seventy years ago seem like ancient history to the younger generation. And when it comes to end-of-history scenarios, climate change with its tsunamis and extreme weather events, or risk of mass starvation, global pandemics or mass population movements, seem much more powerful, indeed already present.

A message you don't see on buses in the U.S.

Our vision of the apocalypse, simultaneously terrifying and compelling, has shifted to these seemingly more contemporary threats which have certainly taken over the fear factor in popular culture - as I'll be discussing in a session on 'Visions of Apocalypse' at HowTheLightGetsIn festival in May. And these threats have displaced earlier preoccupations with the impact of atomic science, whether through weapons use or experimentation, through blast, radiation or mutation. During the Cold War, fear of the bomb and fear of the unknown impact of scientific experimentation took hold on people's imaginations. Then as now, film was a mirror of society's anxieties, and Hollywood paved the way with the developing science fiction genre. Them!, directed by Gordon Douglas in 1954 featured giant radioactive ants on the rampage, the result of an atomic test in New Mexico. Stanley Kramer's On the Beach, a 1959 film adaptation of the novel by Neville Shute, was set after a nuclear apocalypse as a group of people await death from radiation.


This film affected audiences strongly and a subsequent generation was equally affected by Threads and When the Wind Blows. No doubt, if viewed today, they would not have the same impact. Yet the same reality would ensue, if nuclear weapons were used. Radioactive fallout would render parts, if not all, of the planet uninhabitable. There would be no place to run to, no place to hide; in the event of a nuclear war, you may escape the blast but you cannot shut the door on radiation. It will poison and destroy, bringing sickness, cancers, birth deformities and death. No one is exempt.

That is what makes nuclear weapons uniquely terrible, and a foretaste of that is already with us, not only through the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the catastrophic health and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons testing, but also through the fallout from nuclear power disasters at Chernobyl, Fukushima and elsewhere.

When we debate Trident's future, we would do well to recognise that although we no longer live in direct fear of nuclear weapons, as the older ones of us may remember from the Cold War, the risk and threat still remain as powerful as ever. The nuclear danger has not dissipated, the weapons are still there, and unless they are dispensed with, we may all yet disappear into a mushroom cloud of our worst imagining.

Kate will be speaking at HowTheLightGetsIn, the world's largest philosophy and music festival, running from 21st May - 31st May in association with The Huffington Post UK.

Follow Dr Kate Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kate4peace2015

Article source URL:  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-kate-hudson/trident_b_7223612.html

Eric Shclosser: Time for "honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of...Trident"

Journalist Eric Schlosser broke new ground with his 2013 book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. Through his careful and exhaustive research on nuclear weapons for this book Schlosser has become a respected voice regarding nuclear weapons safety and policy.

In the article below in The Herald Scotland, Schlosser says (among other things) that "There should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of having Trident..." Although Schlosser was speaking to a Sottish audience, he was obviously speaking to the subject of Trident on both sides of the Atlantic. Both are relics of the Cold War, and supporters justify their continued existence (and the building of replacement fleets) using Cold War rationale.

We can only hope that Schlosser will continue to travel and speak on the topic, bringing it to the forefront of public discourse on both sides of The Pond so that we can have an open and honest dialogue about why we need to continue spending trillions of dollars on weapons that we can never use and that present such huge risks to humanity.

Note: Text in the article highlighted in BOLD is my emphasis.

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

Eric Schlosser: there should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of Trident

Teddy Jamieson
Senior Features Writer
Herald Scotland, heraldscotland.com
Tuesday 25 November 2014

On the morning of September 19 this year Scotland woke to find that, among other things, it was still a nuclear state.

The choice to stay within the United Kingdom meant that Faslane remains home to Britain's nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future.

But with the Trident missile programme up for renewal in 2016 the investigative journalist Eric Schlosser believes it should remain a live issue. "I have to say whether you support them or you oppose them, nuclear weapons should be an issue of great concern and interest in Scotland and I hope there's a very vigorous debate about them because they're in your backyard," Schlosser told Herald Scotland.

A british Trident submarine at its home port, Faslane, Scotland

Anyone who has read Schlosser's latest book, Command and Control; The Story of Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Safety, can understand why. Schlosser who made his name with Fast Food Nation, his expose of the fast food industry in the United States, has spent the last six years looking at the record of nuclear weapons in the United States since their invention until the present day. Between 1950 and 1968 alone he discovered at least 1,200 nuclear weapons were involved in significant accidents. A single safety switch prevented the detonation of a hydrogen bomb in Faro, North Carolina, in 1961. And that record of accidents continues to the present day.

"There's this mentality that because it hasn't happened it can't happen and that's just a fallacy," Schlossser says. "You could say because of the laws of probability it is more likely to happen now than ever before."

Schlosser, who is based in New York, is travelling to Vienna this week to talk at an international conference on nuclear weapons. Speaking from his home he said that the message he intends to give is that nuclear weapons are complex, dangerous machines, "and, like all machines, they go wrong".

"It seems that human beings are much better at creating these systems than controlling them, understanding them or knowing what to do when they go wrong."

The American military is currently struggling with aging nuclear weapons and poor morale among those looking after them.

 A U.S. Trident submarine 

Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has now stepped down, announced that The Pentagon will have to spend $10bn to make emergency fixes to its nuclear weapons infrastructure which is also suffering from broken and missing equipment, poor leadership and inadequate training and staffing.

"There's been incredible complacency in the management of nuclear weapons," Schlosser argues. "They're just not glamorous for the military any more. There's an acknowledgment within the United States military that they pretty much have no use except for deterring an attack on the United States. The military doctrine of the United States right now is whenever possible, as much as possible, to minimise civilian casualties and nuclear weapons are the exact opposite of that."

And America, he points out, has more experience than most in dealing with nuclear weapons. As such it represents best practice. "And yet still we've come close again and again and again. That tells you something about the challenge of managing it."

With India and Pakistan increasing their nuclear capabilities and fears that Iran could develop nuclear weapons through its nuclear power programme we should be worried. Schlosser is not convinced that a deal in the talks with Iran - which have just been extended after failing to meet the deadline - can ever be reached, especially with a very conservative US Congress now in place.

But if Iran does progress to join the nuclear club that raises issues beyond the inevitable escalation of tensions in the Middle East, he points out. "Being a new nuclear weapons state means not having very much experience of this technology meaning a much greater risk of a catastrophic accident."

That doesn't describe Scotland, of course, but Schlosser believes Trident itself is problematic. "It was built for a very specific purpose during the cold war and certain choices that were made make it potentially more dangerous as a weapons system; specifically the type of rocket fuel used in the third stage of the missile and the type of conventional explosive used in its warhead. If you have a fire and an explosion you can have a fair amount of plutonium scattered and you might even have a nuclear yield at some level.

"There should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of having Trident and not just a boilerplate denial that these things are perfectly safe, because they're not.

"If you were going to make the Trident missile today you would not design it the way that it is and it would be a safer weapons system so you could argue one or two things. Get rid of them or load them very carefully and unload them very carefully and protect them from any terrorist activity very carefully."

###

Source URL for original article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/eric-schlosser-there-should-be-an-honest-appraisal-of-the-risks-and-benefits-.1416918630

Schlosser's book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, published by Penguin Books, is available at public libraries and booksellers everywhere.

Taxpayers do NOT deserve a useless $100 billion nuclear weapons system!!!

General Dynamics Electric Boat's Congressional delegation, along with the Navy's chief of naval operations, is pumping up the company's next generation ballistic missile submarine program. Ostensibly "analytically sound, technically sound, good engineering and a deliberate management process to bring the best cost-value that the taxpayers deserve [according to Adm. Jonathan Greenert]," New Trident is anything but "analytically sound" or anything remotely resembling "the best cost value that the taxpayers deserve."

New Trident is quite simply PORK. It is a Cold War relic in search of a second life, and should it be reborn in its new incarnation, life on earth will certainly be threatened. Building a next generation first strike nuclear weapons system (and yes, Trident was originally developed to be used in a first strike capacity) will take the world down the rabbit hole of continued nuclear proliferation. Ballistic missile submarines are the newest must-have weapons systems for any nuclear nation, and the US (followed by Russia) is setting the example for the rest of the world.

As for what taxpayers deserve, it is anything but a $100 billion ("$80 billion" is low balling it) nuclear weapon system that we can never use (unless we want to end life on Earth as we know it). This is fiscal insanity!!! While Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Joe Courtney think that New Trident will be the "linchpin of the nation's defense," it provides no defense at all. The doctrine of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence, upon which the US bet all its chips during the Cold War, cannot stand up to a thorough analysis in the new world order. It is dangerous to continue espousing such an archaic doctrine.

The principal beneficiaries of this massively wasteful weapons program will be Electric Boat (and other contractors associated with the project), followed by their Congressional cheerleaders whose election coffers will benefit from the largess of companies like Electric Boat. The rest of us (taxpayers) will be left to foot the fill. We the Taxpayers of this nation do NOT deserve a useless $100 billion nuclear weapons system!!!

It is time to challenge our members of Congress to cut wasteful military spending, and New Trident is an important place to start. Are any of your members of Congress up for re-election this November? Now is the time to call their offices and ask where they stand on New Trident. What will they do during the lame duck session after the election - cut funding for New Trident or make sure it is fully funded??? And just who will we launch those Trident II D-5 missiles against when push comes to shove?!?!?!

Click here to get phone and email contact information for your Congress members.

Read on for the full article (appropriately located in the "Local Business" section of The Day Connecticut) from which I pulled the quotes used above. And then, make that phone call or send that email!!!

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

Blumenthal, Courtney tout program for Trident sub successor

By Scott Ritter
Day Staff Writer

Publication: theday.com

Published September 23. 2014

Lawmakers briefed on plans at EB

Groton — Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation vowed Tuesday to continue to press for funding for the nation’s next-generation ballistic-missile submarines, calling the $80 billion program a linchpin of the nation’s defense.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Joe Courtney, along with Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, received updates on the program in a briefing Tuesday at Electric Boat. EB is expected to begin detailed design work for the new sub — which will replace the Navy’s aging Ohio-class boats — in 2017.

“The essence here is this boat will be the strongest, stealthiest, most sustainable of any in the history of the word,” Blumenthal said at a press conference following the closed-door briefing. “And it will be that way for the remainder of the century, without exaggerating.”

The first of the 12 boats would begin patrolling the world’s oceans in 2031, four years after the Navy’s 18 Ohio-class submarines, which carry Trident missiles, begin retiring. Blumenthal and Courtney said the timing was critical.

“There’s really no margin for error here in terms of any delays that might be thrown out there for budget reasons,” said Courtney, D-2nd District. “Obviously, we’ve got to go back and get this done during the lame duck session” that begins after the November mid-term elections.

The House approved the annual defense-authorization bill in May, but the Senate has been slow to take it up. Blumenthal, a Democrat, said Senate leaders were committed to bringing it to a vote before Congress adjourns for the holidays.

Both measures include language for the new submarine class that “absolutely hits the mark … in terms of keeping the project on track,” Courtney said.

Construction of the new ballistic missile boats would begin in 2021. The submarines will take seven years to build, followed by three years of testing, according to EB.

Greenert, the Navy’s senior military officer and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said replacing the Ohio-class submarines “is my Number One program.”

“This is analytically sound, technically sound, good engineering and a deliberate management process to bring the best cost-value that the taxpayers deserve,” Greenert said.

s.ritter@theday.comTwitter: @scottwritter

Article source URL:  http://www.theday.com/article/20140923/BIZ02/140929904/1047/NWS

Rep. Blumenauer on nuclear weapons: "There is no one left to deter"

Representative Earl Blumenauer, Oregon, has just introduced legislation to reduce spending on our nation's nuclear arsenal - HR 4107, the Reduce Expenditures in Nuclear Investments Now (REIN-IN) Act of 2014. Senator Edward Markey has introduced companion legislation in the Senate, S 2070, the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act.

We must resist the current push to modernize and rebuild the nuclear arsenal, which has huge economic impact and presents even greater risks. Blumenauer's and Markey's bills are an important first step in engaging a dialogue, and hopefully making headway in the monumental task of chipping away at the nuclear monster.

Both Blumenauer and Markey understand that the archaic doctrine of strategic nuclear deterrence is no longer relevant and cannot be used to justify our continued reliance on nuclear weapons.  And yet, that is just how the Navy is justifying the production of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines - 12 submarines at an estimated construction cost of $100 billion.

The current fleet of 14 ballistic missile submarines was originally intended (as a deterrent) to hold the Soviet Union under the threat of annihilation should they have launched a nuclear attack against us. Of course, the Cold War ended well over two decades ago and that threat is long past. As Rep. Blumenauer said in his speech to the House of Representatives earlier this month, 

"There is no one left to deter."

Here is the full, unedited text of Rep. Blumenauer's speech:

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

“Mr. Speaker, before turning to the subject at hand, I really hope that people look at the CBO report that was referenced by my good friend from Pennsylvania, and you will find that the 2 million people who would no longer be working, are not going to increase unemployment. The unemployment rate will be lower. There are people who are trapped in the workforce now because they can’t afford health care. The Affordable Care Act will actually enable some people to retire who want to retire or stop working a second job. Read the report and find out that this is actually a very positive signal.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer

But, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reference something else that was in the newspapers. The papers are filled with scandal about the nuclear weapons program. The real scandal is not the cheating or drug use by people with their finger on the nuclear button. The scandal is that these people are there on the job at all, with these nuclear weapons; jobs and nuclear weapons that should no longer exist.

Don’t get me wrong. The alleged drug use by the people who stand watch daily with a finger on the nuclear trigger, or that were cheating on their proficiency exams, is outrageous, but it is scandalous that we are frozen in time linked to a nuclear Cold War past and committed to wildly wasteful spending.

These are weapons that have never been used in 69 years, that did not deter the 9/11 attackers, and cannot help us in our major strategic challenges today. They have never been used in battle since World War II, but they have almost been used by miscalculation and mistake.

In Eric Schlosser’s recent book called “Command and Control,” there are terrifying examples of what were termed “broken arrows,” nuclear mishaps.

A nuclear bomb was accidentally released over South Carolina, landing in Walter Greg’s backyard, leaving a 75-foot wide, 30-foot crater, leveling his home. Luckily, it failed to trigger the nuclear explosion.

In North Carolina, a B-52 fell into a tailspin carrying two hydrogen bombs, each 250 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

There were numerous instances when our bomber fleet, which used to be on the runway idling, on alert 24/7, was prone to catching on fire while packed with nuclear bombs.

A few years ago, there was a B-52 which flew across the country unknowingly carrying six nuclear-armed air-launched missiles.

By no stretch of the imagination, do we need these 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert, plus nuclear armed bombers, all on top of our nuclear submarine-based missiles? We don’t need a fraction of this weaponry. At most, we need perhaps one scaled-down system. There is nobody left to deter. We are competing in Russia in the Winter Olympics right now.

A small portion of one of these delivery systems is all the nuclear deterrence we could ever possibly need. The larger and more complex the infrastructure is not just more expensive, but more prone to mistake.

We are talking about upwards of $700 billion over the next 10 years in operations, modernization, new systems, new nuclear submarines. It is outrageous. It is dangerous. Let me put that in context. $750 billion is more than the Federal Government will spend on education in its entirety in the next 5 years.

It is time for Congress and the American people to put an end to this”, said Rep. BLUMENAUER

Calling on Congress to say NO To NEW TRIDENT!

Do we really need to replace the current Trident ballistic missile submarine fleet - an archaic, Cold War, first strike nuclear weapons system carrying enough nuclear warheads to incinerate millions of human beings, leave lethal radiation for generations, and cause nuclear winter and global famine???

Dr. David Hall, a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, wrote the following open letter to U.S. Representatives Rick Larsen and Adam Smith, both of whom serve on the House Armed Services Committee.  In it he asks our elected representatives to consider the costs - economic and human of Trident.

Dr. Hall's letter was originally published in the Opinion page of The Journal of the San Juan Islands on December 3, 2013.

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

Military might; priorities misplaced | Guest column

By David C. Hall, MD

Special to the Journal

Gentlemen:

We Americans have built the strongest military force in history; also history’s most lethal weapons of mass destruction complex, much of it based on Hood Canal, 25 miles from Seattle, so I ask you:

What is the face we Americans truly wish to present to the rest of the world? How inhumane and destructive are we Americans willing to be to remain “secure”?

Today we project our nuclear weapons capabilities around the globe with our Trident submarine warships, each a first strike weapon, and each armed under current treaty restrictions with sufficient firepower to incinerate hundreds of cities and black out the sun for weeks to months (“nuclear winter”).

Dr. Hall protesting at Bangor, 2011

Iran seeks to build its first nuclear weapon and the political noise in Congress sounds like the EA-18G Growler over Anacortes. Israel with our support has amassed over 80 nuclear warheads, and we are modernizing ours.

Congress has already spent over a billion dollars to design the new Trident fleet for Cold War level patrolling of the world’s oceans through 2080, at costs estimated at $347 billion.

We managed to avoid the financial cliff created by a fractured Congress that could not agree in 2011 on a solution to outspending our resource base. Japan and China each hold over one trillion dollars of our national debt, yet the Trident fleet can only be justified, if at all, against an adversary like China. Certainly not North Korea, Pakistan or Iran. Russia remains our only serious nuclear adversary and we are cooperating with them and with China.

American Cold War policies reflexively supported military budget requests as a way to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. For President Gorbachev, another critical piece in backing away from the nuclear arms race was learning about nuclear winter and the devastating effect it would have on all life on Earth.

We now have climate models for a possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan which predict a global catastrophe that could kill a billion people, many of whom already face malnutrition. New data from China double the possible death toll due to declines in China’s winter wheat and the resulting economic chaos.

One Trident warship loaded within current treaty restrictions to half its capacity carries 10 times the nuclear firepower of this modeled two-nation war.

Trident submarine carrying 24 missiles, ready to launch 24/7

We don’t need 12 new Trident warships each capable of creating nuclear winter. Support for this omni-cidal weapons system derails us from essential investments in our spiritual, physical, emotional, and economic health as a nation. Our credibility further erodes among those who rightly or wrongly mistrust our dedication to a peaceful planet.

Now is the time to stop the rebuild of the first-strike Trident nuclear weapons fleet, and instead to model intolerance for all weapons of mass destruction, expand our investments in diplomacy and foreign assistance, support truly democratic institutions worldwide, and live by treaties we have signed that outlaw weapons of mass destruction for the very reason that they cause indiscriminate calamity for innocents and destroy ecosystems essential to life.

We owe it to our grandchildren to act now. The two of you have a special role to play on our behalf.

Sincerest thanks for your years of generous public service.

— Editor’s note: Dr. David C. Hall of Lopez Island has been a board member of the national Physicians for Social Responsibility (‘91-’03), Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (‘83-’11), and volunteer coordinator with Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action.

###

Source URL: http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/opinion/234303141.html#storyComments

Trident is "an accident waiting to happen"

Eric Schlosser, who will talk about his new book on nuclear weapons in Seattle on October 1st, published a provocative article in The Guardian just the other day.

Nuclear weapons: an accident waiting to happen focuses primarily on British nuclear weapons -  specifically the country's four Trident submarines and nuclear armed missiles they carry.  The following paragraph asks questions not only absent from the British public debate on Trident, but the public debate in the U.S. as well:

The public debate about Britain's Trident submarines and their missiles has focused mainly on the long-term costs and economic benefits of replacing them, the number of jobs that might be gained or lost, the necessity of round-the-clock patrols. Some fundamental questions have been largely absent from the discussion. How would this cold war missile, due to remain in service for another 30 years, actually be used in a 21st-century conflict? What targets would it destroy and in what circumstances? Whom is it supposed to kill? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, do the British people face a greater chance of being harmed by their own nuclear weapons, through an accident or a mistake, than by a surprise attack?

Ahhhh yes!!!  We must not forget the monumental risks imposed by Trident (on both sides of The Pond).  Schlosser discusses issues specific to Trident later on in the article:

The safety of the Trident D5 missile has long been a source of concern. In December 1990, the Panel on Nuclear Weapons Safety, a group of eminent physicists appointed by the US Congress, warned that its unusual design posed significant risks. To save space, the multiple warheads weren't mounted on top of the missile; they surrounded its third-stage rocket engine. And the "high-energy" class 1.1 propellant used in that rocket engine was far more likely than other propellants to explode in an accident. "The safety issue of concern here," the panel found, "is whether an accident during handling of an operational missile – viz, transporting and loading – might detonate the propellant which in turn could cause the HE [high explosives] in the warhead to detonate, leading to dispersal of plutonium, or even the initiation of a nuclear yield." 

The decision to use the more energetic rocket fuel and the more unstable high explosive was made during the early 1980s, to increase the range of the Trident D5 missile and decrease the weight of its warheads. The first British Trident submarine went on patrol four years after these safety risks were discovered, and the Trident D5 missile is supposed to remain in service until 2042. The risk of explosion and plutonium dispersal is greatest when the warheads are being loaded on to the sub, unloaded from the sub, or transported by road between Scotland and the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, Berkshire.

Glen Milner of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington has attempted to focus the public's attention on the risks of Trident for many years.  "Milner has extensively researched the rocket propellant used in the D5 and has spoken out publicly on its risks.  He was cited in a Crosscut.com article earlier this year about the Navy's plan to double its missile handling capacity at its Bangor Trident submarine base on Hood Canal in Washington State.

That same article cited a 1986 accident involving Trident rocket motors.  More recently at the Bangor submarine base (November 2003) "a ladder left inside a submarine's missile tube punctured a missile's nose cone and came within inches of a nuclear warhead." (source: Kitsap Sun newspaper)  A close call indeed.  The construction of a Second Explosives Handling Wharf near the existing wharf greatly increases the probability of a major disaster should there be an accidental detonation at one wharf if two submarines are being simultaneously loaded/unloaded.

The public (in both the UK and US) should be concerned, and indeed outraged, that any (token) public discussion is NOT engaging the truly important questions about why (in the US) we should spend nearly $100 billion - and some consider this a conservative estimate - just to build twelve new Trident submarines.

Beyond the very real risks of accidents, Trident is an archaic Cold War first-strike weapons system that just doesn't seem to want to go down without a fight.  Speaking of "fighting",  just (to use Schlosser's questions) How would this cold war missile, due to remain in service for another 30 years, actually be used in a 21st-century conflict? What targets would it destroy and in what circumstances? Whom is it supposed to kill? 

Questions, questions, questions... Any answers???

###

Editor's Note: Eric Schlosser will talk about his most recent book, Command and Control Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, at the Seattle Public Library on Tuesday, October 1st at 7:00 PM.  There will be a meditation in preparation for the event at 6:25 PM just outside the library, sponsored by the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Seattle Chapter. More information by clicking here.
 
Nuclear weapons: an accident waiting to happen, By Eric Schlosser, in The Guardian, Friday, September 13, 2013

Click here to read a recent (September 16th) interview with Schlosser. Q&A: Author Says DOD Underreported Nuclear-Weapon Accidents, by Rachel Oswald in Global Security Newswire, September 23, 2013

Watch a YouTube video of Schlosser at the New America Foundation.  In the Q&A period he speaks directly to the weakness in the design of the Trident II D-5 missile relating to the warheads encircling the third stage rocket motor containing very high energy "sensitive" propellant.  Skip ahead to approximately the 52 minute mark to catch this reference.

Gadzooks - "Vintage" Nukes on New Tridents!!!

The US Naval Institute has done just what one would expect such an organization to do - raise the alarm over the "vintage" nuclear missiles (Trident II D-5) that will be initially deployed on the Navy's replacement ballistic missile submarines.  The institute's concern is that sooner (and not later) the Navy will need a new missile, and NOW is the time to get to work on it.

The obvious question, which NO ONE seems to be asking, is of what value is the Trident nuclear weapons system (OHIO class submarines with their Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles) in today's world.  The Cold War is long over and the Trident weapons system, which was designed specifically to render the (then) Soviet Union a radioactive wasteland, is a true relic of a bygone era.

Would we really launch massive thermonuclear weapons (Trident II D-5s) against North Korea or Iran, considering the fact that the resulting radioactive fallout would affect adjacent countries.  Have we forgotten that the effects of nuclear weapons, once detonated, are uncontrollable, and that there is no practical way to clean up such a mess???

The final paragraph in the USNI article is laughable and misleading (using the words "current experience:).  In the context of that coupled with the rest of the article one might think that the US nuclear weapons complex was that of a developing nation, and that the technological wizards in North Korea are "currently" whizzing past us.

“The North Koreans have more current experience building and testing nuclear weapons than we do,” Goure said. “They also have more current experience with designing ballistic missiles—from scratch—than we do.”

So long as the US stays fixated on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, we remain locked in a deadly paradox.  So long as the US (and Russia) continue to re-invigorate their nuclear forces, the rest of the world (North Korea, Iran...) will follow.  The results will likely not by pretty.

At any rate, with 143 consecutive successful test flights of the Trident II D-5 missile (under operational conditions) since 1989 (a perfect record!!!), it's hard to think of it as any remotely resembling "vintage."

Note to USNI: THIS is what a "vintage" nuclear weapon looks like.

Read the article for yourself, and see what you think of the author's argument.

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

Navy’s Nukes Won’t Keep Pace With New Missile Subs

By Dave Majumdar, USNI [US Naval Institute] News, Tuesday, April 23, 2013,   http://news.usni.org/2013/04/23/navys-nukes-dont-keep-pace-with-new-missile-subs

When the U.S. Navy’s new SSBN (X) conducts its first patrol in 2031 it will be an entirely new vessel, but the boat will initially rely on life-extended 1990s vintage Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to perform its nuclear deterrence mission. The Navy currently expects to keep the D5 in service into the 2040s, after which it may replace the long-serving weapon with a new missile.

Though the United States is upgrading existing missiles and taking steps to keep its existing warheads viable, there is no work being done to develop a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or SLBM for the time being. The Navy is deferring equipping the new SSBN(X) with a new missile because of the sheer cost of developing and fielding such a system during fiscally lean times. But moreover, there is no immediate military need to do so because the Trident will remain viable for sometime to come. However, the U.S. Strategic Command is conducting an analysis of alternatives for the future.

But there are questions as to how viable the U.S. missile industrial base will be when the time comes to develop a new missile later this century. Russia, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has faced numerous difficulties with developing new ICBMs and SLBMs. The Bulava SLBM, for example, had numerous problems, failing six of 13 launch attempts before 2009. However, after a difficult period of troubleshooting, the Bulava program now appears to be on track, with seven successful missile launches since October 2010.

“Why would we be any different if we don’t maintain the experience base in making these things?” asks Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute. NASA, for example, is essentially starting over in developing manned space-flight capability to a certain extent because those skill sets have atrophied, Goure said. “We can hope—only hope—that the work being done for Trident and United Launch Alliance and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) and work being done for NASA will maintain enough of a cadre so that we can in fact design a new ICBM,” he said.

There is no question that America needs to invest in keeping its nuclear deterrent credible, said Peter Huessy, an expert on nuclear weapons at GeoStrategic Analysis. In his view, however, the missile industrial base is less of a concern than retaining the ability to develop an actual nuclear warhead, he said. Huessy and Barry Watts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments say that programs like the EELV or refurbishment programs for existing missiles are probably sufficient to keep ICBM and SLBM design skills alive. Huessy said that there are many components on the U.S. Air Force Minuteman III, for example, that are being replaced—which requires many of the skills needed to design an entirely new weapon. “They have all sorts of ideas on how to build a Minuteman [replacement],” he said.

But while the United States continues to upgrade existing missiles, other nations continue to develop and field nuclear weapons and the launch vehicles to deliver them. Russia continues to modernize its arsenal with new Topol-M ICBMs, new Bulava SLBMs, and reportedly another new heavy ICBM that is under development. So too, is China modernizing its nuclear forces, Huessy said. “[Assistant Defense Secretary Madelyn Creeden, in her April 17 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee] also concluded China is building advanced solid fueled rockets, a new type 094 Jin-class submarine along with its new JL-2 missile,” he said.

But the real problem might be far more serious than whether the United States will be able to build a new ballistic missile. There are doubts as to whether the nation will be able to retain the talent to build a new nuclear weapon in the future. “We’re as a matter of policy leaning in the direction of exiting the nuclear business,” Watts said.

Watts said that he simply does not know if the United States still has the capability to develop a new weapon. Huessy said that while lots of lab testing has been done, the country has not built a nuclear weapon since about 1991. “We’re also losing that talent,” he said. “The number of people who have built nuclear weapons could fit in a phone booth.”

The leftover warheads from end of the Cold War were approaching limits of what could be achieved for yield, Watts said, and were only designed for a lifespan of about 10 years. Now the weapons are approaching an average age of about quarter of century.

Though the U.S. nuclear stockpile most likely works, at the end the day, without a full-scale test, it is not known if the weapons would actually detonate properly, Huessy said. Essentially, without testing, the United States is hoping computer models are robust enough to make sure the devices work. The labs look for deteriorated parts and replace those. Ultimately though, “We’re guessing that they work,” Huessy said.

The United States could resolves some of those issues by bringing forward low-level design programs for ballistic missiles, Goure said. For a ballistic-missile program, the military would have to consider whether the Minuteman and Trident could be replaced with a common weapon, he said. However, given the size restrictions on board a submarine, a naval weapon would have to be adapted for land-based use—otherwise, it simply would not work. ICBMs are much larger than the typical SLBM and would not fit into the 87-inch tubes of either the Ohio or SSBN(X) classes of submarines, Goure said.

As for maintaining the nuclear-weapons complex, U.S. policy would have to fundamentally change. Watts said that if the assumption is that nuclear weapons are “going away,” then investing in new designs is a waste. President Barack Obama’s administration adheres to a vision of a “global zero” for nuclear weapons, but has pledged to maintain a credible deterrent. However, as the nation’s ability to design and build such weapons atrophies, so does that deterrent—and as Watts points out, the number nuclear-weapon states is increasing rather than decreasing.

“The North Koreans have more current experience building and testing nuclear weapons than we do,” Goure said. “They also have more current experience with designing ballistic missiles—from scratch—than we do.”

###