Leonard Eiger talks about nuclear weapons on Speak Up, Speak Out!

NO To NEW TRIDENT Campaign Coordinator Leonard Eiger was recently interviewed by Ginny Wolff on Speak Up, Speak Out! on KSVR – FM about the work of Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action since 1977 to protest the Trident submarines (and their nuclear weapons) based at the Bangor Naval Base in Silverdale, Washington.

They discussed the history of Ground Zero, the bigger picture of U.S. foreign policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons, ongoing international tension, and the agreement between Congress and the Obama administration to spend a trillion dollars over 30 years to rebuild the entire U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons.

You can also click here to listen to this Speak Up, Speak Out! interview.

The interview ends with a simple message listeners can deliver to President Obama. After listening, you can click here to send your message to the President. You can find more important action alerts by clicking here.

Thanks to KSVR and Speak Up, Speak Out! for covering important issues you won’t hear in the mainstream/corporate media.

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.

Trident is Vulnerable*

*Editor's Note: Paul Ingram, Executive Director, British American Security Information Council (BASIC), wrote this article about potential threats to the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system. The questions and concerns raised by Ingram also apply to the US OHIO Class (Trident) nuclear weapons system, and we should be paying close attention to the reports and briefings being issued by BASIC.

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

A debate is now raging over BASIC's exposure of the threat emerging technologies present to the future viability of Trident submarines. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) states they do not believe it is a problem, and that even if it were submarines would still be the best, most stealthy platform for nuclear missiles. The confidence implied in the MoD's public line is unjustified, and must surely cover up a deep concern held by strategists for the future viability of its most expensive weapon system. For if submarines are easily detectable, then they are the very last place the UK should choose to put its nuclear deterrent.

In response to BASIC's questions over the future viability of a nuclear deterrent based upon Trident submarines, MoD's latest factsheet (published 26 February) states:

We believe it is unlikely there will be any radical technological breakthrough which might diminish the current advantages of the submarine over potential anti-submarine systems. In any event, we judge that a submarine will remain by far the least vulnerable of all the platform options.

In a Parliamentary Answer on 7 March, Philip Dunne assures the House, 'We are confident that our submarine fleet remains safe and secure,' after explaining that MoD tracks these technologies.

To state that there is no problem is heroic, in the face of the evidence. Echoing what former Defence Secretary Des Browne has said, the principal justification for renewing the Trident system is the future uncertainty of the strategic environment, yet we are being asked to believe there is a strong certainty that our systems will not be transparent and vulnerable throughout its operational life, up to half a century from now.

BASIC's latest briefing last week by David Hambling, illustrates how developing sensors operating with extraordinary computing capabilities, based upon a large number of relatively cheap drones operating in a massive network could take away the stealth of submarines before the Successor class launches in 20 years' time. It is often claimed that it is as difficult to find a submarine in the sea as it is a needle in a haystack. Both are achievable with the right equipment. A needle can be extracted with a very powerful magnet.

The ocean is, of course, massive, but efforts to detect submarines have until now depended upon a small number of sensors based upon large platforms (aircraft, frigates, hunter-killer submarines) patrolling over huge distances. We stand on the advent of a new era where more effective and far smaller sensors can be based on a very large number of automated platforms in or over the sea in constant real-time communication with each other.

Contrary to the image invoked by MoD, we are not talking about some unpredictable, surprise breakthrough. The development of drone technology has accelerated in recent years, so that drones exist today that can travel for many months without refuelling, that can hunt submarines under the surface using a variety of sensors at some range (thousands of metres), and that can communicate with each other. They cannot and will not for the foreseeable future travel at the speed of a nuclear submarine, but that is unnecessary as these drones operate as a pack. The technology needs to mature. The cost needs to come down somewhat. But both these are foreseeable in the next two decades.

Some have responded that in these games of cat and mouse, submarine contractors will simply improve their countermeasures or tactics. But this underestimates the nature of the impact from these developments that effectively bring a hitherto inconceivable level of transparency to the oceans in a relatively short time. Submarines inevitably leave a variety of signatures, and cannot be covered up with the addition of more efficient acoustic tiles, or even some theoretical acoustic cloaking device.

The consequence of this to the manned submarine is far bigger than implied in the second sentence of the MoD factsheet, claiming that even with ocean transparency, submarines would remain the least vulnerable platforms. The submarine's advantage over other platforms is its stealth and the fact that it moves. Take away its stealth and its vulnerabilities become very significant - indeed, the submarine becomes one of the most vulnerable of all options.

Submarines are generally slower than surface ships, and once located and tracked, they are highly vulnerable to attack by missiles capable of hitting targets underwater, or the fast-moving air-launched drone torpedoes under development. An adversary could track the submarine throughout its patrol and hold it at risk, and take it out at the most convenient or critical moment. The UK nuclear posture is based upon a single submarine on patrol, though one can assume that there would be two out in times of crisis. If an adversary were capable of holding those British patrolling submarines at risk, there would be a major incentive to take them out pre-emptively, before the submarine commander would consider launching its nuclear-tipped missiles. In this environment, submarine-based missiles lose their critical stabilising second-strike ability, and contribute to deeply dangerous crisis instability in a similar manner to land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that need to be launched on warning in a use-them-or-lose-them posture. Perhaps it's worse...

Attacking ICBMs or aircraft based on the homeland currently involves massive missile or aircraft strikes, involving explicit attacks on the target country that would invite a proportional response on the state perpetrating the attack. An attack on a submarine in international waters would neutralise it and kill a hundred combatants: an act of war, but would it merit a disproportionate nuclear response against cities? In any case the UK would require an ally to launch such a nuclear response on its behalf because its own capability would be lost, unless there were a second submarine on patrol. A second submarine could be held at risk in the same manner as the first.

What about alternatives? Of course they all have their drawbacks. Surface ships are just as vulnerable as submarines. Land-based ballistic missiles have no stealth at all and also require a launch-on-warning posture in crisis situations. Aircraft are also vulnerable to first strikes and need to be rapidly scrambled into the air if there is a warning of in-coming missiles. They can also be shot down en route to their targets. But where these systems have significant advantage over submarines is in the possibility of spreading the assets over several sites, requiring multiple hits. If the systems are dual-capable there is greater chance of investing in sufficient numbers of aircraft and deploying them in a coordinated attack that nuclear deterrence would be achieved at far lower cost. Or it may be time to consider leaving the nuclear game, acknowledging that Britain does need an independent capability, and instead invest in other capabilities that genuinely contribute to European stability.

Until recently opinions on the debate over Trident renewal was largely determined by security, moral, diplomatic or economic concerns. The viability of the systems involved was taken for granted. But this is no longer a responsible response to the emerging evidence that submarines may not only be the most expensive and sophisticated platforms for nuclear delivery systems, they may become the most vulnerable. Reassurances without evidence from institutions or politicians heavily committed to the renewal project hold little credibility in the face of clear and emerging technologies that could not only undermine the advantage of the submarine, but leave us with an expensive and destabilising system. We need to reopen the Trident Alternatives Review and do a better job this time.

End Note: This article first appeared on the Huffington Post website on 9 March 2016: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-ingram/trident-renewal_b_9415814.html, and can also be found at BASIC's website.

Paul Ingram, Executive Director of the British American Security Information Council has been with BASIC since 2002 and been executive director since 2007. Paul has authored a number of BASIC's reports and briefings covering a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear issues.

Click here to read the most recent BASIC Parliamentary Briefing document: A Primer on Trident’s Cyber Vulnerabilities, by Aleem Datoo & Paul Ingram

Three minutes to midnight no time to rebuild Trident missiles (Op-Ed)

Editor’s Note: Dr. David Hall is a longtime, active member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action. Ground Zero has resisted the Trident nuclear weapon system for near 40 years. Hall has been a constant voice for abolishing Trident over the years, and continues to speak out against the government’s plans to build a new generation of ballistic missile submarines to replace the current Trident fleet. This guest commentary was first published in Saturday's Everett Herald newspaper.

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

Three minutes to midnight no time to rebuild Trident missiles

Guest commentary in The Herald of Everett, Washington, January 30, 2016, By David C. Hall

A year ago the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight, responding to “entirely insufficient” global efforts to check nuclear weaponry and global warming or to address the risks inherent to both. “Midnight” means the end of 2.4 million years of human civilization. This week the organization kept the clock at 3 minutes to midnight, sending “an expression of dismay that world leaders continue to fail to focus their efforts and the world's attention on reducing the extreme danger posed by nuclear weapons and climate change.”

I am a psychiatrist who has served severely stressed children and families for decades while haunted by what I learned as an intern about the horrors of atomic bombs on Japan. Everything I work for and my father, uncles and grandfathers served for in the World Wars goes for nothing if we ever allow nuclear weapons to be used again. This is especially true now that these weapons are seven to 30 times more powerful, nuclear nations keep their launchers on hair-trigger alert, and the climatological threshold for nuclear famine is in the hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Dr. David Hall

There are still 15,000 weapons in nine arsenals. Global warming left unchecked will desicate some of us and drown others, making millions of refugees. Nuclear war could incinerate millions in a flash and starve out billions by blocking out the sun. The scientists with BAS are asking us to squarely face these potentialities.

Current modernization plans for U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons come at a time when Russia is economically strapped while facing pressure on its western border, like the pressures America faced during the Cuban Missile Crisis with Soviet nuclear weapons 90 miles away.

Planned for 2020 are twenty U.S. B61-12 nuclear dial-a-bombs ( delivering 0.3 to 340 kilotons of destruction) for deployment on German fighter bombers, and Russian nuclear-armed drone submarines capable of traveling 6,200 miles underwater to evade U.S. missile defenses.

Most troubling to me locally is “modernization” (rebuilding) of the Trident nuclear submarine fleet that is based on Hood Canal. What's missing in the current conversation? Each Trident warship is designed with the capacity to end civilized life on Earth. Each of the 12 new Tridents now planned for replacing the current fleet will be built to launch within minutes on presidential command 128 hydrogen bombs carried in packs of eight on 16 missiles with a 7,000 mile-range and pinpoint accuracy.

The W-76 warhead is built to explode with 100,000 tons of dynamite equivalent (100 kilotons); the W-88 warhead, 455,000 tons (455 kilotons). The Hiroshima atomic bomb that killed outright about 100,000 human beings exploded with about 12 kilotons. That was an ugly time that we as a human community have fortunately managed to grow beyond. We no longer have Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin or Mao Tse-tung. Germany, Japan, Russia and China are vastly different countries. Germany and Japan are allies. Russia fought al Qaida with us in Afghanistan and is fighting ISIS. China is a major tradingpartner.

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Washington, holds a key vote on rebuilding Trident and has yet to speak out. He's hearing “deterrence” from military contractors and military advisers who fail to tally U.S. provocations, but reap contracts returning 1,000 to 1 on their political investments.

Our adversaries see us with ever expanding conventional and nuclear military capabilities. Nuclear weapons help them, not us, level the military playing field. America is fueling a new nuclear arms race. Trident warships are first-strike weapons of mass murder. Horrible idea, immoral jobs. We can (and must) do better. Mr. Larsen?

David C. Hall, M.D., lives on Lopez Island and works in Anacortes. Past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, he currently leads the state chapter's nuclear abolition task force.

Source URL (originally published in The Everett Herald): http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160130/OPINION03/160139979&template=PrinterFriendly

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.

Shadows and Ashes: Remembering Dorothy Day

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4

I'm at the Isaiah Wall that is directly across the street from the United Nations building. It is 8:30 AM, and across the street delegates to the NPT Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference are entering the building as it begins its second day.

Police vans are pulling and making their preparations for the expected onslaught of nuclear abolitionists who will soon arrive for the 9:30 vigil here and the subsequent nonviolent direct action at the US Mission to the United Nations just down the block.

The sun is shining and the tree in front of the Isaiah Wall is bursting with the beauty of Spring. In an instant all this could disappear in a blinding flash and, quite ironically, Isaiah's words just might remain while every living thing around it would be vaporized or incinerated, the shadows created from their ash etched into the stone surface.

The letters etched into the stone of the wall are a relatively permanent reminder of the words of the prophet Isaiah who, like most prophets, have been ignored through the centuries by leaders of so many nations and those who follow them blindly into the madness of war.

Yet many people have resisted and called humanity to something better. As I walked up the steps circling up by the wall I saw, at the top of the stairs, an icon of the Cold War - the days of duck and cover, of bomb shelters and mutually Assured Destruction. It was a rusting fallout shelter sign over a nondescript door.

It was a stark reminder of my childhood, when students at my elementary school would walk from the school roughly a mile or two to the nearest official fallout shelter during the many Civil Defense drills held in those days.

It was also a reminder of Dorothy Day and other resisters who, during the Cold War, refused to enter the fallout shelters in New York during the drills, and were arrested for doing so. 

Yes, this actually is a photo (taken with an ancient iPhone) I took
 this morning above a doorway overlooking the Isaiah Wall.

 Some of the participants in today's action will engage in active resistance to the nuclear weapons policies of the US, and in the spirit of Dorothy Day and so many others, blocking the entrances to the US Mission to the United Nations, risking arrest for their actions. The name of today's action is "SHADOWS AND ASHES: Direct Action for Nuclear Disarmament."

We go forward together this morning in the spirit of nonviolence, with Isaiah's words etched on our hearts. May those words reach those gathered at the UN, and may we beat our swords into plowshares, and may we make war no more!

Rally Round the Subs Boys! (or, Are these people crazy?)

Editor's Note: I was truly amazed at the high level of cheer-leading for New Trident by Congress demonstrated in the following article. I found myself commenting on nearly every statement made by these members of Congress who are quite literally rallying round the subs (and making sure the $$$$ are procured to build them). I highlighted my responses in red italics. Who are these people "representing"???

********************* 

Congressmen Rally Behind Ohio-Class Submarine Replacement

By Yasmin Tadjdeh, in National Defense Magazine, March 4, 2015

Congressmen gathered on Capitol Hill to tout the importance of replacing the nation’s aging ballistic missile equipped Ohio-class submarines. Of course, they did not gather to tout the importance of replacing the nation's aging transportation, electrical, or other utility infrastructures, or ensuring that we take proper care of veterans returning from wars that they sent them to fight.

During a March 4 meeting sponsored by the Submarine Industrial Base Council, Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on readiness, said replacing the boats — also known as SSBNs — will be critical to the nation’s strategic outlook. Of course that depends on how you define "strategic." What kind of strategy relies on a concept (strategic nuclear deterrence) that has to work 100 percent of the time; one error, and it's all over (quite literally) for civilization as we know it.

“We know how critical [the Ohio-class replacement] … is to our nation’s strategic position in the world and we want to make sure that SSBNs availability match Ohio-class retirement. Or make sure there is no gap in there,” he said. Our "strategic position" in the world? That is essentially where we dominate other nations in our military capabilities. In terms of ballistic missile submarines, since we have continued to deploy Trident at full capacity since the end of the Cold War, Russia is now rebuilding and will have new submarines and missiles to compete. How long can we maintain dominance, and how long can this go on before proliferation reaches the danger zone???

The United States still “rules the undersea world,” Wittman said, but Congress needs to ensure it continues investing in submarine platforms. That quote sums it up!!! How long can we continue to "rule the undersea world" to the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars even as our infrastructure at home crumbles and we empty the Treasury? 

The Navy’s 2016 proposed budget request asked for $1.4 billion toward research and development for the Ohio-class replacement program, also known as the SSBN(X). The program will replace 14 subs. The program will build 12 new submarines at an estimated cost of nearly $100 billion! With a $100 billion construction price tag, along with the additional life cycle costs, and costs of the nuclear missiles and their thermonuclear warheads (amounting to many hundreds of billions), how might this money be re-directed to desperately needed programs here at home?

“Research-and-development efforts will focus on the propulsion plant, common missile compartment development and platform development technologies like the propulsor, strategic weapons system and maneuvering/ship control,” budget documents said. And all this work (along with the construction phase) will benefit "defense" contractors like General Dynamics Electric Boat and many others.

SSBN-17 will be the first sub to reach the end of its service life in fiscal year 2027, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in February.

“The remaining 13 will reach the ends of their service lives at a rate of roughly one ship per year thereafter, with the 14th reaching the end of its service life in 2040,” the report said.

The Navy would like to have the first replacement procured by fiscal year 2021, the report said.

The need for an Ohio-class replacement — as well as continued procurement of the Virginia-class fast attack submarines — is critical as adversaries bulk up their submarine fleets, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on seapower. Yes, our "adversaries" are ramping up only because they feel the need to keep up with us. Of course, as the U.S. continues its massive Asia Pacific Pivot it is no wonder that China is building a ballistic missile submarine fleet.

“The world is more threatening than ever before,” Blumenthal said. “Submarines are a place where [the] competition is endeavoring to overtake us. The Chinese and the Russians both have active submarine programs. … They are investing more heavily than ever before.” The "world" is threatening??? Now there's the ultimate global statement; sounds like everyone is out to get us - eegads! We have been threatening the world with the threat of use of nuclear weapons for nearly 70 years, and Trident is the ultimate threat. Of course the Chinese and Russians have active programs, and are playing catch-up with the U.S. The Russians ramped things back after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and yet the U.S. continued to deploy at Cold War levels - WHY???

The Navy’s fiscal year 2016 budget includes $3.3 billion in funding for two Virginia-class subs, according to budget materials.

Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., agreed that China and Russia pose a risk to the United States. Is anyone getting tired of this rhetoric???

“Russia is not slowing down on its sub-building program,” he said. “We know that they just launched a new class of attack submarines. We know that they are pushing out the envelope of sub patrols ... we know that we’ve seen one within 200 miles of American shores and this is a reality that the United States is going to have to deal with.” Oh, and we ARE slowing down??? I don't think so. We're going full bore on building both attack and ballistic missile submarines!

Further, China now has a submarine fleet that is larger than the Navy's. However, the United States still maintains the fastest, stealthiest and most advanced subs in the world, he noted.

Replacing the Ohio-class submarines is important because they represent the sea-based leg of the nation’s nuclear triad, Murphy noted. The United State’s nuclear triad is represented by three legs — ballistic missile submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers.

"There is no future without the sea-based leg of the triad," he said. Or should we say that the future looks perilous if the U.S. continues to rely on thinking rooted in Cold War thinking and pushes us into a new Cold War by building a new generation of Trident that would sail into the end of this century - assuming we go that long without either accidental or intentional nuclear war? 

With the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference coming up in April, President Obama should be making "good faith efforts" to work with Russia and the other nuclear nations to finally make real efforts toward nuclear disarmament (rather than building a foundation for out of control nuclear proliferation and a new and dangerous Cold War).

Does the President have the courage to stand up for humanity and its future? What better legacy could he leave from his Presidency?

To Buy or Not to Buy (NewTrident): That is the question...

The people at the Ploughshares Fund are attempting to kick start the greatly needed debate about funding the next generation of ballistic missile submarines.

In the following article the authors rightly question the "terrible precedent" that would be set should the Navy be allowed (with the help of Congress) to fund a new fleet of boomers (as they are fondly known in the Navy) outside of the Navy's shipbuilding budget.

They call for fiscal responsibility, and are also right to question the "strategic sense" of funding 12 ballistic missile subs, and as a consequence have to forgo (according to the Congressional Budget Office) 69 ships of the Navy's conventional fleet.

The authors ask, "...could the Navy maintain U.S. security with fewer than 12?" Their answer is yes, and they state that the Navy could do the job with 8 rather than 12 subs.

What is intriguing about this rationale is how they came to it. Based on traditional thinking (strategic nuclear deterrence doctrine), weapon system capabilities, and treaty obligations it is not any stretch to realize that 8 Tridents are enough (to destroy life on earth as we know it).

What is missing (for me) in this article is any discussion of why we need to build any New Tridents! While much of this article is on the right track, the authors seem to be playing it safe by not venturing into the dangerous waters of questioning the validity of our nations current nuclear pursuits.

What of the doctrine of strategic nuclear deterrence in a post-Cold War world? Should it not undergo a thorough evaluation by experts with no vested interest in building and deploying nuclear weapons? And should such questioning be done well before we start preparing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in new nuclear weapons systems ($100 billion in the case of New Trident)?

At any rate, I'm grateful to Ploughshares Fund for contributing to what I hope will be a more public dialogue on an issue that affects the future of every citizen of this nation as well as the future of humanity. Perhaps the question is not how to find "a better way to buy nuclear submarines," but whether to buy them at all.

Ironically, the authors close by saying that "The worst thing we could do right now is waste scarce resources on yesterday’s weapons, starving the programs we really need."

*********************
A Better Way To Buy Nuclear Submarines

By TOM COLLINA and JACOB MARX
on January 23, 2015 in Breaking Defense

The Ploughshares Fund shares the Obama’s Administration’s goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons. Whether you agree with that goal or not, Tom Collina of the fund offers here a choice that those on the outer reaches of both political parties may agree on: forcing the Navy to live within its regular budget. The service, and most strategists, believe the Navy must get funding to buy a full complement of replacements for the Ohio class of nuclear missile submarines for the United States to remain the world’s dominant power. That, they say, will require special funding for the Ohio Replacement Program. They believe the service must receive money for both a robust surface fleet, attack submarines and a fleet of nuclear missile submarines. Do we maintain the most advanced nuclear triad in the world, with a fleet of survivable and advanced boomers or not? And how will we pay for it? It’s a choice that will be hotly debated. The Editor.

The Obama administration is expected to submit a military budget on February 2 that is more than $30 billion over the amount Congress can approve. That money will have to be cut from somewhere. Fortunately, the Pentagon can save billions of dollars and advance U.S. security by scaling back the excessive program to replace the Ohio nuclear-armed submarine.

The Navy is particularly strapped for cash as it tries to sustain a 300-ship fleet while also building a dozen of the new nuclear missile submarines for about $100 billion. As the Navy admits, it cannot afford to do both. But instead of scaling back its plans, the service is seeking an additional $60 billion from outside its budget.

This is no way to run a Navy. Congress needs to enforce budget discipline and encourage the Navy to live within its means. Unfortunately, some on Capitol Hill are heading in the opposite direction by creating a special bank account for extra Navy money, the Sea Based Strategic Deterrence Fund.

But wait, there’s one catch: the bank account is empty, and there is no realistic prospect of filling it. It was created by the congressional authorizing committees, which set policy but do not sign checks. The appropriators handle the money, and they are not buying. There is just not enough cash to go around.

The Sea Based Strategic Deterrence Fund is a pipe dream, and the Navy is kidding itself if it thinks it can buy the new submarines on the cheap from someone else’s budget.

As Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall said in September, budget gimmicks, like the sub fund, don’t actually solve anything. “At the end of the day we have to find money to pay for these things one way or another, right? So changing the accounting system doesn’t really change that fundamental requirement. We still need the money and it has to come from somewhere.”

The sub fund also sets a terrible precedent for congressional budgeting. The Air Force, for example, also wants to modernize its nuclear weapons and is also strapped for cash. Can the Air Force have a special account too? Where does this end?

There is a better solution that few seem to be considering: buy fewer submarines.

Yes, current Ohio-class submarines are aging and will need to be replaced. Yes, the subs are the most survivable leg of the nuclear “triad”—which also includes land-based missiles and bombers—which together will cost up to $1 trillion to over the next 30 years. But 25 years after the Cold War and with the new subs estimated to cost $7.7 billion each, could the Navy maintain U.S. security with fewer than 12?

The answer is yes.

There is nothing magic about 12 submarines. In fact, the Navy is planning to have only 10 during the 2030s, and eight would do just as well.

The requirement for 12 subs is driven by the Navy’s mission to “forward deploy” about five of the subs close to targets in Russia and China for “prompt launch.” The remaining subs would be in transit or dockside. In other words, the Navy wants 12 subs so some can be within range of potential targets 24-7-365.

This may have made sense during the Cold War, but strategic submarines no longer need to be forward deployed in this way. Modern missile subs are invulnerable once at sea. If they ever need to launch a nuclear-armed missile (which has never happened) there is no reason the Navy could not wait even a few days for the subs to reach launch position. In the highly unlikely event that immediate launch were ever needed, the Air Force has ground-based missiles that can do that.

Once the requirement for forward deployed subs is reduced, the main factor driving the number of subs is how many warheads they can carry. The Pentagon plans to deploy about 1,000 nuclear warheads at sea for the indefinite future. How many subs do we need for that? Just eight. (Each sub can hold 128 warheads.)

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), buying eight subs rather than 12 would save $21 billion over the next decade–and that is real money.

The alternative? The Navy could fund the subs from its own budget, but only at great cost to the conventional fleet. At current funding levels, the Navy says 12 new missile subs would crowd out 32 combat ships. This is the rosy scenario. CBO estimates look much worse, with the Navy foregoing a total of 69 ships, including two aircraft carriers, 17 attack submarines, 20 destroyers, 19 littoral combat ships, six amphibious ships and five combat logistics and support vessels.

This does not make strategic sense. Carriers and destroyers are the backbone of the fleet. These are the ships that make America a global power–that let it hunt terrorists, clean up after tsunamis, and do exercises with allies, all at the same time. Not having these ships would limit America’s ability to project power around the world and effectively respond to unforeseen threats. These ships would be missed.

Compare that to having a few less nuclear-missile subs. Would anyone even notice?

Pentagon procurement decisions worth tens of billions of dollars should not be based on obsolete strategy. The Pentagon and the White House need to adjust the nuclear strategy and budget to the declining threat. The worst thing we could do right now is waste scarce resources on yesterday’s weapons, starving the programs we really need.

Tom Z. Collina is Policy Director and Jacob Marx is a Research Assistant at Ploughshares Fund in Washington.

Original article source URL: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/a-better-way-to-buy-nuclear-submarines/  

New Trident: Strategic Asset or Liability???

As we move into 2015 the Fiscal Year 2015 funding cycle is but a memory, and New Trident got its funding. Looking forward, with all the concern about the OHIO Class Replacement sinking the Navy's shipbuilding budget, we could see funding problems for New Trident in FY2016.

However, there is no need to fear (if you are General Dynamics Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding that is); if some members of Congress have their way New Trident will have its own special slush fund. With the funding in hand (outside of the normal funding channels, and outside the Navy's shipbuilding budget) it would be smooth sailing for Electric Boat and Newport News.

This is what "deterrence" looks like.

Yet, beyond the funding issues lies the fundamental question no one dares ask: "Why build an outdated Cold War nuclear weapons system that will only serve to increase both global nuclear proliferation and the risk of either accidental or intentional nuclear war."

The following article goes to the heart of the problem - the corporate press parroting the propaganda handed out by the Pentagon. In the second paragraph the writer refers to Trident as playing "an increasingly important role in America's ability to deliver a nuclear punch." It would seem like Trident's heyday should have ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The only reason Trident would be playing an "increasingly important role" is that the US is creating a perceived need for nuclear weapons through its foreign policy pursuits, which place nuclear weapons front and center.

The article quotes Rep. Rob Whittman referring (as has just about every backer of New Trident) to Trident as "a national strategic asset". The ultimate question we need to ask is whether Trident (and especially New Trident) is an asset or liability. We don't want to learn the answer the hard way.

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

Funding new submarines outside the Navy?

By Hugh Lessig, Originally published in the Daily Press, January 10, 2015
hlessig@dailypress.com

Newport News Shipbuilding has a stake in a new and potentially divisive method for funding a future class of submarine, a project considered the Navy's top priority.

At issue is how to replace the aging fleet of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, often referred to as "boomers," which play an increasingly important role in America's ability to deliver a nuclear punch.

Replacing the Ohio-class fleet with new submarines has been deemed so important — and so difficult to afford in tight fiscal times — that Congress has proposed funding them outside the Navy's $15.7 billion annual shipbuilding budget.

The Newport News shipyard, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, has worked as a subcontractor to help design and engineer the Ohio-class replacement, also known as SSBN-X. Working in the lead is General Dynamics Electric Boat of Groton, Conn.

Those two yards now build the Virginia-class fast-attack submarine in a teaming arrangement that the Navy considers a big success. The boats are routinely delivered ahead of schedule and on budget.

Newport News officials, as well as two local congressmen influential on shipbuilding matters, expect the yard to play a role in building the SSBN-X as well. Construction is set to begin in the early 2020s.

But first, a majority in Congress must agree to squirrel away a few billion dollars in something called the National Sea Based Deterrence Fund.

Lawmakers created the fund in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Language allows for $3.5 billion in seed money to be transferred there from unspent accounts. Ultimately, supporters want it to have a dedicated source of revenue from the Pentagon, not just the Navy.

"We felt it needed to be viewed as a separate national strategic asset as opposed to something that ought to come out of the Navy's shipbuilding budget," said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, who heads the Sea Power and Projection Forces subcommittee.

"This is a national strategic asset that happens to be in the Navy," agreed Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Westmoreland, who oversees the panel on military readiness.

Both point to the difficult math when considering Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan. It sets aside about $15.7 billion annually for new ship construction. The Ohio-class replacement submarines are expected to cost around $5.5 billion a year and possibly more. Forbes said the annual shipbuilding budget would need an extra $4 billion to accommodate the project.

Doing that would rob the Navy of its ability to build other ships, Wittman said.

"What do we do then? Do we not build an aircraft carrier? Do you build several destroyers? That's the magnitude of what we're talking about if you keep it within the shipbuilding budget," he said.

Creative accounting?

Not everyone is convinced.

"From a budgeting standpoint, this makes no sense," wrote Ryan Alexander, head of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense in October 2014. "It isn't reducing the cost of the submarine. It doesn't lower the top line of Pentagon spending. All it does is temporarily relieve the pressure on the Navy's budget."

In December, the group took another shot at the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund in a blog post under the headline "Deterring What Exactly? Good Budgeting Practices?"

It raised the point that other services might want to get into the game.

"Calling submarines national assets because they are 'owned, operated or controlled by the Department of Defense' is hooey. We're pretty sure that the Air Force's silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are similarly owned. ... Why should the Navy be the only service to benefit from this creative accounting?"

Wittman said such a request from the Air Force wouldn't surprise him.

"That's always a possibility, especially in a time of scarce resources," he said. "We do need to modernize our nuclear arsenal. But we are much, much closer to the stage of needing to begin construction of SSBN-X than we are with the other parts of our nuclear arsenal."

Added Forbes: "We always see institutional inertia and protectiveness about services and agencies. To say that wouldn't have a role would be naive on my part."

But there are estimates that the Ohio-class replacement could make up 70 percent of America's nuclear deterrence — the most important leg of the U.S. nuclear triad that includes land-based missiles and long-range bombers.

"When you look at that component, it would be hard for someone with a straight face to say we don't need this," Forbes said.

Aging fleet

Eighteen Ohio-class submarines entered service between 1981 and 1997, according to data from the Congressional Research Service. Originally designed for 30-year lives, the boats were later certified for 42 years of service.

During the Clinton administration, the first four Ohio-class boats were converted to cruise-missile submarines, which do not carry a nuclear payload. The current fleet stands at 14, homeported in King's Bay, Ga., and Bangor, Wash., in Puget Sound. Unlike other Navy ships, Ohio-class submarines operate with alternating crews to maximize their time at sea.

Its basic mission is to stay at sea, in hiding, ready to launch its ballistic missiles. It is considered the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Ohio-class replacement program proposes to replace the current fleet of 14 submarines with 12 more advanced boats. The first boat in the class is expected to cost $12.4 billion. The Navy has estimated the cost of the remaining boats at $6 billion, with the goal of reducing that to $5.5 billion, according to a December report from the Congressional Budget Office.

CBO says the submarines will be more expensive, pegging the lead ship at $13.8 billion and a $7.1 billion average cost for the remaining ships.

That's a good deal less than the smaller Virginia-class submarines, which are now being built at a rate of two per year. Last fall, Newport News christened the John Warner, expected to come in at less than $2 billion.

An economic boomer

The Ohio-class submarines were built at Electric Boat in Connecticut, and that yard is leading the effort to design SSBN-X, with Newport News also performing work.

Electric Boat and Newport News are the only two U.S. shipyards capable of building nuclear-powered submarines. Because of that, and because the two yards have worked together to build Virginia-class boats, Wittman and Forbes are confident that Newport News will see a chunk of business from the Ohio class replacement program.

"We only have two games in town," Forbes said. "It's not like you can go to a mall somewhere else."

Newport News officials, through spokeswoman Christie Miller, said they are confident about playing a role in the Ohio replacement program, with specifics yet to be determined.

The Virginia class teaming arrangement happened in part because Congress wanted two shipyards with the capability to build nuclear submarines. That way, if one yard is knocked out of commission or the U.S. wants to ramp up production, it has the flexibility. Wittman said that argument still holds.

"I think the teaming arrangement is absolutely critical," he said. "When we get to the point of the design being mature and the development process started, I fully expect that Congress will be very specific about how it sees this process taking place. My vision is that it will involve both yards — details yet to be determined."

Lessig can be reached by phone at 757-247-7821.

Copyright © 2015, Daily Press

Original Source URL:  http://www.dailypress.com/news/military/dp-nws-boomer-budget-20150111-story.html#page=1  

House passes Defense Reauthorization: Trident gets full funding

The House of Representatives passed the massive ($584 billion) FY 2015 Defense Reauthorization Bill. Of that money, $1.8 billion (fully funded) will go to continuing research and development for the next generation ballistic missile submarine to replace the current Trident (OHIO Class) fleet. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says (among other things) that this bill "strengthens our economy in Eastern Connecticut." Of course, what Courtney avoids talking about is the huge risk to the U.S. economy, and in fact the global economy, from any use of nuclear weapons.

Building a new generation of Trident as well as other new nuclear weapons systems practically guarantees a future in which at some point these horrific weapons will be used. At that point, all bets are off. Depending on scope of use as well as the geographic area(s) directly and indirectly affected, regional economies and the global economy will be affected.  

But we should digress for a moment from economic factors, which so many supporters (particularly those in Congress) like to cite in pushing new nuclear weapons systems. Beyond the economic devastation of even a limited nuclear war, the effects on the environment that sustains civilization will be unimaginable. Among them will likely be limited or total collapse of civilization as we know it.

If our members of Congress truly represent the people, they need to think beyond short term economic stimulus for their districts and begin to look at the long-term good of the people who (we hope) will be here after we have gone (hopefully leaving things a little better rather than much worse).

Think about that as you read the following article announcing this past week's House vote. What are our priorities???

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

House passes $584B Defense Reauthorization Bill, includes $5.9B for sub construction

By Adam Benson
The Norwich Bulletin
abenson@norwichbulletin.com
(860) 908-7004
Posted Dec. 4, 2014 @ 9:39 pm

Electric Boat's multi-billion dollar contract for the continued construction of Virginia-class submarines was approved by the U.S. House Thursday as part of a $584 billion defense reauthorization bill, winning praise from regional economic development officials and the state's congressional delegation.

The measure, which sailed through the House on a 300-119 vote, heads to the Senate next week where it is expected to be approved.

“The kind jobs that come from producing the most sophisticated vessels in the world create an enormous amount of wealth for this area,” Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut President and CEO Tony Sheridan said. “We are a maritime community, and this kind of support from the federal government continues a long-standing tradition in Eastern Connecticut.”

Highlights of the bill include the authorization of $5.9 billion for the Virginia class submarine program, including $3.6 billion for two boats in 2015. The measure also fully supports the Block IV multi-year submarine contract completed earlier this year, which calls for 10 submarines to be built over the next five years.

A $1.3 billion budgetary request to continue research and development of the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement is also included in the bill, as is $133 million for the continued development of the Virginia class payload module.

“Despite a challenging fiscal climate, this bill maintains strong investments in our undersea fleet, including continued two-a-year production of Virginia-class submarines, and full funding for the Ohio replacement program and the Virginia payload module,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “The unrivaled work of the men and women of Electric Boat has inspired confidence in these programs for the future. This bill underscores our commitment to maintaining the best submarine fleet in the world, and strengthens our economy in Eastern Connecticut.”

And, if the Senate adopts the legislateon in its current form, there would be no base realignment and closure round in 2017.

Chris Zendan, a spokesman for the Naval submarine base in Groton, said Thursday the Navy doesn’t comment on pending legislation.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. said he is ready to support the bill in the Senate.
“I will fight strongly for approval of this very significant measure for Connecticut and our national security when it reaches the Senate next week,” Blumenthal said. “I am particularly pleased the Congress has recognized the contributions made by our Connecticut workforce to our national security by approving the products and weapons systems made in our state.”

John Beauregard, executive director of the Franklin-based Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board, said keeping the region’s military sector operating at existing levels helps stabilize an economy that has been gaining traction in recent months.


Original article sourceURL: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20141204/News/141209749#ixzz3LAMaqIbX

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