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.

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.

Damn the funding; it's full speed ahead for New Trident

Editor's Note: This just in from the Russian media (as if we didn't know already) - Congress will be sure to find the money to build the full complement of 12 new ballistic missile submarines currently in research and development by the Navy. Of course, they are doing it outside the normal budgetary process so as to not sink the Navy's shipbuilding budget. What that old expression about having their cake and eating it too???  

Of course, Congress is being soooooo fiscally responsible these days in its slashing of unnecessary spending - like cutting food stamps, deeper cuts to Medicaid, ending the Affordable Health Care Act's subsidies, and that's just for starters. Of course those tax cuts for the 1% are absolutely critical to get the economy jump-started!!! After all, many of those one percenters are running the huge weapons makers like General Dynamics, whose Electric Boat division will likely end up profiting handsomely from its contract to build the Navy's new ballistic missile subs.

The problem is that subsidizing huge weapons makers is NOT the kind of economic stimulus the country needs. And in the case of New Trident, it's something the world does not need. The continuing deployment of Trident and plans for a new generation sends a clear message to the Russians that they need to keep up with the US, and that is just what they are doing. So while the US and it's nuclear dance partner keep playing this dangerous game, other nations are also upgrading their memberships in the nuclear club. And that's definitely NOT good!!!

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

New Nuclear Sub's Funding to Start on Time Despite Media Reports - US Navy

Sputnik International (sputniknews.com), March 25, 2015

Earlier in March, media reported that the US Navy and Congress had not managed to find the funds to pay for the procurement of the Ohio Replacement Program, in charge of replacing the aging Ohio-class submarines with 12 more advanced subs.

MOSCOW (Sputnik), Alexander Mosesov — Procurement funding for the US next-generation strategic nuclear submarine will start in 2017 as expected, despite earlier media reports claiming the funds have not been found yet, a US Navy spokeswoman told Sputnik on Wednesday.

Compared to its predecessor — the third-generation Ohio-class strategic nuclear submarine, which was built from 1976 till 1997 — the fourth-generation replacement submarine is expected to feature fewer launch tubes, state-of-the-art sonar, optical imaging and weapons control systems, a new electric drive and a nuclear fuel core able to power the ship for its entire service life.

"[Advanced] procurement for the Navy's top programmatic priority, the Ohio replacement program, begins… in fiscal year 2017 and leading to the procurement of the first boat construction in fiscal year 2021," Nicole Schwegman told Sputnik.

The first replacement submarine is expected to cost $12,4 billion, including $4,8 billion in design and engineering costs and $7,6 billion in construction costs. The first submarine is expected to enter service in 2031.

As of 2015, Russia is the world's only country with fourth-generation strategic nuclear submarines in service — the Borey-class submarines, which are to become the mainstay of the naval component of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent.

Original Source URL:  http://sputniknews.com/military/20150325/1020001327.html

Want a new sub? Play the fear card!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admiral: Crimea Proves Nuclear Subs Still Needed

Apr 07, 2014 | by Kris Osborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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