Puget Sound’s ticking nuclear time bomb

Editor's Note: This is a guest editorial by Glen Milner, a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action. It was originally published at Crosscut.com on January 10, 2017. 

In September of 1980, routine maintenance work on a U.S. Air Force Titan II missile near Damascus, Arkansas, became a life-and-death crisis. The trouble started when a 21-year-old airman accidentally dropped a socket from his wrench, which then fell 70 feet and pierced the missile’s side, releasing a rush of explosive fuel.

The W53 warhead on the Titan II missile at Damascus was the most powerful weapon in the U.S. arsenal at the time and was equal to three times the firepower of all the bombs used in World War II, including the two atomic bombs. The initial explosion catapulted the 740-ton silo door away from the missile silo and ejected the second stage and the nuclear warhead. Once clear of the silo, the second stage exploded. The warhead safety devices performed as designed and it did not explode.

This scene, which is described in horrifying detail in Eric Schlosser’s 2014 book, “Command and Control,” is now the centerpiece of a PBS American Experience documentary of the same name. The film aired on on KCTS 9 public television (Crosscut’s sister organization) January 10. If you missed it, you can stream it, and find bonus videos and articles, on the PBS website here.  

“Command and Control” shows what can happen when the weapons built to protect us threaten to destroy us, and it speaks directly to Puget Sound citizens: Locally, we face a similar threat in Hood Canal with the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons in the United States at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor.

An accident at Bangor involving nuclear weapons occurred in November 2003when a ladder penetrated a nuclear nose cone during a routine missile offloading at the Explosives Handling Wharf. All missile-handling operations at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific (SWFPAC) were stopped for nine weeks until Bangor could be recertified for handling nuclear weapons. Three top commanders were fired but the public was never informed until information was leaked to the media in March 2004.

The Navy never publicly admitted that the 2003 accident occurred. The Navy failed to report the accident at the time to county or state authorities. Public responses from governmental officials were generally in the form of surprise and disappointment.

A major danger at Bangor is the possibility of an accident involving Trident rocket motor propellant while loading and unloading the nuclear-equipped D-5missiles at the Explosives Handling Wharf. Trident propellant is more volatile than TNT and is capable of detonating upon impact. Propellant in one missile has the explosive force equal to 155,000 pounds of TNT. An accident at the Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor could result in an explosion equal to 3.7 million pounds of TNT involving up to 24 D-5 missiles on one SSBN submarine.

Get More Articles Like This

The result of such an explosion likely would not cause a nuclear detonation. Instead, plutonium from the approximately 108 nuclear warheads on one submarine could be spread by the wind.

There is no weapons system in the U.S. arsenal with the operational risks of a Trident submarine. Consider the nuclear reactor on each submarine; the complexity of 25,000 parts in just one D-5 missile; and routine loading operations for explosive missiles and warheads on the Hood Canal waterfront.

Robert Kenner, director of “Command and Control,” states, “Opinions range widely on whether we should have nuclear weapons, but while we have them we can all agree that safety should be paramount. Given how devastating the consequences of an accident could be, we must strive for the lowest possible probability.

Our Sponsors

“After an accident, everyone will be asking why we didn’t do something,” he adds. “We need to be asking these questions before it’s too late.”

Watching the documentary may help viewers decide whether nuclear weapons are worth the risk.

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.

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?

Activists Make Statement at Nuke Base: Our Children Deserve Better!

Activists briefly blockaded the entrance to a West Coast nuclear weapons base in a statement against U.S. Nuclear modernization efforts on the eve of Mothers Day.

On Saturday, April 9, 2015 anti-nuclear weapons activists gathered at the main entrance gate to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, home to eight of the nation's fourteen OHIO Class (Trident) ballistic missile submarines. Carrying signs saying “Our children deserve better”, five protesters walked into the roadway and blocked traffic entering the base. Washington State Patrol officers moved in and escorted the protesters off the roadway.

Anthony DeLorenzo, Seattle, WA; Tom Karlin, Tacoma, WA; Mona Lee, Seattle, WA; Brenda McMillan, Port Townsend, WA; and Alice Zillah, Olympia, WA were cited for being in the roadway illegally, released and escorted back to the designated protest zone where others were protesting. Other activists on the overpass over the entrance road held a large banner that read: "Abolish Nuclear Weapons."

The Mothers Day eve protest and nonviolent direct action was an annual event held by Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action at the Bangor Trident base. This year's event was held at a time when the U.S. Government continues to modernize its nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and the infrastructure that builds and maintains them at a cost estimated at roughly a trillion dollars over the next three decades. At the same time nations are meeting at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York.

Brenda McMillan being escorted off the roadway

As Leonard Eiger, spokesperson for the NO To NEW TRIDENT Campaign put it, “We can't have it both ways. The rhetoric coming out of The White House is simply not in accord with good faith negotiations towards total nuclear disarmament as required by the NPT. Our nation's actions, rather than slowing nuclear proliferation, are driving it and creating a new nuclear arms race.”

Alice Zillah (left) and Anthony Delorenzo awaiting their citations

Eiger points out that the U.S. Navy's plans for a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines, costing nearly $100 billion in construction, is at the center of the rapidly developing submarine nuclear arms race. “The U.S. has deployed Trident at near Cold War levels since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Do we seriously think that other nations have not taken notice of this?”

In a statement announcing the Mothers Day eve action event organizer Mona Lee said that, “The world's children deserve better than to struggle to live under the threat of a renewed nuclear arms race. Increasing militarization steals resources desparately needed to mitigate global warming and improve living conditions worldwide.”

Event co-organizer Mona Lee

Ground Zero Center calls on the U.S. government to change course on Trident and its overall nuclear posture, and begin to live up to its obligations as a member of the United Nations and as a signatory to the NPT. Anything less is a theft of our children's future.

The Trident submarine base at Bangor, just 20 miles from Seattle, contains the largest concentration of operational nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Each of the 8 Trident submarines at Bangor carries up to 24 Trident II (D-5) missiles, each capable of being armed with as many as 8 independently targetable thermonuclear warheads. Each nuclear warhead has an explosive force of between 100 and 475 kilotons (up to 30 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb). It has been estimated that by the time the new generation of ballistic missile submarines are put into service, they will represent 70 percent of the nation's deployed nuclear warheads.

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action is currently engaged in legal actions in Federal court to halt the Navy’s construction of an unnecessary Second Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor. Ground Zero's NO To NEW TRIDENT Campaign (notnt.org) is working with other organizations to de-fund the Navy’s plans for the next generation ballistic missile submarine, also known as the OHIO Class Replacement or SSBN(X).

For over thirty-seven years Ground Zero has engaged in education, training in nonviolence, community building, resistance against Trident, and action toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Contact: Leonard Eiger, Media and Outreach
Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action
www.gzcenter.org
subversivepeacemaking@gmail.com
(425)445-2190

To Abolish Trident, End the Arms Race!!!

As we begin the campaign to stop production of a new generation of U.S. ballistic missile submarines that will replace the current OHIO Class (Trident) fleet, we fully realize that this effort does not, and absolutely cannot, exist in a vacuum.  The push to develop new nuclear weapons systems such as new Trident is part of a broader desire of the U.S. to continue the global projection of military power.  Through this endless projection of power, which now is becoming blatantly manifest in the Asia-Pacific Pivot, the U.S. has abrogated its responsibilities under legally binding treaty obligations, including the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Lawrence Wittner, historian and expert on the movement to abolish nuclear weapons (Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement), has written a concise essay that provides some sobering perspective on where we are in the continuing "Endless Arms Race" and why.  Most importantly, Wittner is clear that we can only end this "Arms Race" by ending the "rhetoric" and replacing it with sincere "action" toward disarmament. Only then will the government be prepared to give up Trident.

May we choose to take that leap of faith.

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

The Endless Arms Race

 By Lawrence Wittner, Originally published in History News Network on January 20, 2014

It’s heartening to see that an agreement has been reached to ensure that Iran honors its commitment, made when it signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to forgo developing nuclear weapons.

But what about the other key part of the NPT, Article VI, which commits nuclear-armed nations to “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,” as well as to “a treaty on general and complete disarmament”? Here we find that, 44 years after the NPT went into force, the United States and other nuclear powers continue to pursue their nuclear weapons buildups, with no end in sight.

On January 8, 2014, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced what Reuters termed “ambitious plans to upgrade [U.S.] nuclear weapons systems by modernizing weapons and building new submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them.” The Pentagon intends to build a dozen new ballistic missile submarines, a new fleet of long-range nuclear bombers, and new intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in late December that implementing the plans would cost $355 billion over the next decade, while an analysis by the independent Center for Nonproliferation Studies reported that this upgrade of U.S. nuclear forces would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years. If the higher estimate proves correct, the submarines alone would cost over $29 billion each.

Of course, the United States already has a massive nuclear weapons capability -- approximately 7,700 nuclear weapons, with more than enough explosive power to destroy the world. Together with Russia, it possesses about 95 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that comprise the global nuclear arsenal.

Nor is the United States the only nation with grand nuclear ambitions. Although China currently has only about 250 nuclear weapons, including 75 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), it recently flight-tested a hypersonic nuclear missile delivery vehicle capable of penetrating any existing defense system. The weapon, dubbed the Wu-14 by U.S. officials, was detected flying at ten times the speed of sound during a test flight over China during early January 2014. According to Chinese scientists, their government had put an “enormous investment” into the project, with more than a hundred teams from leading research institutes and universities working on it. Professor Wang Yuhui, a researcher on hypersonic flight control at Nanjing University, stated that “many more tests will be carried out” to solve the remaining technical problems. “It’s just the beginning.” Ni Lexiong, a Shanghai-based naval expert, commented approvingly that “missiles will play a dominant role in warfare, and China has a very clear idea of what is important.”

Other nations are engaged in this arms race, as well. Russia, the other dominant nuclear power, seems determined to keep pace with the United States through modernization of its nuclear forces. The development of new, updated Russian ICBMs is proceeding rapidly, while new nuclear submarines are already being produced. Also, the Russian government has started work on a new strategic bomber, known as the PAK DA, which reportedly will become operational in 2025. Both Russia and India are known to be working on their own versions of a hypersonic nuclear missile carrier. But, thus far, these two nuclear nations lag behind the United States and China in its development. Israel is also proceeding with modernization of its nuclear weapons, and apparently played the key role in scuttling the proposed U.N. conference on a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East in 2012.

This nuclear weapons buildup certainly contradicts the official rhetoric. On April 5, 2009, in his first major foreign policy address, President Barack Obama proclaimed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” That fall, the UN Security Council -- including Russia, China, Britain, France, and the United States, all of them nuclear powers -- unanimously passed Resolution 1887, which reiterated the point that the NPT required the “disarmament of countries currently possessing nuclear weapons.” But rhetoric, it seems, is one thing and action quite another.

Thus, although the Iranian government’s willingness to forgo the development of nuclear weapons is cause for encouragement, the failure of the nuclear nations to fulfill their own NPT obligations is appalling. Given these nations’ enhanced preparations for nuclear war -- a war that would be nothing short of catastrophic -- their evasion of responsibility should be condemned by everyone seeking a safer, saner world.

Lawrence S. Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization, What’s Going On at UAardvark? 

Source URL for Wittner's essay: http://hnn.us/article/154488  

Asia-Pacfic Pivot and the Dangers of Trident

Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The graphic that accompanies the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the dialogue begin!!!  

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

Click here to read US Nuclear Forces, 2014.

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

New Trident: "The devil is in the details" (and in everything else too)

The U.S. Navy is sending in the Big Guns to defend its plans to build the next generation ballistic missile submarine, a Cold War vintage weapon system designed for only one thing - to hold the (then) Soviet Union at bay through the outdated doctrine of nuclear deterrence and, if necessary, launch its massive arsenal of nuclear armed ballistic missiles, fulfilling the horrific doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (or, to put it more bluntly - the end of life as we know it).

Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge, Director of US Naval Undersea Warfare, spoke strongly to the need to go all out on a new design of the replacement for the current OHIO-class submarine fleet. Breckenridge was quoted as saying in "a recent blog" that "the devil is in the details."  I might add that the "devil" most definitely has much to do with our government's continuing pursuit of omnicidal weapon systems like "Trident."

You can read the article and watch a video of Breckenridge speaking about the SSBN(X) below.

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

U.S. Navy Undersea Warfare Director Defends SSBN(X) Plans 
July 01, 2013
Source: Aviation Week

By Michael Fabey

With several defense analysts calling for the U.S. Navy to abandon its efforts to develop a new design for its SSBN(X) Ohio-class submarine replacements, the service’s undersea warfare director is defending the current course.

“Recently, a variety of writers have speculated that the required survivable deterrence could be achieved more cost effectively with the Virginia-based option or by restarting the Ohio-class SSBN production line,” says Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge, in a recent blog. “Both of these ideas make sense at face value—which is why they were included among the alternatives assessed—but the devil is in the details. When we examined the particulars, each of these options came up short in both military effectiveness and cost efficiency.”

A Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile, Breckenridge says, was “rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls.” The concept, he says, was not stealthy enough due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drivetrain able to quietly propel a much larger ship; would have had longer refit times and a longer mid-life overhaul; would carry fewer missiles and warheads; would have exceeded cost targets because of the required extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment; and would have required a larger fleet of submarines.

“Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN,” Breckenridge says. “This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to de-couple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program.

“A smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness.”

Some have argued, he notes, that the Navy should reopen the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs.

“This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line,” Breckenridge says. “It has long since been retooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques.”

Simply redesigning the Ohio-class subs to be built using new production methods and machinery would be a mistake, he says, since some of the newer technology would not carry over to the old design and building the ship to existing missile specifications could lead to some treaty issues.

###