The genies out of the bottle, its not going away, and ironically, with counter-ballistic missile technology rapidly advancing, this is *the* program that you need as a crutch in case of technology disruption, long before updating the Trident or shifting the MM III to the GBSD.
People act like there aren't vicious, amoral people out there that would commit large scale "war-crimes" in search of material gain. Doesn't the NYT have at least a weekly article complaining about Assad?
People act like there aren't vicious, amoral people out there that would commit large scale "war-crimes" in search of material gain. Doesn't the NYT have at least a weekly article complaining about Assad?
9
And this weapon will help us with Assad how?
15
Let's get some of us in colonies on the Moon or somewhere so that we have a second chance when we blow this place to hell.
7
In an article yesterday, the NY Times reported that 51 United States tax payer funded defense industry surrogates posing as "diplomats" in the State Department, recommended a huge escalation in military action against Syria... Today, we learn that the Pentagon, in cahoots with their masters, defense industry profiteers, is investing another $30 Billion of OUR tax dollars to fund the development of a nuclear weapon that, if ever used, would likely spell the end of life on Earth.
Yet OUR "elected" government can't seem to support programs for cost effective healthcare, sustainable Social Security, a functional infrastructure, or affordable education...
Can anyone guess why?
Unfortunately, the two candidates coming down the pike, both record breaking in their unpopularity, will likely make things worse. One, a tough talking war advocate with a history of preemptive invasion, and recently enriched by hundreds of millions in bribes from the billionaire class (disguised as "speeches"), and the other, a member of the cut-throat billionaire class himself.
We need a fundamental change in our priorities, Folks. To do that, we first need a fundamental change in our elective process.
Yet OUR "elected" government can't seem to support programs for cost effective healthcare, sustainable Social Security, a functional infrastructure, or affordable education...
Can anyone guess why?
Unfortunately, the two candidates coming down the pike, both record breaking in their unpopularity, will likely make things worse. One, a tough talking war advocate with a history of preemptive invasion, and recently enriched by hundreds of millions in bribes from the billionaire class (disguised as "speeches"), and the other, a member of the cut-throat billionaire class himself.
We need a fundamental change in our priorities, Folks. To do that, we first need a fundamental change in our elective process.
12
As a WW2 Veteran who lived through the start of all this madness, I'm more than sad to see where it's gotten in all these years. Progress this is not. JGAIA
7
Like the new F-35 fighter jet, the cost of which is running in the hundreds of billions, this is another in a long line of expensive and unnecessary weapons systems. One simple test to prove exactly how needed these things really are is to require them to be financed with new money. If they are crucial to the survival of the country as we are being told, then members of Congress should have no trouble convincing their constituents to pay additional taxes.
17
There must be a reason why two such highly connected persons in the government have chosen to discuss the American military's plans to develop a weapons system in the open forum of the NYTimes. Granted our adversaries China,Russia, and the Iranians have probably hacked the plans when they were first discussed. But isn't there a governmental forum for this type of ' closed door discussion.
Many of the commentators have focused on the cost and as always assume if we don't build the weapon that money can be earmarked for social expenses. It never seems to work that way. It seems quite simple. The nuclear destructive genie is out of the bottle. If we don't keep the threat edge high for our adversaries( and yes they are our adversaries whether Walmarts and the Waldorf Astoria are Chinese commercial outposts in the West or not). The Iranians have to know the end game for them is any attack on us or our allies. With the lead time to development of any weapon system far and above the pace of geopolitical threat, America needs the threat capability to force second thoughts on our adversaries before the fact.
All that being said, why on earth discuss this issue in the New York Times? We have a government for that, and most of us do not have the informational background to render a cogent opinion. And we make a fuss over HRC using her own computer?
Many of the commentators have focused on the cost and as always assume if we don't build the weapon that money can be earmarked for social expenses. It never seems to work that way. It seems quite simple. The nuclear destructive genie is out of the bottle. If we don't keep the threat edge high for our adversaries( and yes they are our adversaries whether Walmarts and the Waldorf Astoria are Chinese commercial outposts in the West or not). The Iranians have to know the end game for them is any attack on us or our allies. With the lead time to development of any weapon system far and above the pace of geopolitical threat, America needs the threat capability to force second thoughts on our adversaries before the fact.
All that being said, why on earth discuss this issue in the New York Times? We have a government for that, and most of us do not have the informational background to render a cogent opinion. And we make a fuss over HRC using her own computer?
9
The idea that Iran is planning a nuclear attack on us or even on Israel is contemptible and wrong. Even if it is developing nuclear capabilities, which it seems fairly clear it is not (thanks to recent excellent diplomatic efforts of this administration), it must know that it is seriously behind on technology.
Though I'd agree that it is unwise to air in on public media.
Though I'd agree that it is unwise to air in on public media.
9
Studies have found that the best nuclear strategy for a nation is a robust civil defense infrastructure and a prepared population to use it. The message this sends is that the nuclear nation is prepared to go to war and survive it. Defense is the best offense. Improving and hardening our nations infrastructure along with other aggressive anti-terrorist measures would be an effort on the part of our nation to better prepare ourselves against terrorist threats (North Korea) and overly aggressive nations (Russia and China). Better weapons is analogous to having the latest smartphone, it is just a matter of time until best-available-technology renders them obsolete, usually before they are even deployed.
3
They may yet prove that weapons developed will eventually be used. The pointless revival of the cold war certainly indicates that small provocation could escalate to Armageddon. Just think Ukraine.
4
The bottom line here is the Defense Industries bottom line, fiscally. This highly technical industry filled with highly trained scientists in private and federal government facilities must be kept employed. We have learned the hard lessons of history. The world has not known peace for much of human history. Eternal vigilance and preparedness are the watchwords for our Defense Department.
4
As a pessimist, I'll plan on these being added to our already over bloated N-stockpiles.
These are a done deal. The Military Industrial Complex must be fed.
These are a done deal. The Military Industrial Complex must be fed.
8
That may be true,the US does not need this weapon.
However, the oligarchs and their people in the congress of the United States want this weapon because it means huge sums of taxpayer dollars flowing into corporate coffers and congressional pockets.
Let the Good Times Roll !!
However, the oligarchs and their people in the congress of the United States want this weapon because it means huge sums of taxpayer dollars flowing into corporate coffers and congressional pockets.
Let the Good Times Roll !!
6
There are three evident layers of "defense" against the development of this weapon. The Pentagon not to propose it. Congress not to approve it. The president to veto it.
Unfortunately, our recent wars leave us short of generals with both records of accomplishment and the public stature to warn the public, as Eisenhower did, against such folly.
Unfortunately, our recent wars leave us short of generals with both records of accomplishment and the public stature to warn the public, as Eisenhower did, against such folly.
5
Give it up Sen. Feinstein. You can't beat the Four Horseman of the Military Industrial Complex: Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin.
9
It is hard to see any utility of such a weapon in settling the Middle East debacles. Is the idea that threatening Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Russia, or China with nuclear war will force them to restrict aid to warring sects? Is that "nuclear deterrence".
It is these "brush fires" around the globe that are today's problems, and rogue nations pour oil on these fires. That won't stop by unbelievable threats of nuclear disaster.
It is these "brush fires" around the globe that are today's problems, and rogue nations pour oil on these fires. That won't stop by unbelievable threats of nuclear disaster.
6
What's to stop other countries from working on the same concept?
If mutual self interest really exists, then a stronger UN should be possible, especially as technology makes smaller economies (like North Korea) more powerful.
If mutual self interest really exists, then a stronger UN should be possible, especially as technology makes smaller economies (like North Korea) more powerful.
Dream on...
2
What do you expect from Obama?
He received the Nobel Peace Prize for things to come and when he'll step down he will the US president who ran more and longer wars than any other US president in history.
He was selling the dream of a nuclear weapons free world while advancing his own nuclear options.
Obama was not even able to say "Sorry" in Hiroshima for all the atrocities the US have made when needlessly dropping a nuclear bomb.
Obama promised to close Guantanamo which is still open and working today and will be for a long time to come.
Obama has promised to get US soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan while today they are back in force and have gone back into active combat.
Obama is a liar and a cheat, so basically one simply wonders, why people still put credibility in his words?
He is no better than the Drumpf, only his hairstyle is some more moderate and he speaks in an easier tone.
He received the Nobel Peace Prize for things to come and when he'll step down he will the US president who ran more and longer wars than any other US president in history.
He was selling the dream of a nuclear weapons free world while advancing his own nuclear options.
Obama was not even able to say "Sorry" in Hiroshima for all the atrocities the US have made when needlessly dropping a nuclear bomb.
Obama promised to close Guantanamo which is still open and working today and will be for a long time to come.
Obama has promised to get US soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan while today they are back in force and have gone back into active combat.
Obama is a liar and a cheat, so basically one simply wonders, why people still put credibility in his words?
He is no better than the Drumpf, only his hairstyle is some more moderate and he speaks in an easier tone.
5
Trying to imagine a world where a president is able to do everything he says he wants to do. I can't. Even under a dictatorship, not every wish could be fulfilled.
So we're left with clueless expats in Singapore stating with self-accorded authority that our president is a liar and a cheat, no different from a reality show host/real-estate developer.
It's pathetic, really, the drivel that the Internet gives us. I don't think it's worth it. Let's turn the clock back and start over.
So we're left with clueless expats in Singapore stating with self-accorded authority that our president is a liar and a cheat, no different from a reality show host/real-estate developer.
It's pathetic, really, the drivel that the Internet gives us. I don't think it's worth it. Let's turn the clock back and start over.
7
Both Russia and the US know that ICBM's are useless for all it takes is one nuke explosion to knock out all incoming ICBM's. It is reasonable to think that China, France and England also know this and how it could work for them.
Cruise Missiles performing at the highest level of our technology cannot not be destroyed by an upper atmosphere explosion, like ICBM's. That is why Russia has updated their Cruise Missiles and switched a lot of its war-heads to Cruise Missiles and N-weapons for the battle field. America is lagging behind Russia in developing a better use of its Nuclear war heads.
Cruise Missiles performing at the highest level of our technology cannot not be destroyed by an upper atmosphere explosion, like ICBM's. That is why Russia has updated their Cruise Missiles and switched a lot of its war-heads to Cruise Missiles and N-weapons for the battle field. America is lagging behind Russia in developing a better use of its Nuclear war heads.
5
How does one "nuke" explosion wipe out all incoming "ICBM's"?
2
Reports of the demise of ICBM's have been greatly exaggerated ! US ones have been "hardened". Ever hear of MIRV's? Still incredibly lethal and effective. 'You can be SURE if it's Westinghouse!"
1
Even before the discovery of the radiation belts, high-altitude nuclear explosions (HANEs) studied as a source for injecting electrons in the geomagnetic field. Confirmed by the satellite Explorer IV in 1958, when three nuclear explosions conducted under Operation Argus took place in the South Atlantic, producing belts of trapped electrons from the β decay of the fission fragments. The trapped particles remained stable for several weeks near L = 2, and did not drift in L or broaden appreciably [HESS, 1968]. Following on from Operation Argus, both the U.S. and USSR conducted a small number of HANEs, all of which produced artificial belts of trapped energetic electrons in the Earth's radiation belts.
In the 60’s a program called Project Century, "It unexpectedly disabled U.S. and Soviet satellites," Lockheed scientist Maxwell Hunter said that the bomb blast loaded the belts longitudinally in a pie shape from pole to pole. But where the Air Force had expected the radiation from the blast to remain in the belts for only two days, "There was a trapped radiation phenomena" -- in other words, the extraordinarily high radiation levels refused to disperse. In fact, Hunter said, the energy from the A-bomb blast stayed in the belts "for over a year, maybe more." Retired Gen. Ken Hannegan of the Defense Nuclear Agency said that the trapped radiation knocked out all American and Soviet equipment that passed through it. "The area was militarily neutral."
In the 60’s a program called Project Century, "It unexpectedly disabled U.S. and Soviet satellites," Lockheed scientist Maxwell Hunter said that the bomb blast loaded the belts longitudinally in a pie shape from pole to pole. But where the Air Force had expected the radiation from the blast to remain in the belts for only two days, "There was a trapped radiation phenomena" -- in other words, the extraordinarily high radiation levels refused to disperse. In fact, Hunter said, the energy from the A-bomb blast stayed in the belts "for over a year, maybe more." Retired Gen. Ken Hannegan of the Defense Nuclear Agency said that the trapped radiation knocked out all American and Soviet equipment that passed through it. "The area was militarily neutral."
4
A critical element left out is 'who decides between deterrence and offensive'? Presumably deterrence means we'll use it if we are attacked. Attacked how? The United States convinced the UN and NATO that the 9/11 attack was an act of war. Would a similar level of attack in Poland trigger a use of US nuclear weapons? Who decides what level of attack/where justifies the use of weapons established as a deterrent. Of course, if they are not used they will have no deterrence.
1
"He should also certify that the sole objective of the weapon is nuclear deterrence. "
What does such assurance mean? That the weapon will be used only if Iran, N Korea, China or some other nation is viewed as crossing some "red line"? Where is that line to be drawn? Where will Trump draw this line? Or, Clinton?
What does such assurance mean? That the weapon will be used only if Iran, N Korea, China or some other nation is viewed as crossing some "red line"? Where is that line to be drawn? Where will Trump draw this line? Or, Clinton?
2
It is all just a scale-independent expansion of the US obsession with self-defense by deadly force to the limits of the planet and nearby space.
When Americans lose, some are bawling nihilists like Trump, ready to blow up everything they can't have.
When Americans lose, some are bawling nihilists like Trump, ready to blow up everything they can't have.
4
We can liken the world’s countries with nuclear arsenals with a modern high school. The United States, Russia, and China are the senior class and have enough credits not to use these horrible weapons. The underclassmen like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey are prone to reckless behavior and may use “the bomb” as a knee jerk reaction. Then, of course, there is the outcast group comprised of malcontents, bullies, religious zealots, and contraband dealers. Until everyone “graduates” the school of nuclear deterrence, we will be at the mercy of those who do not study well in history class.
1
A high school without detention.
3
It is curious at a time when lone wolf terrorists seem to be the greatest risk factor to all democracies around the world, that such a weapon system is even being considered. It is both disturbing and revealing to know how the military industrial complex works behind the scene to come up with such budget busting world ending annihilation weaponry. Maybe we can get the jump on climate change.
4
Given the considerable advances in both Chinese and Russian air defenses in the past 10-20 years, nearly every current cruise missile (and most ballistic missiles) are vulnerable to shoot down. Therefore, the option to overcome that is mass attack; more missiles launched in the hopes that a few get through to intended targets. That's simply not viable. The new missile would have better stealth abilities, better maneuverability, better onboard countermeasures, and better range. The nuclear game is all about deterrence and making an opponent believe you can strike them with impunity. That is no longer the case with current weapons. Ever wonder why the Chinese can be so aggressive in the South China Sea? Because they believe they have a very good chance of defeating our tactical and strategic military forces. We need the new technologies, unfortunately.
6
We should be actively disarming, not adding a new type of nuclear weapon.
If we cut down, Russia might follow suit. And we would still be armed to the teeth.
If we cut down, Russia might follow suit. And we would still be armed to the teeth.
2
We can't afford to foot the bill for education, clean water, new roads, and low cost medical care- but we'll shell out $30 billion for a nuclear missile we'll never use. Sounds like a winner of an idea if you ask me!
9
We're driven by fear. If it isn't the Soviets, it is the Iranians or North Korea or the "terrorists". Nuclear proliferation is most evident in Israel where the Israelis use it as a cudgel to maintain their notion that they were given all the earth as their "promised land". Yet we conceal the Israeli waepons cache, which could amount to hundreds of bombs. Personally, I've known about this since the early 1970's, when a brilliant nuclear physicist left the US and his being a technical mentor to many of us to go to Israel to "help them make the bomb". The rest of the world knows about this cache and it furthers the criticality of the threat we face if Israeli "enemies" counteract with weapons of theit own. The "arms race" has not ended. The "arms race" will not end until we compel Israel to disarm as well.
7
Why are "more weapons" always the answer?
3
Because the question is: what are WE doing to defend ourselves in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world! In 1938 Finland spent all their money on education , when their 'neighbors to the east' invaded to conquer them, almost all they had to fight back with was school textbooks to throw at the enemy, and a few brave souls up in trees with hunting rifles....
3
To all the commenters who, rightly are concerned about the potential for advanced nuclear-tipped cruise missiles ( we already have these in our arsenals) and an incoherent, dangerous US President, I submit that my belief and sincere hope is that the the military leaders of our country will stand-up and refuse any such orders to engage in nuclear attack based on their sworn oath to protect and defend the US constitution against all enemies. Our military leaders are well-educated and understand the implications and effects of any such orders.
Putin, in a rare confession this week, conceded that U.S is the sole super power in the world today. Isn't this the best position to be in, to coerce everyone to get rid of these deadly weapons ?
In today's world, interconnected by business interests, destroying a country means losing that market share for many years. We do not need these anachronistic weapons any more -- let us ALL get rid of them.
In today's world, interconnected by business interests, destroying a country means losing that market share for many years. We do not need these anachronistic weapons any more -- let us ALL get rid of them.
5
Of course, none of us, away from the expertise needed to utter a wise comment, can tell for sure what do do. But we can look at the evidence, the existing nuclear arsenal, and get an idea of 'overkill' for deterrence. Can you imagine if, instead of spending (wasting) so much money in weapons, we would use it to build schools and health facilities, and remove the burden of hunger and poverty in the world, increase employment and integrate our diverse human 'conglomerate'? Dream on, may be your answer, for naivete, but it may, it just may contribute to peace, and diminish the religious fanatics, especially jihadists (Islam radicals), from acting out, and justifying their barbaric killing in the name of an all-loving God?
5
Who will win the GIGANTIC government contract to build this? Who will once again raid OUR taxpayer treasure and put the money in their private pockets? NO. We do not want or need this "new" weapon. Many of us are advocating for all young people to be drafted at age 18 and for creation of a "civil" branch of the military so that young people could choose to learn to kill and be part of the traditional complex or serve communities in another way in a part of America where they were not raised to give them an opportunity to grow up and learn about OUR great country. Of course, "conservatives" ask how we will pay for it and the answer is simple. Use fully one-half of all military-directed money, grants, R&D money and every other funding source - including money for weapons like this - to fund the civil branch. All we need to do is elect the socially conscious people who will make it so.
4
Yeah, and what will they be armed with? Throwing rocks at the enemy??? I want hypersonic 'cruise missiles' thank you.
Rep Feinstein is whining because her district did not get enough of the pork. In spite of the lies she writes, she is very aware of the state of our nuclear arsenal and the costs and values of replacing it with something modern and maintainable.
3
In stating a single condition of peace, I mean simply to say that the war will cease on the part of the government, whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those who began it.
--December 6, 1864 Annual Message to Congress
--December 6, 1864 Annual Message to Congress
2
If you want to argue this in public, then let's see the best, most up-to-date intelligence agency assessments of foreign offensive nuclear and air defense capabilities. If, instead, you want to keep those secret and argue on the basis of cost and commitment to a nuclear-free world, then you're just insulting our intelligence.
3
I applaud Feinstein and Tauscher for bringing the debate about this new weapon to the forefront. But after re-reading the article multiple times, I don't see substantive differences between our old cruise missiles and this new one. Perhaps the crucial element is classified - improved stealthiness in both physicality and electronic counter-measures? Launch from orbit? Multiple warheads with some, possibly, for counter-measures?
We can only speculate when unpacking the phrase "...penetrate the world’s most advanced air-defense systems". Feinstein and Tauscher list three important questions to answer in this debate. All three most certainly pivot on classified information.
The difference in a single warhead yield is hardly cause for commotion. Whether they are 400 kt or 700 kt is academic - the detonation of either in a country with or without nuclear weapons will quickly destabilize the world. Furthermore, cruise missiles can inherently be used for both offensive and defensive purposes. The certification for it being only defensive is meaningless, particularly when viewed by potential adversaries.
We can only speculate when unpacking the phrase "...penetrate the world’s most advanced air-defense systems". Feinstein and Tauscher list three important questions to answer in this debate. All three most certainly pivot on classified information.
The difference in a single warhead yield is hardly cause for commotion. Whether they are 400 kt or 700 kt is academic - the detonation of either in a country with or without nuclear weapons will quickly destabilize the world. Furthermore, cruise missiles can inherently be used for both offensive and defensive purposes. The certification for it being only defensive is meaningless, particularly when viewed by potential adversaries.
3
Dear Senator Feinstein,
You said, "There are three key questions that remain unanswered...Defense Secretary Ashton Carter needs to address these issues."
Fine. Have him come before your committee and ask him yourself. That is what the voters of California elected you to do.
You said, "There are three key questions that remain unanswered...Defense Secretary Ashton Carter needs to address these issues."
Fine. Have him come before your committee and ask him yourself. That is what the voters of California elected you to do.
5
Read the publicly known accounts of the number of times we came within a hair of global annihilation over the last 70 years. We are not going to be lucky for ever. We need 14,000 atomic bombs stockpile in the World? We need ZERO.
2
One must distinguish between absolute need for each of these weapons, or is it corporate welfare. One must also assure that the existing stockpile actually works. To know that would provide a major increase in deterrent. But there are treaties against testing. So we are stuck with a very expensive weapon system that no one is certain will work after delivery to a target.
2
Obama is the Peace President, so we have nothing to worry about.
2
Make the world safe from nuclear weapons by making more nuclear weapons?
Sounds like NRA logic.
Sounds like NRA logic.
5
No, it's called MAD and it's worked very well in PREVENTING nuclear war for the past 71 years...
2
The biggest threat to world peace and the one nuclear weapon that America doesn’t need is Donald Trump as president. No one will be safe from his tantrums, his paranoia and his pathological insecurity. The nuclear stockpile the US currently has is more than enough for him to play with. If he's elected, he will have the power to do a lot more than sue his perceived enemies, and his threats and blustering directed toward China is a case in point. This is not the time for our military to be discussing increasing our nuclear arsenal. Instead, military and political leaders should be discussing strategy to protect the US from it's own president, in case Trump is elected.
13
"This is not the time for our military to be discussing increasing our nuclear arsenal."
The time for Congress to debate and for the American people to voice their opinions has long passed. Congress as an institution has abdicated and surrendered its responsibility and appropriated the funding while the American mainstream media failed to inform and Americans too busy to make money to notice.
The time for Congress to debate and for the American people to voice their opinions has long passed. Congress as an institution has abdicated and surrendered its responsibility and appropriated the funding while the American mainstream media failed to inform and Americans too busy to make money to notice.
3
Just track the money.. which corporation is building/profits most from developing this missle. Then check how much campaign donations they have given to congressmen of both parties in house and Senate, and you'll realize why were undertaking such a costly endeavour.
4
Couldn't President Obama, acting Commander in Chief of the military, call for a halt to this insanity?
In a speech last month delivered in Hiroshima, Japan, the President called for a "world without nuclear weapons"...
Which is it, Mr President?
In a speech last month delivered in Hiroshima, Japan, the President called for a "world without nuclear weapons"...
Which is it, Mr President?
4
The world is a very small place now. Global markets, global technology. To say that we are virtually One World is no longer just a reggae song, it's factually true, economically, socially and ecologically speaking: This idea of having perpetual enemies is simply a way for the billionaire weapon contractors to keep stealing our tax dollars so that they can buy another private jet and another mansion. As for Obama and his hypocritical speech at Hiroshima: shame on him! Hillary is predictably worse. Trump is unpredictably scary. $600 billion dollars for defense every time you turn around, but try asking the congress for a few million to help feed starving children in the U.S one out of five children go to bed hungry and many are homeless. 120 degrees across the country, in 3 years it will be 150: How about making Global Warming the #1 Enemy to resolve? Bernie Sanders was our one hope. Hillary refuses to acknowledge that her military actions in Libya and Syria have triggered off mass chaos and retaliation acts of terrorism. (Orlando). They have the best protection in the world, but we're the ones that have to pay the price for their war decisions: Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, and now Orlando. War violence begets retaliation violence. Actions have consequences. It's time for Americans to have a serious Election Discussion on ending these damned wars, on acknowledging that violence begets violence. Bread not Bombs!
3
Folks including me have mentioned China. China is our biggest competitor- militarily and economically. Russia is a mere paper tiger now. We cannot ever *win* the weapons race because there is too much money to be made by shareholders in their manufacture; too much *Pork* for legislators to be grabbed for their States. However, we do need to look strategically at what is happening around us- and we do not. As previously mentioned- while we argue about Bathrooms, China is fast positioning itself in Africa- yes the continent that we have no interest in. It will not be long until China starts erecting micro-military installations there- and what will and can we do- nothing. They will be doing exactly what we have done in Europe and Asia. When the China/Africa alliance gets to the point where Europe feels the heat we might finally notice. This alliance is bad for Africa- but no one really cares at this point simply because it has not impacted the West- yet.
3
"The Defense Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration have yet to provide concrete estimates for the program, but the Federation of American Scientists has reported that it could cost as much as $30 billion."
How many bridges and roads could we upgrade for the cost of this ridiculous albatross?
How many bridges and roads could we upgrade for the cost of this ridiculous albatross?
6
Why wasn't there an uproar when China developed the DF-21 advanced missile which is designed specifically for sinking aircraft carriers. Since the US has the largest aircraft carrier fleet experts stated the missiles are designed to counter the US Navy.
Where is the outrage from Dianne Feinstein regarding China and Russia's military build up? In the real world the US must develop advanced military weaponry to technologically stay ahead of its enemies who want to do harm.
Where is the outrage from Dianne Feinstein regarding China and Russia's military build up? In the real world the US must develop advanced military weaponry to technologically stay ahead of its enemies who want to do harm.
4
The point -- one not lost on policy-makers for the last 70 years -- is that nuclear weapons are different.
1
I couldn't help but notice the quote "Cruise missles...can be launched without warning...." Is this weapon a "first strike" system (e.g., "Hunt for Red October")? Do we need this type of threat? Do we want it?
Kim Crumbo
Vietnam Vet, Former Navy SEAL
Kim Crumbo
Vietnam Vet, Former Navy SEAL
1
Of course it can be launched without warning, but that's neither new nor outrageous. in fact, it's pretty much a requirement for a strategic weapons sustem to be successful. Minuteman ICBM systems can be launched without warning. Poseidon submarine launched missile can be launched without warning. Existing cruise missiles can be launched without warning. What idiot commander would call up the opposing commander and tell him to get his defences ready because we're about to launch a missile strike?
2
Why do you worry about China and Russia? Worry about those that already doing us harm. They are not Chinese and Russian. They live in the middle east. How childish to think that just because we don't have a particular weapon, they won't get one either. Offer one to the middle east and see how fast they would use it against us. The enemy here is clearly not China and Russia.
2
What is it about homo sapiens that they so dumb? And why are so many of the species lunatics?
The USA develops this stuff and then other regimes develop the same stuff and then we are in a situation of annihilating everything on this earth.
Finally, I think it is instructive that two women are writing about this issue. Women have common sense and see the folly in this. That's why we need to have more women in positions of power.
The USA develops this stuff and then other regimes develop the same stuff and then we are in a situation of annihilating everything on this earth.
Finally, I think it is instructive that two women are writing about this issue. Women have common sense and see the folly in this. That's why we need to have more women in positions of power.
1
We live in a dangerous world, I get that and we need to be able to defend ourselves, I get that too. Our budget is a zero sum game however, if we spend funds in one place, we do not spend them in another. We have been at war for over a decade with no result. During that time we have had very high defense spending. Also during that time our problems at home, such as homelessness, hunger and care for the elderly, have gotten worse.
Isn't there a time when we say 'enough?' Are we a nation that is in a state of permanent war? When do problems at home get to take priority? It is a sin that a nation as rich as us, has people who live on the street and children who go to bed hungry.
It is past time to say 'enough!' To pull back on our military interventions, to scale our military back to what is needed to defend us and to take those funds and address our problems at home. We can eliminate homelessness, we can eliminate hunger, we can care for our elderly, we can educate our youth, we can revive our economy, we choose not to. We choose to spend our money, our time and talent on endless, useless wars and new ways to wipe out humanity.
Enough!
Isn't there a time when we say 'enough?' Are we a nation that is in a state of permanent war? When do problems at home get to take priority? It is a sin that a nation as rich as us, has people who live on the street and children who go to bed hungry.
It is past time to say 'enough!' To pull back on our military interventions, to scale our military back to what is needed to defend us and to take those funds and address our problems at home. We can eliminate homelessness, we can eliminate hunger, we can care for our elderly, we can educate our youth, we can revive our economy, we choose not to. We choose to spend our money, our time and talent on endless, useless wars and new ways to wipe out humanity.
Enough!
50
"No rational leader would launch one..."
And do you think that the mad Mullahs or Iran and ISIS are "rational"?
And do you think that the mad Mullahs or Iran and ISIS are "rational"?
1
Or Trump?
2
Feinstein and company are a hoot. First they whine and say that anybody who opposes anything from Obama is a racist, bigoted obstructionist. Now they complain because this racist bigoted obstructionists are not opposing Obama. Ya just cannot win with these people.
2
Seriously? You think EVERYTHING is focused through the tight spot of whether Obama wants it or not? Just because some opposition to Obama comes from bigoted and racist obstructionism doesn't mean it all does. I really like Obama but I am against a lot of his policies and decisions. Like this one. And I really don't like Lindsey Graham, but admire some of his stances.
1
Surely, only Russia also potentially has the technology to follow suit, by building a version of the LRSW, but its financial resources are truly lacking. Why can't the U. S. and Russia, at least, begin to negotiate an updated version of the succession of Nuclear Proliferation treaties--negating either nation's plans or their willingness to develop the new, most-powerful weapon?
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
So long as human beings in government and in the military think that if they "have a bigger one or a better one" is the answer we have proof positive that the human species, our children and grandchildren have no future. This same argument is used to justify assault rifles. Dumb as dirt.
6
I am consistently baffled, and frankly, intrigued as to what plan these constant military technology projects are being established to fulfil. This isn't WWII people. If you look up the definition of "brinksmanship" today, it looks about as stupid as Trumps idea to build the wall. All this is- the development of extreme nuclear weapons to serve as "uniquely flexible options in an extreme crisis"- is a load of propaganda that consistently and unnecessarily boosts military spending.
If we want to do the Cold War again, by all means, this is a great idea, and we might die too.
If we want to do the Cold War again, by all means, this is a great idea, and we might die too.
2
Perhaps The Times will reveal who profits from this effort. Follow the money. What companies benefit from the billions?
4
The authors recognize that weapons have a deterrent effect? One wouldn't think so by their words and actions in regard to domestic legislation.
1
"He should also certify that the sole objective of the weapon is nuclear deterrence."
Of course nuclear weapons are used as a deterrent only, at least that's what we hope.
So, why would we need these new systems? Aren't the thousands of existing nuclear warheads deterrent enough?
Of course nuclear weapons are used as a deterrent only, at least that's what we hope.
So, why would we need these new systems? Aren't the thousands of existing nuclear warheads deterrent enough?
3
War and weaponry is the way of mankind; let's face it. Waiting for the war-hawks to die out, is useless; they just get replaced by a newer generation of the same.
America is slowly approaching the same path of other nations who crumbled under the weight of their Armory; Rome, the former Soviet Union are two cautionary tales; China is on the same path as the U.S. and vice versa. Truly, the faster I get out of this place [planet earth], the happier I will be.
I never believed I would love having more years behind me than ahead
because I simply cannot imagine what America will be a mere 4 decades from now: Its getting harder to imagine what it will be next week.
America is slowly approaching the same path of other nations who crumbled under the weight of their Armory; Rome, the former Soviet Union are two cautionary tales; China is on the same path as the U.S. and vice versa. Truly, the faster I get out of this place [planet earth], the happier I will be.
I never believed I would love having more years behind me than ahead
because I simply cannot imagine what America will be a mere 4 decades from now: Its getting harder to imagine what it will be next week.
20
In terms of nuclear arms control, the watch word on Obama has become "watch what Obama does and not what he says."
Despite his Nobel Peace Prize and eloquent pronouncements and campaign promises on reducing the threat of nuclear arms, Obama is doing the opposite. From spending at least $10T on the so-called modernization efforts including producing smaller nuclear warheads and delivering vehicles to this new nuclear cruise missile, Obama has re-started the nuclear arms race again. It's hopeless and depressing to think that even Obama has become a captive of the MIC; just imagine what a President Clinton or Trump would do in terms of nuclear arms control.
Despite his Nobel Peace Prize and eloquent pronouncements and campaign promises on reducing the threat of nuclear arms, Obama is doing the opposite. From spending at least $10T on the so-called modernization efforts including producing smaller nuclear warheads and delivering vehicles to this new nuclear cruise missile, Obama has re-started the nuclear arms race again. It's hopeless and depressing to think that even Obama has become a captive of the MIC; just imagine what a President Clinton or Trump would do in terms of nuclear arms control.
4
It makes no sense to me for the nuclear-armed nations to waste so many resources and risk so much with a weapon that has no military utility. South Africa voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons program, and there is no reason why the rest of the nuclear nations can't. What prevents it from happening is nothing more than a lack of will.
.
While nuclear weapons exist we are all at risk.
.
While nuclear weapons exist we are all at risk.
5
What stuck out in this op-ed to me was, "Unfortunately, Congress has shirked its duty..."
Isn't that standard operating mode for Congress these days?
Isn't that standard operating mode for Congress these days?
9
This $30 billion, along with the $12 billion that we US citizens spent (in 2014 -- no stats I can find for 2015) for cosmetic plastic surgery, would have gone way to replacing our crumbling infrastructure and replacing our crumbling infrastructure would have led to job creation.
6
Senator Feinstein is right to be concerned about the acceleration of not just this weapon but next generation virtually undetectable submarines, medium range hypersonic missiles like the Brahmos II (Russia/India) and several other missile systems that we and our adversaries are building. The ability to deliver a nuclear or similarly dangerous payloads with little or no warning has a massively destabilizing effect and rather than increasing security does the opposite. This administration has been hands off on bilateral negotiations and a very poor record foreign policy track record. Rather than deciding to kill this weapon system, it should be done in the context of specific agreements with other powers who are similarly building destablizing weapon systems.
I support the view of Dianne Feinstein and Ellen Tauscher. There is no reason to develop additional nuclear weapons. It only makes our world less safe. It has an astronomical cost both monetarily and sets a horrible precedent for other nations to follow in developing more of their own.
2
The only use fro nukes is as a big gift to the military industrial complex.
They have no military value.
They have no military value.
4
For these two, highly respected experts in US national security to write this op-ed is a cry of foul! Something is horribly wrong for the military industrial complex to have proposed in the "black budget" this irresponsible Air Force program. This program is unnecessary and increases the likelihood of an accidental and catastrophic miscalculation of America's intentions.
Not only should this Air Force program be thoroughly and publicly debated, the decisioning process that moved this program forward should be INVESTIGATED. When these two women, the most informed policy players in Washington, question the "military necessity", we must listen.
From my experience, I suspect that if the actors and the process that moved this program to the DOD budget level will reveal that it was not based on a real need but was a search for clients with the heavy imprint of campaign funding and the "revolving door".
There are some very high priority uses for $30 Billion. Everyone in the real national economic security business knows that we have fallen behind in our preparations for a World that must disconnect from fossil fuels. We are barely creeping along in the development and scaling up the process for making synthetic gasoline, diesel & jet fuels from air and water and for making cheap electricity from space solar. We are stumbling in the development of superconducting Maglev transport (see www.magneticglide.com for the concept),
The Secretary should heed this reprimand.
Not only should this Air Force program be thoroughly and publicly debated, the decisioning process that moved this program forward should be INVESTIGATED. When these two women, the most informed policy players in Washington, question the "military necessity", we must listen.
From my experience, I suspect that if the actors and the process that moved this program to the DOD budget level will reveal that it was not based on a real need but was a search for clients with the heavy imprint of campaign funding and the "revolving door".
There are some very high priority uses for $30 Billion. Everyone in the real national economic security business knows that we have fallen behind in our preparations for a World that must disconnect from fossil fuels. We are barely creeping along in the development and scaling up the process for making synthetic gasoline, diesel & jet fuels from air and water and for making cheap electricity from space solar. We are stumbling in the development of superconducting Maglev transport (see www.magneticglide.com for the concept),
The Secretary should heed this reprimand.
3
The Feinstiens & the Taucher’s are the reason Trump resonates with so many Americans.Lets not forget that Reagan’s Star Wars was one of the main reasons for the demise of the Soviet Union.This new weapon is a major determent for a nuclear war. If we don’t develop it ,our enemies certainly will, & use it against us.These Liberal humanists are out of touch with reality, & a danger to the security of our Nation.
2
Where did this come from, all of a sudden? We pay to have people dreaming up new and better ways to kill others, and oh by the way, pump up the military industrial complex (Ike was so right.) Can we not think of a better foundation for our economy? That's what this is about, people.
36
John: War and Incarceration are Americas growth industries.
4
There should be drastic reduction of nuclear weapons globally without any super power label and big brother attitude. Under the circumstances upgrading the arsenal isn't correct.
Only the other day I mentioned certain problems there in some other article, which were reported in the Times from time to time. So it would be nice if American government makes efforts to better the lives of American citizens instead of spending $ 30 billion for developing new nuclear weapon.
Only the other day I mentioned certain problems there in some other article, which were reported in the Times from time to time. So it would be nice if American government makes efforts to better the lives of American citizens instead of spending $ 30 billion for developing new nuclear weapon.
2
A nation stuck up at gunpoint by the gun industry drives the global arms race too.
3
Congress has spent the last four years debating and passing legislation that would repeal a health care act that is saving lives and spends little or no time discussing a weapon that would end life on this planet.
1
The United States is scale-independently hung up on weapons.
The Senator fails to acknowledge that national security/defense is ultimately a function of technology and economics. The first cell phone was carried in a bag and weighed 6 pounds, today we carry a 5 ounce supercomputer in our hands or pocket. Technology obsolescence and advancement are moving at the fastest pace in history across the globe, we do not own innovation, nor all the brainpower to develop advanced weapons systems. With the economic rise of China and their demonstrated intent to ignore international law in the South China Sea, our national security is absolutely dependent on maintaining the technological lead we have in both nuclear and non-nuclear systems. To do otherwise is to put our security at risk, and weaken our ability to protect our friends and influence geopolitics.
5
America does not need near as many nuclear weapons or delivery systems as it already has. The nuclear triad of land- based nuclear ballistic missiles, nuclear submarine ballistic missiles and manned nuclear bombers is the powerful tip of a military that costs as much as the next eight nations combined. Including 12x Russia and 4x China.
What is called for here regarding a new class of American cruise missiles is too timid to be taken seriously. A total program cost of $30 billion is chump change when one Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier costs $ 12 billion. America currently has 10 Nuclear Aircraft carriers. And the 450 nuclear missiles have multiple nuclear warheads on nearly 50 year old missiles.
After decades of nuclear weapons treaties and negotiations Russia and the United States have 90% of the planets nuclear weapons with nearly 10,000 equally distributed between them. That is a very bad example of humane national defense security restraint for ethnic sectarian nuclear weapon rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan. Nor does it encourage China or North Korea to behave.
Diane Feinstein is the ancient tiresome trifling troublesome Triassic dinosaur of the Senate when it comes to national security, defense and intelligence. Her darkly dyed hair conceals her status as the oldest long serving Senator. She needs to have the decency and humility to do her country a favor and resign and retire. Diane lacks wisdom, imagination and courage.
What is called for here regarding a new class of American cruise missiles is too timid to be taken seriously. A total program cost of $30 billion is chump change when one Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier costs $ 12 billion. America currently has 10 Nuclear Aircraft carriers. And the 450 nuclear missiles have multiple nuclear warheads on nearly 50 year old missiles.
After decades of nuclear weapons treaties and negotiations Russia and the United States have 90% of the planets nuclear weapons with nearly 10,000 equally distributed between them. That is a very bad example of humane national defense security restraint for ethnic sectarian nuclear weapon rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan. Nor does it encourage China or North Korea to behave.
Diane Feinstein is the ancient tiresome trifling troublesome Triassic dinosaur of the Senate when it comes to national security, defense and intelligence. Her darkly dyed hair conceals her status as the oldest long serving Senator. She needs to have the decency and humility to do her country a favor and resign and retire. Diane lacks wisdom, imagination and courage.
3
"We agree that a safe, reliable nuclear stockpile is needed."
"The United States must lead the way to a nuclear-free world. We may not realize this goal in our lifetime..."
What are the authors of this piece thinking? Is this intended to portray balance or it it more likely to reveal conflicting delusions?
"The United States must lead the way to a nuclear-free world. We may not realize this goal in our lifetime..."
What are the authors of this piece thinking? Is this intended to portray balance or it it more likely to reveal conflicting delusions?
"the sole objective of the weapon is nuclear deterrence"
Does anyone actually believe our Air Force is planning to start World War III?
As for a "nuclear-free world", get real!
This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
As long as we task our Military with keeping us safe by getting and keeping an edge over our enemies, these kinds of weapons will continue to be produced.
It is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world, but so far, it has worked.
Does anyone actually believe our Air Force is planning to start World War III?
As for a "nuclear-free world", get real!
This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
As long as we task our Military with keeping us safe by getting and keeping an edge over our enemies, these kinds of weapons will continue to be produced.
It is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world, but so far, it has worked.
2
Nuclear weapons are like a black hole in that we do not have the intelligence or reasoning capability to really understand this issue. We are in the early stages of this type of energy and weaponry. . Did it really stop communism? Did it really prevent more violent outbreaks throughout the world. Lots of debate but no real answers. Did it really provide security to our country and the free world? Who knows?
What I do know is that our nation faces real serious threats that we can measure and do something about. Cyber warfare is probably one of the greatest threats we face. Should we invest in nuclear weapons or build a Google/Microsoft like think tank within the government to relentlessly pursue absolute security in this new 'theater'?
And what about our own nations infrastructure, or the insane two tiered tax policy in our nation with its massive budgetary deficits as far as we can see. How about a broken education system that condemns tens of millions of poor young people to inferior educations? The list goes on.
There are real threats and perceived threats. My sense is that we can blow the world up 100x and if that doesn't work, no nuanced weapon will. The break down of the American dream, which is well under way, may become a nightmare if we don't start addressing our endogenous problem.
We have made the world 'safe' for democracy. How about making America safe of all its citizens for generations to come!
What I do know is that our nation faces real serious threats that we can measure and do something about. Cyber warfare is probably one of the greatest threats we face. Should we invest in nuclear weapons or build a Google/Microsoft like think tank within the government to relentlessly pursue absolute security in this new 'theater'?
And what about our own nations infrastructure, or the insane two tiered tax policy in our nation with its massive budgetary deficits as far as we can see. How about a broken education system that condemns tens of millions of poor young people to inferior educations? The list goes on.
There are real threats and perceived threats. My sense is that we can blow the world up 100x and if that doesn't work, no nuanced weapon will. The break down of the American dream, which is well under way, may become a nightmare if we don't start addressing our endogenous problem.
We have made the world 'safe' for democracy. How about making America safe of all its citizens for generations to come!
16
The development of this weapon is in line with the US' strategy on nuclear deterrence. Please google " FACT SHEET: Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States". This is a release from the White House and focuses on modernization to provide a credible deterrent to any adversary.
Additionally, this weapon system is a platform of delivery and not an actual nuclear weapon. There is great strategic benefit in developing a platform that can deliver a conventional payload from thousands of miles away. For those that don't know, nations are developing and employing defenses that make it extremely difficult if not impossible for our forces to operate near an enemy's border.
The Air Force is doing what we are paying them to do. Stop complaining about it and go about your day.
Additionally, this weapon system is a platform of delivery and not an actual nuclear weapon. There is great strategic benefit in developing a platform that can deliver a conventional payload from thousands of miles away. For those that don't know, nations are developing and employing defenses that make it extremely difficult if not impossible for our forces to operate near an enemy's border.
The Air Force is doing what we are paying them to do. Stop complaining about it and go about your day.
2
What are we humans on planet earth thinking? Our war games are like striking a match in a haystack. And the corporations who profit from it are not going to stop.
The human race needs responsible people in charge, and at present we have oligarchs. They will fund anything that seems to offer profits, be it grotesque weaponry or tinkering with genetics. We must stop them before they wreck the world.
The human race needs responsible people in charge, and at present we have oligarchs. They will fund anything that seems to offer profits, be it grotesque weaponry or tinkering with genetics. We must stop them before they wreck the world.
2
I can see upgrading the triad of existing delivery systems for the sake of safety & reliability. I say that only because I don't think as a species we have the mental capacity to do away with them. Building new systems to deliver nuclear weapons that can penetrate all knows airspace is a step in the direction of an arms race, which China & Russia will have to counter. Being both have economic issues with spending on new military hardware where will this lead? If they pursue this catch-up to gain parity this may produce domestic strains in both those countries leading to instability, which in countries with vast arsenals of nuclear weapons is to me most worrying. Yes, fix the problems and update our weapons now in hand. Use the money they want for this cruise missile to address the dire infrastructure problems we face and stimulate the economy and create employment. That would be a productive move. Here again I see little hope in our country doing this with a decadent Republican Party in control of both houses. We are in a time of destructive political corruption...
1
Will we have to buy the uranium from the Canadian/Russion company that owns 20% of all US uranium mines.
A Clinton buddy ('contributor' to the Charitable" Clinton Foundation) was allowed to buy this in 2015. Hillary, as Sec of State spproved the sale.
Uranium is considered to be a strategic resource by the US DoD.
A Clinton buddy ('contributor' to the Charitable" Clinton Foundation) was allowed to buy this in 2015. Hillary, as Sec of State spproved the sale.
Uranium is considered to be a strategic resource by the US DoD.
2
Our President talks about freedom from nuclear weapons but has signed on to the largest program, $ 1 Trillions to modernize and miniaturize nuclear weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/science/atom-bomb-nuclear-weapons-hgv-...
As to miniaturization:
Gen. James E. Cartwright former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted “what going smaller does,” he acknowledged, “is to make the weapon more thinkable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapo...
And they are easier to fit on to cruise missiles
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/science/atom-bomb-nuclear-weapons-hgv-...
As to miniaturization:
Gen. James E. Cartwright former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted “what going smaller does,” he acknowledged, “is to make the weapon more thinkable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapo...
And they are easier to fit on to cruise missiles
And this opposition is coming from the Vice Chair of Select Committee on Intelligence. It is not from Joe Schmoe
It is a serious issue as the $30 B is to start research on the Stealth version of this Cruise Missile technology, only that it would be tipped by W-80. This is what General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the Nation about some 70 years ago. A man who had seen many battles and the End of World War. He was there when the Atomic Weapons were used on Japan even after the Surrender documents (Potsdam declaration) were delivered to them just to ensure that the weapons so designed worked. It changed the world.
Making statements that it works as a deterrent is interesting; just imagine since our use of the atomic weapons, we (humans) have killed over 3 million other humans throughout the world. Injured and maimed are countless. US have acquired bases in over 35 countries throughout the world and the list goes on. I wonder if it is the nuclear technology or the use of conventional force.
We need to put the money is fixing our schools, infra structure, and healthcare for all. We need the Billions instead of going to the few (top 1%) to the masses to reduce their student debt burden. Our security is our educated and healthy populace and not necessarily new weapons systems.
It is a serious issue as the $30 B is to start research on the Stealth version of this Cruise Missile technology, only that it would be tipped by W-80. This is what General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the Nation about some 70 years ago. A man who had seen many battles and the End of World War. He was there when the Atomic Weapons were used on Japan even after the Surrender documents (Potsdam declaration) were delivered to them just to ensure that the weapons so designed worked. It changed the world.
Making statements that it works as a deterrent is interesting; just imagine since our use of the atomic weapons, we (humans) have killed over 3 million other humans throughout the world. Injured and maimed are countless. US have acquired bases in over 35 countries throughout the world and the list goes on. I wonder if it is the nuclear technology or the use of conventional force.
We need to put the money is fixing our schools, infra structure, and healthcare for all. We need the Billions instead of going to the few (top 1%) to the masses to reduce their student debt burden. Our security is our educated and healthy populace and not necessarily new weapons systems.
58
It is not surprising that a very liberal Senator would want to avoid a nuclear missile. However, she seems to ignore that defense systems like the Israeli Iron Dome could potentially stop many of our long distance missiles. Failure to develop a cruise missile that can avoid Iron Dome-like defense would seem to me to increase the probability of nuclear war as it would make a hegemonious enemy think themselves impregnable. Who would be like that? At present, Russia. China is so intertwined economically with the West that China seems highly unlikely to attack the USA or the West. Russia with Putin in charge seems capable of expanding its hegemony. Its Ukraine and Syrian behavior coupled with threatening military air flights are menacing. The USA needs to be able to deter Putin and his ilk with strong deterrence. In this case, Feinstein seems naive, off base, and a danger. Let's hope that the US Senate under a President Hillary Clinton will not follow Feinstein's advice. I personally doubt that a POTUS HClinton would.
3
When the Editorial Board writes that the Defense Department is planning the development of a new and costly nuclear defense system I believe it is misleading. President Obama is the commander in chief. Ultimately these decisions are his to make. Minimally one must conclude that he is in agreement with this decision however it was initiated. Moreover, the contradiction between his speech at Hiroshima and the plans of the Defense Department are startling and I am grateful to the Times for calling attention to it.
1
The Military / Industrial / Financial complex buys all the Republicans and a sufficient few Democrats to advance their corporate masters' bellicose greed, funded by you and me, the taxpayers, to the eternal detriment of any progress toward peace. So, what else is new?
5
$30 billion for a new super duper missile that can do everything and cook breakfast, but not a penny for the A-10, which is older and does its job without fuss and muss? Who makes money from this kludge?
4
Due to the current asymmetry of today's wars and the increased ownership of nuclear weapons around the world, I see this as sound judgement by our president. I agree with the authors' points that these weapons need to be used for defensive purposes only. With the threat of rogue actors being able to obtain nuclear weapons being very real, this type of nuclear deterrent makes sense in these times. Sadly, our president's lofty goal of a nuclear free world will not be reality any time soon.
3
We need more and more nukes so the people from the next village don't come and try to kill us and steal our women.
13
Keeping and maintaining a detterent requires the investment of time, money and effort.
HOWEVER :
I would have thought we had this capability thirty years ago.
Why on earth would this technology cost thirty billion dollars ?
HOWEVER :
I would have thought we had this capability thirty years ago.
Why on earth would this technology cost thirty billion dollars ?
2
It won't be 30 billion. It will be more like a 100 billion. On the bright side, it keeps our nuclear scientists out of the unemployment lines.
1
Current presidential candidates should be asked for their opinions and policy recommendations on this topic, as it will fall to one or the other of them to shepherd or dismantle the program starting in 8 months. Also, it would be valuable to understand the level of knowledge and insight each would bring to the debate: multiple decades of experience and study of international relations and public affairs would probably produce one type of answer that would interestingly contrast with the "it'll be huuuuge... we really need to build a bigger tricycle..." from the the other side.
3
President Obama visiting Hiroshma last month called for a "moral revolution" to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. It is incumbent on President Obama to now lead that "moral revolution" and abandon development of a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons.
2
Just what the world needs right now. An orange colored sociopath with an inferiority complex handling this. We need to invest aggressively in education and especially in lessons on history and civics. And that is not to say that I am behind all teachers 100%. A lot go in for the cushy schedule which in this day and age is outdated.
Maybe if we understood our world more, we could interact better and it would be debate and negotiation of ideas instead of incinerating 1/2 a country. We have been so successful in this country (most part) because of inclusion and freedoms. People are still looking at us with dreams. We should have been angry after 9/11 but we lit up a powder keg instead of just telling the Saudis to hand over Bin Laden. That got us nowhere. Now, we dreaming of more weapons? Guess what, the manufacturer doesn't just sell them to us. All anyone needs is a click of a mouse to make a bomb.
Let's try something along the lines of actually talking to the world? And that cannot include a psycho who wants to close down the Washington Post.....seriously? It's like we are sending out the face of when the "wizard of oz" turns to color but some are bright orange and make as much sense.
Then we'll be a munchkin with a giant bomb.
Maybe if we understood our world more, we could interact better and it would be debate and negotiation of ideas instead of incinerating 1/2 a country. We have been so successful in this country (most part) because of inclusion and freedoms. People are still looking at us with dreams. We should have been angry after 9/11 but we lit up a powder keg instead of just telling the Saudis to hand over Bin Laden. That got us nowhere. Now, we dreaming of more weapons? Guess what, the manufacturer doesn't just sell them to us. All anyone needs is a click of a mouse to make a bomb.
Let's try something along the lines of actually talking to the world? And that cannot include a psycho who wants to close down the Washington Post.....seriously? It's like we are sending out the face of when the "wizard of oz" turns to color but some are bright orange and make as much sense.
Then we'll be a munchkin with a giant bomb.
14
reply to Lynn: You were on point until you decided to throw in an unneeded shoot-down about teachers which completely destroyed your credibility:
[And that is not to say that I am behind all teachers 100%. A lot go in for the cushy schedule which in this day and age is outdated.]
As a retired educator- and obviously you are not- I must say- that Cushy Schedule you refer to; the 10 months on and 2 months off comes with the BENEFIT of not getting paid for those two months; it means no income period. It means no Unemployment Benefits. It also means a typical salary that is often less than a secretary. Unless you have tried to live 12 months on 10 months of income- please stick to the subject of the article. Thank you.
[And that is not to say that I am behind all teachers 100%. A lot go in for the cushy schedule which in this day and age is outdated.]
As a retired educator- and obviously you are not- I must say- that Cushy Schedule you refer to; the 10 months on and 2 months off comes with the BENEFIT of not getting paid for those two months; it means no income period. It means no Unemployment Benefits. It also means a typical salary that is often less than a secretary. Unless you have tried to live 12 months on 10 months of income- please stick to the subject of the article. Thank you.
2
STOP! The time since nuclear weapons were invented is extremely short - well within the span of a single human life, as many still living remember. And in that time we have not refrained from using them, but instead demonstrated immediately that absolutely no weapon is so horrific that we, let alone anyone else, would hesitate to use it, repeatedly, in the heat of a dire moment. Are we such fools as to believe it will be long before someone in the world again feels it is justified -- or before some insane narcissist attains the power to unleash the annihilation of nuclear war on the world? It could happen right here, this year. In our hearts do we not know that it is only a matter of time before any weapon we create will be used? The proof is before us every day. I pray that, against all odds, our leaders will have the wisdom to refrain from developing more of these weapons, of which we already have more than sufficient to doom the world.
47
Back in the old days of the Cold War – good or bad, depending upon your point of view – averting nuclear war was achieved by Mutually Assured Destruction. A strategy based upon the reality that advances had guaranteed that a nuclear attack would result in annihilation of both the attacked and the attacked.
It worked, although there were some close calls. It will not work today, because the world has changed.
We have more to worry about because there are no longer just two or three superpowers to think about. Nuclear capability is more dispersed today. Also, the launching of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or the scrambling of bombers gave some warning.
Today, cruise missiles and stealth technology eliminate warning. Adding nuclear capability to these missiles would be foolish. Such a move would increase the likelihood of a disaster, rather than diminish it.
It worked, although there were some close calls. It will not work today, because the world has changed.
We have more to worry about because there are no longer just two or three superpowers to think about. Nuclear capability is more dispersed today. Also, the launching of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or the scrambling of bombers gave some warning.
Today, cruise missiles and stealth technology eliminate warning. Adding nuclear capability to these missiles would be foolish. Such a move would increase the likelihood of a disaster, rather than diminish it.
22
Great idea. How about we do it after there isn't a water or sewer main in the country more that 20 yrs old, we have a 100% smart electric grid, all our bridges and tunnels have been re-certified, we have real intercity high-speed passenger rail service everywhere, there is minimum 1 gig internet access to every home, every citizen has access to low cost education through college, and there is universal single-payer health care.
Or, maybe we can just add those items to the discussion about yet another costly, ($30 bn is just the beginning,) weapons system.
That is this citizen's 2 cents worth.
Or, maybe we can just add those items to the discussion about yet another costly, ($30 bn is just the beginning,) weapons system.
That is this citizen's 2 cents worth.
232
Were it to cost only 2 cents per citizen it might be worthwhile, and I am in! Otherwise, forgetaboutit!
Ralph Averill: Those all sound like Bernie Sanders Platform; too bad we will not get them.
1
Perhaps we will fix the water and sewer mains when the democrats drop their demands that all of this work only be done by "prevailing wage" union members who cost 25% more than non-union workers but also kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. The GOP would be foolish to agree to such a deal that gives kickback money to the democrats.
As a compromise, why no let states with Right to Work laws use only non-union workers for infrastructure work and those states without such laws use only union workers. Then compare the cost and quality of union vs non-union workers.
As a compromise, why no let states with Right to Work laws use only non-union workers for infrastructure work and those states without such laws use only union workers. Then compare the cost and quality of union vs non-union workers.
1
Just what we need, another tool of mass murder. We can't even get rid of the ones we don't want. No!
10
DANGER AHEAD! The GOP's disastrous policies on many fronts are nowhere more dangerous to the survival on earth than this reckless new type of missile that is described by the experts as destabilizing. Starting WW III without warning is insane, suicidal and is treachery, as its sponsors are violating their oaths of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the US. We can no add to the list of their denial of science about global climate change and the reckless cuts in funding to prevent epidemics if ebola and the zika virus from developing on us soil, the GOP shows once again that they have little regard for human life. There are some claims that the GOP has taken the position that their role is to be apocalyptic; meaning to hasten the "end of days" and to bring about the "second coming" of the Messiah. So courting the destruction of life on earth, except for cockroaches, they blithely mix government and religion once again. I can imagine Trump pushing the new kyuh ler button for the fun of watching the fireworks. But that's another story. The GOP is realizing very late in the day that they've hitched their wagon to a lunatic who shows clear signs of the severe, irreversible brain disorder, frontal lobe dementia. He confuses 7/11 with 9/11, tweets that Paris is in Germany and says that it does not bother him to be compared to Adolf Hitler. To be sure there is a lethal mixture of narcissism along with the dementia. But Trump is the new & better BOMB!
5
A conventional cruise missile costs about $1,000,000. $30B could buy us 30 THOUSAND conventional cruise missiles. Even if advanced air defenses could bring down cruise missiles, they could not bring them ALL down. Quantity can easily trump quality.
Then, all we would need to do is SAY we have stealth standoff nuclear capability and build some impressive but empty buildings somewhere in Area 51. If an enemy faced an onslaught of 1,000 cruise missiles in flight even one of which was "special", you would have your deterrence. This type of shell game worked for Saddam Hussein and fooled this country into war believing his WMD charade real.
Finally, shooting down a TLAM-N over your territory just makes it a nasty dirty bomb, again no day in the park.
Then, all we would need to do is SAY we have stealth standoff nuclear capability and build some impressive but empty buildings somewhere in Area 51. If an enemy faced an onslaught of 1,000 cruise missiles in flight even one of which was "special", you would have your deterrence. This type of shell game worked for Saddam Hussein and fooled this country into war believing his WMD charade real.
Finally, shooting down a TLAM-N over your territory just makes it a nasty dirty bomb, again no day in the park.
2
The authors themselves say here that cruise missiles can penetrate the most advanced air defense systems. That argument alone might undermine their larger one. But, few of us are expert enough in military tech. Hopefully this debate can be conducted on a pure cost/benefit basis by experts (as opposed to a basis of pure politics and pork). Probably too much to hope for.
5
The continuing obsession at the Pentagon with more, and more expensive, weapons systems of the sort that were useless in the Bush/Cheney wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is just a way of pumping money into what President Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex.
I call it the War Industry. It's a unique and vicious destroyer of social programs and a gluttonous recipient of corporate welfare.
It is decades past time to begin winding it down and devoting our resources to the American people.
I call it the War Industry. It's a unique and vicious destroyer of social programs and a gluttonous recipient of corporate welfare.
It is decades past time to begin winding it down and devoting our resources to the American people.
17
I remember a discussion with a friend over year 2000 worries about nuclear weapons.
He was ex RAF.
His comment was: "And what makes you think these things work in the first place?"
I continue to hang on to that thread of hope.
He was ex RAF.
His comment was: "And what makes you think these things work in the first place?"
I continue to hang on to that thread of hope.
17
Obviously neither of you have seen 'Trinity and Beyond', a spectacular movie about the horrific capabilities of nuclear weapons as shown in tests before the 1963 test ban treaty.
The movie made it apparent why my mother was crying as our dad was driving the family from one Air Force base on full alert to another in Japan during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The movie made it apparent why my mother was crying as our dad was driving the family from one Air Force base on full alert to another in Japan during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I really have my doubts about intercepting several incoming with the supposed latest high tech also.
Nice try and I agree.
But, Obama did not get the money necessary to rent a house for $22,000 dollars a month by NOT providing his Swiss Bank account number to Military Contractors and Insurance Companies.
This unnecessary and dangerous new nutty introduction by the US is, I am sure, a foregone conclusion. Also, even I never heard of it until this NY Times editorial, meaning, essentially nobody in the US will ever even know it exists. Stealth military spending....again.
Every single person required to sign off will have already been fully paid off.
But, Obama did not get the money necessary to rent a house for $22,000 dollars a month by NOT providing his Swiss Bank account number to Military Contractors and Insurance Companies.
This unnecessary and dangerous new nutty introduction by the US is, I am sure, a foregone conclusion. Also, even I never heard of it until this NY Times editorial, meaning, essentially nobody in the US will ever even know it exists. Stealth military spending....again.
Every single person required to sign off will have already been fully paid off.
4
Tit-for-tat nuclear exchange thinking is insane. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate, final weapon. First use should be the end for the user, wether us or them. And probably most people on Earth. That is how you curb the allure of the bomb.
2
Does Senator Feinstein really belief there is a difference between defensive and offensive weapons? Both kill the enemy.
In a world of clearly-rising enemy capabilities, I would rather trust our proven, trustworthy military than our proven, untrustworthy politicians.
In a world of clearly-rising enemy capabilities, I would rather trust our proven, trustworthy military than our proven, untrustworthy politicians.
14
I don't write this to not denigrate those who served in our wars of recent memory. Lets face it if by proven you mean we have won wars I would be most grateful to know what you mean by proven? Since my lifetime we won WW-2. Korea, no still have 35,000 troops standing by. Vietnam no, we pulled out after killing hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia which incidentally brought Pol Pot and over a million dead Cambodians. Iraq & Afghanistan well do we really have to critique the Bush, Cheney wars which are still going. We skip over Panama, Grenada and all those Drone attacks in sovereign nations air space and those thousands of dead. So you are right our politics with the military have a proven record but I will let others more qualified than me determine just what has been proved...
1
What rising capabilites? Where are they? And your trust is misplaced.
1
I can see where it is prudent for us to have the best weapons we can, however I believe it should be tied to how many other weapons we will phase out.
4
The prospect of nuclear exchange is a glimpse into the end of primate life on earth. Every human being will either die quickly or die slowly while envying those who died quickly. The MIC of every nuclear-armed nation is well-seasoned with idiots and thanatophiles.
4
There I as no such thing as a "safe, reliable nuclear stockpile!"
54
"... the Federation of American Scientists has reported that it could cost as much as $30 billion."
The linked blog post by Hans M. Kristensen doesn't say where he got his "$20 billion to $30 billion" range, so that cost estimate is worthless.
Forget LRSO; JASSM-ER Can Do The Job
By Hans M. Kristensen
Dec.16, 2015
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/12/lrso-jassm/
The linked blog post by Hans M. Kristensen doesn't say where he got his "$20 billion to $30 billion" range, so that cost estimate is worthless.
Forget LRSO; JASSM-ER Can Do The Job
By Hans M. Kristensen
Dec.16, 2015
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/12/lrso-jassm/
2
Shut it down.
1
"...building new nuclear weapons like this one could be unnecessary, costly and dangerous...."
Could be? We should allow our nuclear deterrent to fall behind other nuclear power's weaponry because of could be?
All weapons are costly and dangerous. In fact, nuclear weapons are some of the most cost effective deterrents to World War that have ever been developed. Before there were nuclear weapons there had been two world wars. The most devastating wars in world history. Since their development, zero world wars.
Arguing against any weapons because they are dangerous is tantamount to arguing for unilateral disarmament. Which, based on the historical record, is a guarantee of future attack by a superior military power.
Could be? We should allow our nuclear deterrent to fall behind other nuclear power's weaponry because of could be?
All weapons are costly and dangerous. In fact, nuclear weapons are some of the most cost effective deterrents to World War that have ever been developed. Before there were nuclear weapons there had been two world wars. The most devastating wars in world history. Since their development, zero world wars.
Arguing against any weapons because they are dangerous is tantamount to arguing for unilateral disarmament. Which, based on the historical record, is a guarantee of future attack by a superior military power.
21
You miss the whole point. As I have said when I was just a kid growing up during MAD. I looked to both the US and Russia who at the time we joked the US could destroy the world like 50 times over and Russia could we thought at the time do it like 75 times. We as kids asked so how many times is enough to be able to destroy the world will be enough. Oh and by the way we as a civilization are still working hand in hand of doing this slowly as it is anyway.
Thoroughly specious comment. The arsenal is not falling behind anything.
We have ICBMs, both land-based and sea-based. Is the Pentagon's concern about future anti-missile defenses capable of intercepting these missiles? If so, developing conventional cruise missiles capable of taking out such defense systems (or MIRVed ICBM-based systems capable of overwhelming their detection and targeting systems) would seem a more stable solution.
Cruise missiles would be too easy to use in a "plausible deniability" role, or by someone seeking to trigger Armageddon by baiting one nuclear power into attacking another. Imagine, say, ISIS getting their hands on such a missile, and firing it at China from the territory of a US ally... how would China react?
Cruise missiles would be too easy to use in a "plausible deniability" role, or by someone seeking to trigger Armageddon by baiting one nuclear power into attacking another. Imagine, say, ISIS getting their hands on such a missile, and firing it at China from the territory of a US ally... how would China react?
1
hhhhhmmmmm.........30 billion.
That's alotta jobs.
That's alotta jobs.
1
Why do you keep trying to disarm us in the face of Chinese and Russian aggressions?
4
A long-range, highly accurate and with full-proof penetration capability nuclear cruise missile doesn’t provide the president with “flexible options in an extreme crisis”. On the contrary, it’s the epitome of a “first-strike” weapon – its designed and developed to hit and destroy, before launching, the other side protected -- by missile-defense systems and/or by silos -- nuclear weapons. Its strategic raison-d’être is akin to the “win a nuclear war” (and loose only 20 million) manifesto advanced by the R. Perle and other “princes of darkness” during the first half of the Eighties.
In nuclear strategic jargon it’s also recognized as part of a drive to achieve escalation-dominance – namely, striving for the ability to choose any rung on the nuclear-exchange ladder. The Russian and the Chinese will treat it as a clear and near-immediate danger to their deterrence posture – and rightly so. Deathly simply, proposing, manufacturing and deploying the Long-Range Standoff Weapon are stages of a humanity-endangering nuclear strategy.
In nuclear strategic jargon it’s also recognized as part of a drive to achieve escalation-dominance – namely, striving for the ability to choose any rung on the nuclear-exchange ladder. The Russian and the Chinese will treat it as a clear and near-immediate danger to their deterrence posture – and rightly so. Deathly simply, proposing, manufacturing and deploying the Long-Range Standoff Weapon are stages of a humanity-endangering nuclear strategy.
1
We have 30 billion for a new nuke and we don't have enough FBI agents to surveil all the suspects on the terrorist watch list? What a poor priority.We need agents on the ground.Not more nukes in the sky.
6
The photo is severely misleading, because it shows SEA-launched cruise missiles. The Long-Range Standoff Weapon in the OpEd is an AIR-launched cruise missile, which should be obvious, given that the US Air Force is developing it.
1
Let's for a moment concede the the probability of one of "our" existing weapons getting through modern anti-missile defenses decreases to 1/1000. Given an existing arsenal of 5000 nukes, an adversary would calculate that 5 thermonuclear explosions would destroy its largest cities. What rational adversary would risk that? How could this newly proposed weapon possibly yield more deterrence? (Hint: all nukes are unusable by any national actor without aDr Strangelove in command).
But there's so much money to be made by building them!
But there's so much money to be made by building them!
2
This is why the military industrial complex purchases politicians.
It makes me sick and I am saddened by the fact that we will soon have the most purchased President in history.
It makes me sick and I am saddened by the fact that we will soon have the most purchased President in history.
6
The statement by Perry and Weber, " . . .> “Cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon” because “they can be launched without warning and come in both nuclear and conventional variants," is wrong on its face. The concept that "works" IS deterrence and cruise missiles offer a high level of deterrence plus the ability to be based just about anywhere which gives maximum flexibility. The "flexibility" part is what we need in today's new, and very dangerous, world that is populated with more rogue governments than we have ever had to face. Maximum flexibility equals maximum deterrence. Maximum flexibility also means that any nuclear exchange can be kept to a minimum level. . .this is good, not bad.
3
If we were to upgrade our nuclear arsenal, nuclear powers worldwide would be inclined to do likewise. When all is said and done, after these countries spend hundreds of billions on either upgrading or attempts to upgrade, nothing will have changed other than a rise in every country's defense spending.
The fact is that we will never have a future free of nuclear weapons if we continue to introduce more advanced nuclear weapons. Also, I'm not sure how this would not be a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty either in substance or in spirits.
In short, introducing this Long Range Standoff Weapon does not make us safer or stronger. It only makes the world a more dangerous place for us all.
The fact is that we will never have a future free of nuclear weapons if we continue to introduce more advanced nuclear weapons. Also, I'm not sure how this would not be a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty either in substance or in spirits.
In short, introducing this Long Range Standoff Weapon does not make us safer or stronger. It only makes the world a more dangerous place for us all.
105
Russia has already begun to modernize its nuclear weapon program. Russia added 50 long range nuclear missiles last year to its arsenal. What I want you to do is take your comment and present it to Putin of Russia. Let me know how that works out for you.
China has already started upgrading its military capabilities. Go and tell China to stop modernizing its military. There is no such thing as a perfect world. If the US didn't have a strong military defense many countries would have challenged us.
Radical Islamic Muslim terrorism is a bigger threat to the US the than any nuclear weapon. I see nothing wrong with the US developing defense weapons to counter other hostile nations. Again why don't you talk to them.
China has already started upgrading its military capabilities. Go and tell China to stop modernizing its military. There is no such thing as a perfect world. If the US didn't have a strong military defense many countries would have challenged us.
Radical Islamic Muslim terrorism is a bigger threat to the US the than any nuclear weapon. I see nothing wrong with the US developing defense weapons to counter other hostile nations. Again why don't you talk to them.
1
Additionally, what America does not need is Donald Trump's finger on the "Nuclear Button". That is even more scary than that "new" nuclear weapon mentioned in this article.........
7
Russians and Chinese are updating their nuclear arsenals? Is the Pentagon still looking for WMDs in Iraq?
Get real. It's 2016. The IMF classifies both Russia and China as high achieving market economies with historically high standards of living due to robust exports to a global market and their sovereign wealth denominated and kept in dollars.
Russian & Chinese billionaires own everything from NBA teams to movie theater chains, Park Ave skyscrapers to the Waldorf Astoria. China owns Volvo. Top ranking Chinese leaders park their families in luxury compounds near Manhattan. The EU is Russia's biggest market for energy and commodities.
Really think either of them contemplate nuking their biggest, irreplaceable customers and vaporizing the value of their sovereign wealth, along with their families, anytime soon?
The demands on their national budgets are infrastructure, development, education, social welfare, technology and pensions, particularly military.
China has slashed military spending, cutting troop strength, shifting resources to conventional projections of force like aircraft carriers and jet fighters. With the largest standing army and a rapidly aging population, China faces staggering military pensions as it shifts to one taxable worker for every two tax-supported pensioners within 20 years. The high cost of Croatia forced Russia to quit Syria.
The main threat to our security is wasted tax dollars the Pentagon wants for gold plated weapons with no targets.
Get real. It's 2016. The IMF classifies both Russia and China as high achieving market economies with historically high standards of living due to robust exports to a global market and their sovereign wealth denominated and kept in dollars.
Russian & Chinese billionaires own everything from NBA teams to movie theater chains, Park Ave skyscrapers to the Waldorf Astoria. China owns Volvo. Top ranking Chinese leaders park their families in luxury compounds near Manhattan. The EU is Russia's biggest market for energy and commodities.
Really think either of them contemplate nuking their biggest, irreplaceable customers and vaporizing the value of their sovereign wealth, along with their families, anytime soon?
The demands on their national budgets are infrastructure, development, education, social welfare, technology and pensions, particularly military.
China has slashed military spending, cutting troop strength, shifting resources to conventional projections of force like aircraft carriers and jet fighters. With the largest standing army and a rapidly aging population, China faces staggering military pensions as it shifts to one taxable worker for every two tax-supported pensioners within 20 years. The high cost of Croatia forced Russia to quit Syria.
The main threat to our security is wasted tax dollars the Pentagon wants for gold plated weapons with no targets.
184
reply to Yuri Asian: Excellent assessment. Another area of "China Growth", is Africa. Quietly [without the Western-U.S. press caring to cover], China has set itself on a path to re-Colonizing many parts of Africa in search of exploiting what remaining natural resources that aren't already in the hands/ ownership of Africa's European Colonial ancestors and in the hands of others like Israel.
China sees Africa as next-step growth opportunity to furnish the needs of its expanding population. While this has been occurring for a number of years-now, the American press and Government either don't care because *after all* it's just Africa; or they don't care because- *after all*, it's just Africa.
China sees Africa as next-step growth opportunity to furnish the needs of its expanding population. While this has been occurring for a number of years-now, the American press and Government either don't care because *after all* it's just Africa; or they don't care because- *after all*, it's just Africa.
1
Nuclear weapons no longer make any sense. What are the targets? The idea of a Chinese or Russian occupation of the USA makes no sense at all.
2
I think people are irrational, probably at least half the time. And when extreme situations arise, well, good luck.
We haven't descended from monkeys for nuthin'.
We haven't descended from monkeys for nuthin'.
And people wonder why the Russians are paranoid ............
2
We need to cancel the development and deployment of manned bombers and siloed ICBMs in favor of Cruise Missile Technology.
Crewed bombers and dumb ballistic missiles are outdated and outmoded technology. Cruise Missiles, unlike ICBMs can have the target altered after launch and do not put a human crew at risk.
Ms Feinstein is wrong about this just like she is wrong about Ed Snowden.
Crewed bombers and dumb ballistic missiles are outdated and outmoded technology. Cruise Missiles, unlike ICBMs can have the target altered after launch and do not put a human crew at risk.
Ms Feinstein is wrong about this just like she is wrong about Ed Snowden.
3
It is refreshing to read a piece by Members of Congress that actually addresses issues and asks substantive questions, especially in that Feinstein and Tauscher do it in a way which effectively asks for discussion. Were it that all pronouncements from politicians were so low on slogan and high on substance.
2
We continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past, creating weaponry that's not needed or even wanted except by the most enthusiastic knee-jerk military boosters in Congress (funded by the military industrial complex, naturally).
Aside from cost and need, I agree that the very presence of such power would tempt some to be quicker to use it. I'm also thinking of a very unstable candidate in whose hands envisioning this curdles my blood.
Senator Feinstein makes an excellent point when she writes, "The Pentagon says it would “provide the president with uniquely flexible options in an extreme crisis.” This suggests a lowering of the threshold for nuclear war, a perilous approach that would endanger not only America but allies that we are pledged to protect, like Japan and South Korea.'
This year the President acknowledged the great damager caused by the Hiroshima bomb--an action that was definitely a "last resort" option for ending WWII. Is it really necessary to spend $30 billion on weaponry that would be tempting but potentially world-altering? Even if this project should be given the green light, how can the price be justified?
US citizens are continually told to tighten their belts in the gig economy, so to see a bloated figure like this--which is just a starting point, everybody knows how this plays out--breeds cynicism and government mistrust.
Aside from cost and need, I agree that the very presence of such power would tempt some to be quicker to use it. I'm also thinking of a very unstable candidate in whose hands envisioning this curdles my blood.
Senator Feinstein makes an excellent point when she writes, "The Pentagon says it would “provide the president with uniquely flexible options in an extreme crisis.” This suggests a lowering of the threshold for nuclear war, a perilous approach that would endanger not only America but allies that we are pledged to protect, like Japan and South Korea.'
This year the President acknowledged the great damager caused by the Hiroshima bomb--an action that was definitely a "last resort" option for ending WWII. Is it really necessary to spend $30 billion on weaponry that would be tempting but potentially world-altering? Even if this project should be given the green light, how can the price be justified?
US citizens are continually told to tighten their belts in the gig economy, so to see a bloated figure like this--which is just a starting point, everybody knows how this plays out--breeds cynicism and government mistrust.
5
The Russians and Chinese are updating their nuclear arsenals. The current US nuclear cruise missile is old and slow. Current Russian air-defense systems can shoot them down relatively easily.
However, the $30 billion dollar price tag is ridiculous. Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman and the other defense dinosaurs need to be split up and re-managed as per Silicon Valley. The old-school multi-decade weapons development boondoggles greatly jeopardize our national security.
However, the $30 billion dollar price tag is ridiculous. Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman and the other defense dinosaurs need to be split up and re-managed as per Silicon Valley. The old-school multi-decade weapons development boondoggles greatly jeopardize our national security.
10
When the US and the SU developed nuclear weapons they changed the trajectory of history. For the first time, countries created implements of war that had no practical use on the battlefield. Any government that chose the nuclear option would trigger the end of the world. But, as the authors stress, these weapons did tend to deter conventional war between the nuclear powers. The loser of such a conflict would face a strong temptation to launch its missiles, rather than suffer the consequences of defeat.
This trade off, in which countries avoided a conventional WWIII by targeting each other with weapons that could truly mark the end of history, conformed to a kind of insane logic so long as no government achieved a technological breakthrough that gave it a decisive advantage over its adversaries. The new cruise missile may not qualify as a doomsday weapon, but the Russians and Chinese can hardly view its development with equanimity. The Cold War arms race, moreover, should have convinced any thoughtful person that no country could secure more than a temporary advantage in weaponry.
The high cost of the missile, combined with the probability that other countries will seek to regain parity, raise serious questions about the DOD's decision. Diverting badly needed resources to the military, in order to develop a weapon that might actually make us less safe, would not contribute to the kind of legacy Mr. Obama should want to create.
This trade off, in which countries avoided a conventional WWIII by targeting each other with weapons that could truly mark the end of history, conformed to a kind of insane logic so long as no government achieved a technological breakthrough that gave it a decisive advantage over its adversaries. The new cruise missile may not qualify as a doomsday weapon, but the Russians and Chinese can hardly view its development with equanimity. The Cold War arms race, moreover, should have convinced any thoughtful person that no country could secure more than a temporary advantage in weaponry.
The high cost of the missile, combined with the probability that other countries will seek to regain parity, raise serious questions about the DOD's decision. Diverting badly needed resources to the military, in order to develop a weapon that might actually make us less safe, would not contribute to the kind of legacy Mr. Obama should want to create.
42
One thing that will sooner or later have to be addressed: the Chinese are almost certainly working on a stealth cruise missile technology. For the obvious reason that it will be useful for countering the US Navy in the South China Seas.
10
Spending another dime on nukes makes little sense. A system that assures complete destruction to the planet? No thank you.
Reduce stock piles of this offensive weapon now. Skip upgrading and begin a real and honest reduction in the capacity.
WMDs like this have no place in our human species as we, as imperfect as we are, have no ultimate control over there use.
It is time to reset the doomsday clock and remove, not enhance, these awful devices of destruction and terror
Reduce stock piles of this offensive weapon now. Skip upgrading and begin a real and honest reduction in the capacity.
WMDs like this have no place in our human species as we, as imperfect as we are, have no ultimate control over there use.
It is time to reset the doomsday clock and remove, not enhance, these awful devices of destruction and terror
24
Here is pistol packing Dianne Feinstein fresh off steering a $1B real estate deal to her husband and intensifying her efforts to disarm the American public, now seeking to limit the capabilities of the U.S. military. Just where do the loyalties of this 82 year old Lefty really lie?
8
This comment would be funny if I didn't think you were being serious. I don't know who started this "they're coming to take our guns" narrative but it's become pervasive at every level of politics. Nobody is coming to take your guns, liberal or otherwise. Although judging by your reaction maybe the government *should* be taking your guns away, nobody is going to actually do it.
41
"Just where do the loyalties of this 82 year old Lefty really lie? " Is that you donald?
10
Toy, you haven't been paying attention to what these pols have been saying. Hillary has been quoted repeatedly and recently saying she favors an "Australian style" gun confiscation program. Feinstein is a gun grabber og long standing and minimal effort on your part will turn up lots of her statements to that effect.
1
Nuclear weapons make the US safer, not more dangerous. Russia, China and the US cannot wage real war against each other due to each others' fears of (justified) nuclear retaliation. Nuclear weapons are deterrents. No rational leader would launch one at another state with arms of their own, as it would be mutually assured destruction, which is irrational
8
@Tim. Yes because if there's one thing people have demonstrated throughout history is that they're rational.
4
And we have thousands of years of history demonstrating that human beings can be depended on to behave rationally?
I don't think you've studied the same history I have.
I don't think you've studied the same history I have.
4
"No rational leader would launch one..."
The US is very close to electing the most un-rational leader in its history. That a bragging, insecure street hustler having command of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world seems like a good idea to many American citizens is the best argument for getting rid of them.
The US is very close to electing the most un-rational leader in its history. That a bragging, insecure street hustler having command of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world seems like a good idea to many American citizens is the best argument for getting rid of them.
129
But how can you keep the military/industrial complex in business if you don't keep dreaming up new things for them to overcharge us for. Old weapons are, well, OLD, and have to be retired so we can generate new profits for stock holders... it is the American way!
43
Isolationists said the same things about the Yorktown aircraft carriers when FDR decided to build them in the 1930s. On 6/4/1942 these then high-tech weapons, even though outnumbered, destroyed the Japanese fleet at Midway changing the tide of battle in WW2 in a matter of minutes. Even in today's dangerous world few fully appreciate FDR's foresight at a time when it seemed to many that the US could ignore the terrible things happening in the world.
17
Your argument is false equivalence of the highest order. Developing aircraft carriers capable of destroying an opposing fleet at sea, even with the attendant loss of life measured in thousands or tens of thousands, is in no way comparable to the development of weapons that are capable of extinguishing human life on this planet.
Today's isolationists are those who have somehow reached the conclusion that global nuclear war is survivable. Perhaps some human beings would survive, but the rest of their lives would be a reminder of how insanely arrogant we were to consider such a "solution" to national conflicts and make it possible.
Today's isolationists are those who have somehow reached the conclusion that global nuclear war is survivable. Perhaps some human beings would survive, but the rest of their lives would be a reminder of how insanely arrogant we were to consider such a "solution" to national conflicts and make it possible.
The decisive factor in the Battle of Midway was the breaking of the Japanese code, not the carriers. And those carriers, of course, could not have put an end to civilization. Nuclear weapons can (and, from the looks of it, probably will).
2
The article says "The Air Force is set next year to accelerate the development of this new nuclear cruise missile. It would carry an upgraded W-80 nuclear warhead and be able to penetrate the world’s most advanced air-defense systems."
Hi, Air Force. If the new missile can get through everyone else's best air-defense, why also put a nuclear warhead on it?
No, no, no, thank you, no. Don't take my money for that.
Hi, Air Force. If the new missile can get through everyone else's best air-defense, why also put a nuclear warhead on it?
No, no, no, thank you, no. Don't take my money for that.
21
"... why also put a nuclear warhead on it?"
Because a W80-1 warhead has a yield of up 150 kilotons, so you only need one where many conventional warheads would be needed. Note that the W80-series has a *variable* yield from 5-150 kilotons.[1] For comparison, the AGM-86C CALCM has a 3000-pound class warhead.[2]
[1] W80-1 Warhead Selected For New Nuclear Cruise Missile
Hans M. Kristensen
Federation Of American Scientists
Oct.10, 2014
[2] "AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile" at FAS web site.
Because a W80-1 warhead has a yield of up 150 kilotons, so you only need one where many conventional warheads would be needed. Note that the W80-series has a *variable* yield from 5-150 kilotons.[1] For comparison, the AGM-86C CALCM has a 3000-pound class warhead.[2]
[1] W80-1 Warhead Selected For New Nuclear Cruise Missile
Hans M. Kristensen
Federation Of American Scientists
Oct.10, 2014
[2] "AGM-86C/D Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile" at FAS web site.
1
You're expecting logic from the military-industrial complex?
2
>But there are compelling reasons not to introduce a cruise missile that could increase the risk of nuclear war.<
We have the stockpile we have because we developed new nuclear weapons, from the crude originals to the improvements via Operation Sandstone all the way to our era. Those new, improved weapons didn't increase the risk, they instead served as a deterrent.
We have the stockpile we have because we developed new nuclear weapons, from the crude originals to the improvements via Operation Sandstone all the way to our era. Those new, improved weapons didn't increase the risk, they instead served as a deterrent.
13
Republicans probably like the new weapon. The issues uppermost in the minds of conservatives are: smaller government, increased power to executive branch, and more funding for defense, lower or few taxes. Not only are these so called values the only ones Conservative Republicans desire they do not represent what is best for the nation. Such a weapon as described in this article is neither a deterrent nor a fix for the economy. But someone will make a lot of money producing it.
33
Martha why post how Republicans will like the weapon? It's the President who has ordered the new weapon, any beef you have needs to be directed at the President
We will need all the nuclear weapons that we can get once WW III between the West and the Islamic Caliphate begins.
7
th f35 is another useless project
but youre gonna get it anyway
bc lockheed is making a killing on it
whats good for Lockheed is good for th usa
but youre gonna get it anyway
bc lockheed is making a killing on it
whats good for Lockheed is good for th usa
2
Very disappointed that the President didn't use the Hiroshima visit to declare an end to the US nuclear program and that these weapons would be phased out as they reached their end of life. It's time for bold leadership.
5
If I had a spare $30 billion dollars - to defend America - I'd use it for work on energy independence through renewable resources, and a really nice steak. It's a question of priorities and return on investment: energy production would sustain and stimulate industry, a missile just goes boom, and a steak goes well with a bottle of red wine.
22
This is why the Military and weapons manufacturers jumped with glee when the New Cold War started. And neither side has learned anything significant from the old one. What Americans need to do is publish where this money will come from? Whenever we need infrastructure or anything FOR THE CITIZENS they scramble to cut other programs except when the Warhawks come hand out for new toys.
21
For anyone interested in this subject, I recommend reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. There have been many close calls with nuclear weapons which have not been publicized. We do not need another one.
The money would be better spent on improving the many problems currently plaguing the country.
The money would be better spent on improving the many problems currently plaguing the country.
9
This is another case of Mr Obama saying one thing and doing another
4
Ironically, I just watched Dr. Strangelove last night. I can just picture General Buck Turgidson wildly gesticulating "Mr. President - we have a stand off cruise missile gap!" with all of the judgement and intellect of a 7 year old.
We probably have a hundred times the deterrent force we need. This is insane.
We probably have a hundred times the deterrent force we need. This is insane.
20
I’d prefer that the $30 billion not be spent or, if it must, then give it to NASA or the Centers for Disease Control, with expanded missions. But resistance to this program is going to be met with the argument that it’s motivated by a desire to spend money instead on more or expanded entitlement programs that make our people MORE dependent on government for the costs of living their lives, instead of requiring that we be largely responsible for covering those costs by our own labors. Half the country has a problem with that objective. Taken to extremes, so do I.
Then, the editors have every right to express their support for a “nuclear-free” world; but nukes and the fear of unleashing them arguably have kept the number and destructive outcome of wars minimized since 1945. That’s really the whole MEANING of deterrence; and it’s worked pretty well. It’s not at all a won argument that humanity is ready yet for a nuclear-free world. If not, then continued R&D and development of new weapons is necessary to keep the technology forward-moving.
Just about the only military purpose attracting new investment is this one – elsewhere, we’re cutting personnel, planes and ships. That has a lot of Americans very nervous about our readiness to protect our vital interests.
The most serious argument presented against development is that it’s destabilizing, that it lowers the threshold for nuclear war. That’s a charge I’d like to see answered by Sec. Carter and President Obama.
Then, the editors have every right to express their support for a “nuclear-free” world; but nukes and the fear of unleashing them arguably have kept the number and destructive outcome of wars minimized since 1945. That’s really the whole MEANING of deterrence; and it’s worked pretty well. It’s not at all a won argument that humanity is ready yet for a nuclear-free world. If not, then continued R&D and development of new weapons is necessary to keep the technology forward-moving.
Just about the only military purpose attracting new investment is this one – elsewhere, we’re cutting personnel, planes and ships. That has a lot of Americans very nervous about our readiness to protect our vital interests.
The most serious argument presented against development is that it’s destabilizing, that it lowers the threshold for nuclear war. That’s a charge I’d like to see answered by Sec. Carter and President Obama.
6
The US had nuclear cruise missiles once before. They were eliminated by treaty. The reason given at the time for doing that was that they are destabilizing, for the same reasons cited again here. We've been here before, done this before. Now we are to spend a lot of money to do something that we decided was a mistake once before.
99
Mark:
Well, we could always salvage the stealth technology and, instead of nuclear payloads send liberal U.S. representatives and senators in them. That'll teach Kim Jong-un and Vlad the Impaler.
Well, we could always salvage the stealth technology and, instead of nuclear payloads send liberal U.S. representatives and senators in them. That'll teach Kim Jong-un and Vlad the Impaler.
3
Not 'once before', we have them right now. What you are referring to as 'eliminated by treaty' were ground-based systems covered by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
There is a huge cost for this weapon, $30 billion just to develop it.
Although it would be a nuclear weapon, all that money is not because it is nuclear. It will use the existing W-80 nuclear explosive that is decades old.
All that money is going into the stealth cruise missile part. It is a precision guided long range stealth weapons boondoggle, not a nuclear weapon boondoggle. They just excuse the huge cost with the nuclear tag. All nuclear stuff is automatically understood to be expensive, but here that is just the excuse.
They'd want to do it even without the nuclear warhead, because they want the stand off long range stealth effect so that bombers don't have to go close to the new generation of air defense missiles. They mean to have "flying arsenals" launch conventional versions in vast numbers from a great distance.
Right now the ancient B-52 is meant to be the "flying arsenal" launcher, but they'll eventually want a very expensive stealth launcher too. That is the obvious next big bill coming from this.
You thought the F-35 was expensive? Wait till you see what this becomes.
Although it would be a nuclear weapon, all that money is not because it is nuclear. It will use the existing W-80 nuclear explosive that is decades old.
All that money is going into the stealth cruise missile part. It is a precision guided long range stealth weapons boondoggle, not a nuclear weapon boondoggle. They just excuse the huge cost with the nuclear tag. All nuclear stuff is automatically understood to be expensive, but here that is just the excuse.
They'd want to do it even without the nuclear warhead, because they want the stand off long range stealth effect so that bombers don't have to go close to the new generation of air defense missiles. They mean to have "flying arsenals" launch conventional versions in vast numbers from a great distance.
Right now the ancient B-52 is meant to be the "flying arsenal" launcher, but they'll eventually want a very expensive stealth launcher too. That is the obvious next big bill coming from this.
You thought the F-35 was expensive? Wait till you see what this becomes.
129
Amen, brother.
8
Sure.....but all the contractors care about is lining their pockets. As do our distinguished legislators.....and they all have become very, very skilled at those endeavors. We, the taxpayers, will be paying these bills for, possibly, a hundred years............approaching that already with the B52.
2
Well, if the bulk of the cost of the weapon is to develop the middle itself, which could just as easily have a conventional warhead, then you made a very compelling argument to authorize the program.
Absolutely no need for yet another kind of nuclear weapon.
Nuke hawks and defense contractors go way. SECDEF reject this senseless proposal.
Nuke hawks and defense contractors go way. SECDEF reject this senseless proposal.
81
We ought to benchmark our nation's spending vs. other developed nation's spending (in terms of GDP) on military, security, penal and justice systems and reduce our spending to the same percentages the other nations spend. We might just get rich again.
11
Let alone that our biggest enemies are low-budget individuals, often taking advantage of our political dysfunction to acquire high powered killing machines without any supervision.
Haven't we seen their celebrations of how with very little effort and cost (sometimes not even tends of thousands) they can cause us to spend billions and trillions and look askance at each other? Heightened mutually assured suspicion with racist flavors?
And now we want to put this kind of weapon within reach of a major contender for president whose psychological balance runs on a hair trigger and who uses threats to hit back at the smallest insults?
We have a really really big enemy front and center, which is global warming/climate change. This will make that worse as well. Wars are very polluting, and our use of our planet as a combined dump and cornucopia in the face of destabilizing population increase is foolish in the extreme.