So now that the Nuclear Posture Review is out, one of the stated aims of which is to reduce the role of U.S. nukes, and a new arms reduction treaty with the Russians (New START) is signed (though not yet ratified by the Senate), let’s take a look at where things stand, or will soon stand, with America’s nuclear arsenal.
Assuming it’s ratified, New START, which replaces the 1991 START I Treaty which expired last year, sets limits of:
• 1,550 strategic warheads
• 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed nuclear capable heavy bombers
• A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and nuclear capable heavy bombers
New START is only the beginning, according to the NPR, as the U.S. and Russia will continue discussion on further reductions in the nuclear arsenal. After some speculation that the Obama administration’s NPR would axe a leg of the nuclear triad, the NPR decided to keep all three legs.
The Boomer Fleet
The Navy will retain all 14 Ohio class SSBNs for the near term; although the plan is to reduce to 12 before the end of the decade. The first of the Ohio class will be retired in 2027. The Navy is currently designing a replacement SSBN; how the Navy plans to fit a new boomer into an already overcrowded shipbuilding plan is a mystery, more on that in a later post.
No More MIRVs
There are 450 deployed Minuteman III ICBMs sitting in silos somewhere in middle America. Nearly all ICBMs remain on alert status. All ICBMs will be “de-MIRVed,” reducing each to a single warhead. A life extension program is underway to keep the Minuteman III missiles operational to at least 2030. The NPR reaffirmed the current practice of “open ocean” targeting; all missiles are aimed at the ocean in event of an accidental launch. It says the Pentagon is exploring “new modes of basing” for the ICBM force.
Nuclear Bombers
The U.S. has 76 B-52H and 18 B-2 nuclear capable bombers. An as yet undetermined number of B-52H bombers will be converted to conventional only. Over $1 billion will be invested in upgrading the B-2 fleet (currently the only penetrating bomber in the inventory) over the next five years. Nuclear capable bombers no longer sit at the ready on the ramp.
The NPR says DOD is currently examining the right mix of long range strike, the outcome of which will be seen in the 2012 budget request.
Tactical Nukes
The NPR says “a limited number” of tactical nuclear weapons are maintained forward deployed in Europe, mainly because Russia maintains a pretty sizeable tactical nuke stockpile in Europe and it makes our NATO allies feel better to keep our bombs there. Any decisions as to the future of those nuclear bombs will be made by committee in NATO.
As the Air Force (someday) replaces the F-16 with the F-35, it will ensure that the B-61 nuclear bomb (carried by the B52H and B-2) can be carried by the new fighter-bomber.
The nuclear tipped Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N) will be retired.
– Greg
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
If they were to axe a leg, which would it be?
Bomber. They're considered non-survivable without SEAD.
You can't unilaterally disarm all nuclear weapons. But you can do it slowly and surely over the years until we find ourselves sitting at about 100 warhead limits.
This is what the Obama administration is obviously trying to achieve.
Glad to head they're taking out the TLAM-N. Those things are worthless pieces of total crap.
cough.."Open ocean" targeting. Is actually true. But… anyone ever used a mouse and selected a different menu option before? Yeah…
I actually don't think they'd axe the bombers. The NPR isn't really a strategic document, it is political. Therefore, the most politically pleasing leg to axe would be the boomers. They are the only things that really throw off the theory of mutually assured destruction.
Raise your hand, James Steinberg, if you've ever had a TS/SIOP-ESI CAT 6 clearance.
I have not. But I'm looking at this from a political perspective, not a technical one. Technically this really doesn't make the world much safer; politically, it is a rather large step between the US and Russia.
Woah! Wait a minute! Is that another new requirement for the F-35?
"As the Air Force (someday) replaces the F-16 with the F-35, it will ensure that the B-61 nuclear bomb (carried by the B52H and B-2) can be carried by the new fighter-bomber."
thunder350 – i think if you look at the numbers of nuclear systems, the usa and russia far outstrip the other 3 security council permanent members (france, china and uk) in terms of warheads and delivery systems … they have about 200 deliverable warheads each max. … india, pakistan and israel probably muster around the 10-100 mark, depending on which report you read. so usa and russia is the big deal (from a brit) :-)
True, but I swear China is increasing their stockpiles tho!
How about actually saying what the numbers for the reductions will be. Exactly how many devices, and of what category will be eliminated?
The de-MIRVDed number are only 50 warheads. SORT, signed by Pres. Bush II, in 2003, reduced the number of active warheads on Minuteman II missiles to 500 , on 450 missiles. That doesn't seem nearly as panic inducing as saying "The Entire US ICBM Fleet Will Be De-MIRVed!!!" Now does it?
How about some real damn information for a change?
De-MIRV is a mistake, unless the removed warheads are replaced with decoys.
Missile Defense Systems are getting good at identifying decoys from real warheads, but this makes their job all the easier. I don't see any real benefit from that move, unless it is to reduce the costs of force maintenance. This
whole movement away from nuclear forces could cost us in the future in
a tit for tat nuclear exchange. The MAD doctrine worked for 40 years.
The problem with MIRV's land based missiles is they make juicy targets. Anyone, including China, wanting to do a quick BOOB and reduce our warhead count (and thus retaliatory strike options) can use fewer launchers, double hit the few ICBM's that are MIRV'd and leave the SIOP planners in a hole.
Better to have more single warhead missiles in silo's and make a potential enemy use dual warheads for 100% success, while only taking out one warhead in the silo. The math doesn't work so the ICBM's become relatively safe to keep.
It costs more to keep operational, but with long term continued use of the Minuteman, not that expensive.
The TRIAD system will come tumbling down when the Trident missile and subs, as well as Minuteman's reach the end of there operational life and have to be replaced.
SB
The point to de-MIRVing is that it actually *helps* MAD by making first-strike impossible.
Is the U.S. actually using decoys and False Stops now?? Does anyone know?
At last, a rational discussion about this nuclear arms treaty.
Have you guys been on the Fox News forums recently? Lot's of ignorant arguments.
Because we all know that the Russians can be trusted to live up to their paper commitments. Like they did with chemical and biological weapons back when they were the Soviet Union.
MIRVing is a lot less of an issue with manouvering, terminal guidance warheads and PenAids.
Disagree with reducing any nuclear assets that provide us with an advantage. Do you think that communism in the old Soviet Union would have fell had Reagan succumbed to political pressure from the demwits and Moscow? Ever heard of "peace through strength"? The only thing that countries like Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc., respect is military power. That is the hard cold fact. Take it from a guy that is retired military, retired federal auditor/investigator and very knowledgeable in military history and world politics. I do know of which I speak.
I do not trust the Soviet Union. If I had the authority, our Strategic Bombers would go back on 24 hour alert, as a precautionary measure.
Well jeez, then since 1991 they would've been waiting for an enemy for, err…twenty years?