DOCSLIB.ORG

CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1345

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Issue 1345 14 December 2018 // USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1345 // Feature Report “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues”. Published by Congressional Research Service; Updated Nov. 21, 2018 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf Most Members of Congress have supported the general contours of U.S. nuclear posture. While some programs have been open to scrutiny, Congress has continued to support funding for most aspects of the ongoing modernization programs. Nevertheless, questions about the costs of these programs, and the trade-offs they might require within the defense budget, have surfaced in recent years, particularly following the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011. These concerns may receive additional attention in the 116th Congress. While Senator James Inhofe, who will likely chair the Senate Armed Services Committee, has offered strong support for the nuclear modernization programs, Representative Adam Smith, who is likely to chair the House Armed Services Committee, has noted that “the current $1.5 trillion plan to build new nuclear weapons and upgrade our nuclear weapons complex is unrealistic and unaffordable.” This report reviews the ongoing programs that will affect the expected size and shape of the U.S. strategic nuclear force structure. It begins with an overview of this force structure during the Cold War, and summarizes the reductions and changes that have occurred since 1991. It then offers details about each category of delivery vehicle—land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers—focusing on their current deployments and ongoing and planned modernization programs. The report concludes with a discussion of issues related to decisions about the future size and shape of the U.S. strategic nuclear force. Issue No. 1320 22 June 2018 twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 2 // USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1345 // TABLE OF CONTENTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS Nuclear Bomb Tail Kit Reaches Major Milestone for Production Phase (U.S. Air Force) The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is responsible for the B61-12 nuclear bomb assembly. The Air Force is responsible for the B61-12 TKA, joint integration of the bomb assembly and TKA into the “all-up-round” of the weapon, and its integration with aircraft. Inhofe ‘Urging’ Trump to Boost Defense, Sees ‘No Strategic Rationale’ for Cuts (Defense News) Inhofe and HASC chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, on Wednesday, lobbied the president to reject a planned $700 billion defense budget request, ordered by the White House budget office, in favor of a rival $733 billion budget which aligns with the National Defense Strategy. US COUNTER-WMD Missile Test Called Model for Future U.S.-Japan Weapons Development (National Defense) The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy on Dec. 11 successfully conducted an operational live-fire test to track and intercept an intermediate-range ballistic missile target. Here’s the Latest on Lockheed’s Massive Long-Range Anti-Ballistic Missile Radar (Defense News) The radar, which is being developed and tested at Lockheed’s radar manufacturing facility in Moorestown for the Missile Defense Agency, is slated to be installed at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. US ARMS CONTROL Iran Can Expand Range of Its Missiles, Says Revolutionary Guard Commander (Defense News) U.S. President Donald Trump in August reactivated economic sanctions on Iran after leaving a multilateral Iran nuclear deal because the deal did not ban Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles. Trump Ultimatum Sparks Fears of New Arms Race (The Hill) The decades-old nuclear arms agreement has kept Russia and the U.S. from developing and testing certain intermediate-range missiles. COMMENTARY NNSA Administrator: Strengthening America through Nuclear Security (Defense News) With Russia and China pursuing entirely new nuclear capabilities and the ongoing negotiations to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, the geopolitical challenges are pressing. Our Deep Divide over Nuclear Disarmament (The Hill) The deep divide within the NPT community over disarmament will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make progress on U.S. non-proliferation goals in the near term and eventually may cause the treaty to lose relevance as non-nuclear states reconsider the treaty’s value. twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 3 // USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1345 // NUCLEAR WEAPONS U.S. Air Force (Washington, D.C.) Nuclear Bomb Tail Kit Reaches Major Milestone for Production Phase By Leah Bryant Dec. 7, 2018 KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center received formal approval in late October to enter the production phase for the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb’s new guided tail-kit assembly, or TKA. “This marks the completion of a highly successful development effort for the tail kit,” said Col. Dustin Ziegler, AFNWC director for air-delivered capabilities. The AFNWC program office recently passed the Air Force review of the weapon system’s development and received approval to end its engineering and manufacturing development phase and enter the next phase for production of the tail kit. In the production phase, the testing environment will more closely approach real-world environments. Known as Milestone C, the decision to enter this next phase marked the completion of a series of developmental flight tests. The program office completed a 27-month test program in less than 11 months, with 100 percent success for all of its 31 bomb drops. The accelerated schedule, as well as other risk mitigation strategies, enabled the program office to save more than $280 million in development costs, according to Ziegler. “The flight tests demonstrated the system works very well in its intended environment,” said Col. Paul Rounsavall, AFNWC senior materiel leader for the B61-12 TKA, Eglin AFB, Florida. “This development effort brought the first-ever digital interface to the B61 family of weapons and demonstrated the B61-12 TKA’s compatibility with the Air Force’s B-2 and F-15 aircraft. In addition, the TKA achieved greater than five times its required performance during developmental testing and is ready to start initial operational test and evaluation.” The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is responsible for the B61-12 nuclear bomb assembly. The Air Force is responsible for the B61-12 TKA, joint integration of the bomb assembly and TKA into the “all-up-round” of the weapon, and its integration with aircraft. Headquartered at Kirtland AFB, AFNWC is responsible for synchronizing all aspects of nuclear materiel management on behalf of Air Force Materiel Command and in direct support of Air Force Global Strike Command. The center has about 1,100 personnel assigned to 18 locations worldwide, including Eglin AFB; Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts; Hill AFB, Utah; Kirtland AFB; and Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, in the U.S. and Ramstein Air Base in Germany. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1707698/nuclear-bomb-tail-kit-reaches-major- milestone-for-production-phase/ Return to top twitter.com/USAF_CSDS | au.af.mil/au/csds // 4 // USAF CSDS News and Analysis Issue 1345 // Defense News (Washington, D.C.) Inhofe ‘Urging’ Trump to Boost Defense, Sees ‘No Strategic Rationale’ for Cuts By Joe Gould Dec. 5, 2018 WASHINGTON — Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe said he used a recent two-hour White House meeting with President Donald Trump, Vice Mike President Pence and national security adviser John Bolton to urge the administration to reverse course on a planned cut to the fiscal year 2020 national defense budget. “I’m urging the president to consider” approving a “strategy-driven budget,” he said Thursday in a speech at the National Defense University focused on his priorities for the committee. "There’s no strategic rationale for any cut” to the defense budget, which stood at $716 billion for 2019, he said. Inhofe and HASC chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, on Wednesday, lobbied the president to reject a planned $700 billion defense budget request, ordered by the White House budget office, in favor of a rival $733 billion budget which aligns with the National Defense Strategy. The remarks come days after Trump tweeted that the size of the FY19 defense budget he signed last year was “Crazy!” Trump said he hoped for talks soon with his Russian and Chinese counterparts to end, “what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race” — a likely reference to negotiations over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. A supporter of the president and proud conservative, Inhofe made the candid admission that, “I cringe a little,” whenever Trump tweets. He said he doesn’t blame Trump, however, for trying to get around a media that, “hates him.” “I have to admit — confession’s good for the soul — every time I hear that a tweet is coming out, I cringe a little,” Inhofe said. “But, wouldn’t it be kind of nice if he had someone to bounce those off, change the wording maybe a little bit? But how else can he circumvent a media that hates him?” Surrounding himself with uniformed military officers Thursday, Inhofe paired partisan jabs at the media, “liberals,” and President Obama with praise for Trump on defense spending, seating judges and the economy. Asked about rising deficits in the face of his defense spending proposal, Inhofe suggested cutting social programs and dismissed tax cuts. As defense hawks head into a budget season marked by a divided Congress, Inhofe has launched a media blitz to amplify his message that the Pentagon’s planned $733 billion top-line is “a floor, not a ceiling” and that he wants three-to-five percent real growth in the defense budget. Budget Control Act Looms Large Inhofe reiterated his argument for exempting defense from the 2011 Budget Control Act’s caps, which has been a non-starter with Democrats who have fought for parity between defense and non- defense spending each year since the BCA was passed.
Recommended publications
  • Unclassified 1 House Armed Services Committee On

    Unclassified 1 House Armed Services Committee On

    UNCLASSIFIED HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. RICHARD COMMANDER UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES 21 APRIL 2021 HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES 1 UNCLASSIFIED INTRODUCTION United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is a global warfighting command, and as the Commander, I am privileged to lead the 150,000 Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, Guardians, and Civilians who dedicate themselves to the Department of Defense’s highest priority mission. I thank the President, Secretary of Defense Austin, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Milley for their continued leadership in this vital mission area. The command is focused on and committed to the Secretary of Defense priorities to defend the nation, take care of our people, and succeed through teamwork. I also thank Congress for your continued support to ensure USSTRATCOM is equipped with the required resources necessary to achieve strategic deterrence in any situation on behalf of the nation. USSTRATCOM enables Joint Force operations and is the combatant command responsible for Strategic Deterrence, Nuclear Operations, Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications (NC3) Enterprise Operations, Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations, Global Strike, Missile Defense, Analysis and Targeting, and Missile Threat Assessment. Our mission is to deter strategic attack and employ forces as directed, to guarantee the security of the nation and assure our allies and partners. The command has three priorities. First, above all else, we will provide strategic deterrence for the nation and assurance of the same to our allies and partners. Second, if deterrence fails, we are prepared to deliver a decisive response, decisive in every possible way.
  • US Nuclear Weapons Capability 【Overview】 with the U.S

    US Nuclear Weapons Capability 【Overview】 with the U.S

    US nuclear weapons capability 【Overview】 With the U.S. there is more (though insufficient) transparency over its nuclear weapons than any other countries’. In May 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a fact sheet on its nuclear stockpile, which reported 5,113 warheads as of September 2009. Ever since, it has been updated almost annually. The last update, provided in January 2017, reported a total 4,018 warheads as of September 30, 2016(The White House 2017), indicating a reduction of 1,095 over a seven‒year period. A closer look at its nuclear capability shows 1,750 warheads in operational deployment (1,600 strategic warheads and 150 non‒strategic). The strategic warheads are deployed with ICBMs, SLBMs and U.S. Air Force bases. The remainder (about 2,050) constitutes a reserve. This number is greater than the 1,393 strategic nuclear warheads in operational deployment registered under the New START as on September 1, 2017 (U.S. Department of State 2018‒1). One reason for the discrepancy may be due to the New START Treaty of counting only one warhead per strategic bomber, as opposed to accounting for all other warheads stored on base where bombers are stationed. The White House’s January 2017 fact sheet also revealed that some 2,800 warheads were retired and awaiting disassembly. It is estimated that, with further reductions since September 2017 to have totaled 3,800, the entire U.S. nuclear stockpile to be 6,450 including 2,650 retired and awaiting disassembly. On February 2, 2018, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) fundamentally reversed the previous administration’s NPR, which had sought to reduce the role of nuclear weapons.
  • S&TR March 2012 6 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    S&TR March 2012 6 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    S&TR March 2012 Extending the Life of an Aging Weapon 6 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory S&TR March 2012 W78 Life-Extension Program Extending the Life of an Aging Weapon Stockpile stewards By law, the directors of the NNSA the warhead’s nonnuclear components. weapons laboratories—Lawrence The announcement was made in a letter Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia— from Don Cook, deputy administrator for modernize the W78 provide the secretaries of Energy and NNSA’s Defense Programs. Defense with an annual assessment of the The W78 is used on U.S. Air Force stockpile. Confidence in these assessments Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic warhead for the depends on the laboratories’ abilities to missiles (ICBMs). The Mark 12A reentry evaluate the inevitable changes that occur vehicle encloses the warhead to protect nation’s land-based inside nuclear weapons as they age and it from heat as it speeds through the to effectively deal with any safety or atmosphere. A team of about 30 Livermore performance issues that may arise from physicists, engineers, and chemists are intercontinental ballistic those changes. Stockpile stewardship working on an options study in what is activities enhance understanding of currently planned to be a 10-year effort to nuclear weapons and ensure their safety extend the W78’s service life for another missiles. and performance through a combination 30 years. of theoretical advances, nonnuclear In Congressional testimony in 2011, experiments, supercomputer simulations, Laboratory Director George Miller (now OLLOWING the end of the Cold and stockpile surveillance. When retired) underscored the importance of FWar, the U.S.
  • AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF of TRI-VALLEY Cares -0 Case No

    AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF of TRI-VALLEY Cares -0 Case No

    Case4:14-cv-01885-JSW Document26 Filed08/20/14 Page1 of 5 1 SCOTT YUNDT (CSB #242595) TRI-VALLEY CARES 2 2582 Old First Street 3 Livermore, California 94550 Telephone: (925) 443-7148 4 Facsimile: (925) 443-0177 Email: [email protected] 5 6 Attorney for Amicus Curiae TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITIES 7 AGAINST A RADIOACTIVE ENVIRONMENT (CAREs) 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 ) Case No. 4:14-cv-01885-JSW THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ) 14 ) ISLANDS, a non-nuclear-weapon State party ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF 15 to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of ) AMICUS CURIAE OF TRI-VALLEY Nuclear Weapons, ) CAREs IN SUPPORT OF VENUE IN THE 16 ) NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, ) CALIFORNIA 17 ) v. ) 18 ) Hearing Date: September 12, 2014 ) Time: 9:00 A.M. 19 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Courtroom: Oakland Courthouse, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, THE ) 20 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ) Courtroom 5 – 2nd Floor, OF AMERICA; THE DEPARTMENT OF ) 1301 Clay Street 21 DEFENSE; SECRETARY CHARLES ) Oakland, CA 94612 ) 22 HAGEL, THE SECRETARY OF ) DEFENSE; THE DEPARTMENT OF ) 23 ENERGY; SECRETARY ERNEST MONIZ, ) THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY; AND 24 THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 25 ADMINISTRATION, 26 Defendants. 27 28 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF TRI-VALLEY CAREs -0 Case No. 4:14-CV-01885-JSW Case4:14-cv-01885-JSW Document26 Filed08/20/14 Page2 of 5 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive 3 Environment (CAREs) hereby moves this Court for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in the 4 above-captioned case in support the Plaintiff’s choice of venue in the Northern District Court of 5 California and to oppose dismissal based on that choice of venue.
  • Not for Publication Until Released by Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee United States Senate

    Not for Publication Until Released by Senate Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee United States Senate

    NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES SENATE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE- STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES SENATE SUBJECT: FY19 Posture for Department of Defense Nuclear Forces STATEMENT OF: General Robin Rand, Commander Air Force Global Strike Command April 11, 2018 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE STRATEGIC FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE UNITED STATES SENATE Introduction Chairwoman Fischer, Ranking Member Donnelly and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to come before you and represent over 34,000 Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Total Force Airmen. It is an honor to be here today, and I look forward to updating you on what the command has accomplished and where we are going. Air Force Global Strike Command Mission Air Force Global Strike Command is a warfighting command responsible for two legs of our nation’s nuclear triad and the nation’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) capabilities while simultaneously accomplishing the conventional global strike mission. As long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States must deter attacks and maintain strategic stability, assure our allies, and hedge against an uncertain future. At AFGSC, we’re especially focused on today’s evolving world and tomorrow’s emerging threats. The command’s top priority is to ensure our nuclear arsenal is lethal, safe, and secure. This priority underlies every nuclear-related activity in AFGSC, and we must never fail in the special trust and confidence the American people have bestowed on our nuclear warriors.
  • Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Federation of American Scientists Special Report No 3 May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN 1 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 2 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Acknowledgments e following people provided valuable input and edits: Katie Colten, Mary-Kate Cunningham, Robert Nurick, Stephen Pifer, Nathan Pollard, and other reviewers who wish to remain anonymous. is report was made possible by generous support from the Ploughshares Fund. Analysis of satellite imagery was done with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Image: personnel of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy load a B61 nuclear bomb trainer onto a F-16 fighter-bomber (Image: U.S. Air Force). 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy.
  • Nuclear Matters. a Practical Guide 5B

    Nuclear Matters. a Practical Guide 5B

    NUCLEAR MATTERS A Practical Guide Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE 2008 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Nuclear Matters. A Practical Guide 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear REPORT NUMBER Matters),The Pentagon Room 3B884,Washington,DC,20301-3050 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17.
  • Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture

    Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture

    Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE 1776 Eye St, NW | Suite 600 | Washington DC 20006 www.nti.org Steve Andreasen, Isabelle Williams, Brian Rose, @NTI_WMD Hans M. Kristensen, and Simon Lunn www.facebook.com/nti.org Foreword by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn ABOUT THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE The Nuclear Threat Initiative works to protect our lives, environment, and quality of life now and for future generations. We work to prevent catastrophic attacks with weapons of mass destruction and disruption (WMDD)—nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical, and cyber. Founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner, who continue to serve as co-chairs, NTI is guided by a prestigious, international board of directors. Ernest J. Moniz serves as chief executive officer and co-chair; Des Browne is vice chair; and Joan Rohlfing serves as president. www.nti.org Cover: A Dutch F-16 takes off from Leeuwarden Airbase in the Netherlands in 2011. PHOTO BY ROBIN UTRECHT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES Building a Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture Steve Andreasen Isabelle Williams Brian Rose Hans M. Kristensen Simon Lunn Foreword by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn January 2018 The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of NTI, its Board of Directors, or other institutions with which the authors are associated. © 2018 Nuclear Threat Initiative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holder.
  • December 2020 © Author, December 2020

    December 2020 © Author, December 2020

    ͳͳͲ BELGIUM SHOULD NOT CHANGE STRATEGY ON HER CONTRIBUTION TO NATO’S NUCLEAR ROLE SHARING DIDIER AUDENAERT ʹͲʹͲ ABOUT THE AUTHOR Col. (Ret.) Didier Audenaert is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Egmont – Royal Insti- tute for International Relations in Brussels. Previously, he served for 4 years as NATO expert advisor at Belgian Foreign Affairs and before that for 6 years as Defence Coun- sellor to the Belgian NATO Delegation. He also worked for almost 4 years at NATO Defense College. ABOUT THE EGMONT PAPERS The Egmont Papers are published by Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an inde- pendent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision-making process. Table of Contents Introduction / Executive summary . 2 Many challenges in the European security environment . 2 NATO’s deterrence: aggression of any kind is not a rational option . 3 NATO’s “collective defence”: one for all and all for one . 4 Allies remain committed to arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament . 5 NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) . 6 NATO’s Nuclear Forces. 6 1. “La France ne dépend d’aucune autre puissance pour ce qui est de sa sécurité” . 7 2. UK: “a nuclear deterrent to autonomously protect the UK”.
  • U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, Force Levels, and War Planning Prepared by Hans M. Kristensen Natural Resources Defense Council February 2005 U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe • Hans M. Kristensen/Natural Resources Defense Council, 2005 About the Author Hans M. Kristensen is an independent nuclear weapons policy analyst who has spent the last 20 years researching nuclear weapons policy and operations. He specializes in using the Freedom of Information Act to obtain declassified documents and is a consultant to the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington D.C. Kristensen is the co-author of the bi- monthly NRDC Nuclear Notebook in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and writes the World Nuclear Forces appendix to the SIPRI Yearbook. His other publications are available on his web site at http://www.nukestrat.com. Acknowledgments This report builds upon the extensive research conducted by independent analysts in the United States and Europe over the past several decades. Deciphering the infrastructure of nuclear operations is difficult and time consuming but a necessary and important task. My research and writing for this report was conducted with the generous support from the Ploughshares Fund. Robert S. Norris, Thomas B. Cochran, Alexandra Kennaugh, Elliott Negin and Alistair Millar provided much needed editorial assistance. Matthew McKinzie did his magic with maps and satellite images. Further Information A copy of this report (PDF color) and the individual color satellite images from Appendix C are available on the NRDC web site at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp © Hans M.
  • Nuclear Weapons Posture Hearing

    Nuclear Weapons Posture Hearing

    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING NOVEMBER 2, 2011 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER Mr. TURNER. At the House Armed Services Committee’s October 13 hearing, Sec- retary of Defense Panetta said, ‘‘With regards to reducing our nuclear arena, I think that is an area where I don’t think we ought to do that unilaterally—we ought to do that on the basis of negotiations with the Russians and others to make sure we are all walking the same path.’’ To ensure we are not reducing unilaterally, will we retain nuclear forces that are at—or very near—the limits on strategic forces im- posed by the New START Treaty? Otherwise, wouldn’t it by definition be ‘‘unilat- eral’’ reductions? a. Would you support reductions if they were a part of a non-binding agreement with Russia? b. At what force levels do we need to start bringing the ‘‘others’’ Secretary Panetta mentions, particularly China, into the picture? Dr. MILLER. The Administration has not made a final decision on the specific mix of forces to be deployed under the New START Treaty. DOD continues to plan on 240 SLBM launchers, up to 420 ICBM launchers, and up to 60 nuclear-capable heavy bombers. It is important to note that the U.S. retains the flexibility to modify the mix of delivery systems under the Treaty. a. As stated in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), because of our improved rela- tions, the need for strict numerical parity between the United States and Russia is no longer as compelling as it was during the Cold War.

  • Nuclear Weapons Force Structure

    An Analysis of Technical and Policy Drivers in Current U.S. Nuclear Weapons Force Structure By Amanda Baker Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology May 2o008%3 May 2008 © Amanda Baker 2008 All Rights Reserved The author hereby grants MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis in whole or in part. Signature of Author: '~ ~'~- -~-- Depanrtent of Nuclear Science and Engineering ( 2 ~ / ~ May 9, 2008 Certified By: ' . ._Dwight L. s MLK Visiting Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering 1 Thesis Supervisor Accepted By: David G. Cory Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering MASSACHUSETTS INSTTTUTF. Chairman, NSE Committee for Undergraduate Students OF TECHNOLOGY 1 JUL 2 42008 MaC~lfVES LIBRARIES An Analysis of Technical and Policy Drivers in Current U.S. Nuclear Weapons Force Structure By Amanda Baker Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering on May 9, 2008 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering ABSTRACT U.S. nuclear weapons force structure accounts for the number and types of strategic and nonstrategic weapon systems in various locations that comprise the nuclear arsenal. While exact numbers, locations, and detailed designs remain classified, motivations for the current and future of the nuclear arsenal is presented as a unique integration of logical technical and political information. The dynamic that results from military requirements, physical design limitations, and congressional response to balance deterrence with stockpile reductions has not produced the necessary level of change in the post-Cold War environment of the 21st century.