DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Matters. a Practical Guide 5B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 270 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Foreword This practical guide to Nuclear Matters is an expanded and revised version of the earlier Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Management Handbook and the Nuclear Weapons Council Handbook. Originally published in 1991 for the use of Action Officers associated with the Nuclear Weapons Council, previous editions have been modified over time to meet the needs of the larger nuclear weapons community as well as those outside the community who seek a better understanding of the subject. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program has evolved significantly as a result of unilateral and bilateral arms reductions and the end of underground nuclear testing in the United States; successive editions of these books have been revised and restructured to reflect these changes. This book is intended to be an unofficial reference that explains the history and development of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program as well as the current activities associated with sustaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It is designed to be useful, but it is neither authoritative nor directive. Please refer to the applicable statute, regulation, Department of Defense Direction/Instruction, or Department of Energy Order for definitive guidance in all areas related to the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program. The content of Nuclear Matters: A Practical Guide is the sole responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters. Please forward substantive comments and revisions to: Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear Matters) The Pentagon Room 3B884 Washington, DC 20301-3050 www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm Table of Contents Foreword .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..i Chapter 1: The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program 1.1 Overview .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 1 1.2 The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 1 1.3 History of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 1 1.4 End of Underground Nuclear Testing.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 5 1.5 New Challenges .................................................................... 7 1.5.1 Aging Warheads in an Era of No Nuclear Testing... .... .... .... .... .... 8 1.5.2 Modern Safety, Security, and Control Features .. .... .... .... .... .... .... 9 1.5.3 Loss of Technical Expertise .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 10 1.5.4 Deterioration of the Nuclear Complex Infrastructure .. .... .... .... .. 10 1.5.5 Stockpile Quantities .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 11 1.6 Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program.............................. 11 Chapter 2: Lfe-Cycle of U.S. Nuclear Weapons 2.1 Overview .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 13 2.2 1953 Agreement.................................................................. 14 2.3 Dual-Agency Responsibility .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 15 2.4 Phase 1 - Concept Study ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 16 2.5 Phase 2 - Feasibility Study...................................................... 17 2.6 Phase 2A - Design Definition and Cost Study.............................. 17 2.7 Phase 3 - Full-Scale Engineering Development .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 18 2.8 Phase 4 - Production Engineering .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 19 2.9 Phase 5 - First Production ...................................................... 19 2.10 Phase 6 - Quantity Production and Stockpile Maintenance and Evaluation ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 20 2.10.1 Limited-Life Components (LLCs)....................................... 21 2.10.2 The Phase 6.X Process .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 22 2.10.3 Phase 6.1 - Concept Assessment.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 23 2.10.4 Phase 6.2 - Feasibility Study and Option Down-Select .... .... .... .. 23 2.10.5 Phase 6.2A - Design Definition and Cost Study .... .... .... .... .... .. 25 2.10.6 Phase 6.3 - Development Engineering .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 25 Nuclear Matters: A Practical Guide 2008 2.10.7 Phase 6.4 - Production Engineering ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 26 2.10.8 Phase 6.5 - First Production .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 27 2.10.9 Phase 6.6 - Full-Scale Production .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 28 2.11 Phase 7 - Retirement and Dismantlement .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 28 Chapter 3: Nuclear Weapons Program Force Structure 3.1 Overview .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 29 3.2 U.S. Defense Objectives.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 29 3.3 Employment of Nuclear Weapons.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 31 3.4 U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Composition .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 33 3.5 Nuclear Stockpile Quantities .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 34 3.6 U.S. Nuclear Weapons Delivery Systems.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 34 3.6.1 Bombers .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 38 3.6.2 Submarines................................................................... 39 3.6.3 ICBMs ....................................................................... 41 3.6.4 Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 41 3.7 DoD Strategic and Non-Strategic Operational Bases...................... 42 Chapter 4: Nuclear Weapons Program Infrastructure 4.1 Overview .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 45 4.1.1 Complex Transformation .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 46 4.1.2 The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex ................................... 46 4.2 Stockpile Stewardship Program ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 51 4.2.1 The Transition to a Science-Based Substitute .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 52 4.2.2 Stockpile Stewardship Program Elements .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 53 Chapter 5: Nuclear Weapons Surety 5.1 Overview .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 65 5.2 Dual Agency Surety Responsibilities.......................................... 65 5.3 Nuclear Weapons System Safety .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 65 5.3.1 The DoD and DOE Safety Programs .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 66 5.3.2 Nuclear Weapon Design Safety .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 66 5.4 Nuclear Weapons Security...................................................... 72 5.4.1 DoD Nuclear Weapons Security Standard.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 72 5.4.2 DOE Safeguards and Security .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 73 5.4.3 DoD and DOE Personnel Security .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 74 5.4.4 Procedural Security.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 75 5.4.5 DoD and DOE Security Program Authorities ... .... .... .... .... .... .. 75 5.4.6 Programs of Cooperation ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. 76 v Table of Contents 5.5 Nuclear
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Organized Hypocrisy and International Organization Michael Lipson Department of Political Science
    Dilemmas of Global Governance: Organized Hypocrisy and International Organization Michael Lipson Department of Political Science Concordia University 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, QC H3G 1M8 Tel. (514) 8484-2424, ext. 2129 Fax (514) 848-4072 e-mail: [email protected] DRAFT: Please do not quote or cite without permission Comments welcome. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, June 1-3, 2006. Dilemmas of Global Governance: Organized Hypocrisy and International Organizations Critics of international organizations on the political left and right frequently accuse international institutions of hypocrisy. Yet the academic literature on international organizations lacks an explicit theory of the sources of inconsistencies on the part of international institutions. This paper argues that hypocrisy on the part of international organizations is an inevitable consequence of contradictory pressures in their organizational environments. Drawing on neo-institutionalist organizational sociology and work on “organized hypocrisy” applied to other settings, the paper presents a typology and framework for analyzing the bases and consequences – both positive and negative – of different forms of hypocrisy in global governance and formal international organizations. The argument is illustrated with reference to organizational hypocrisy on the part of the United Nations and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Dilemmas of Global Governance Introduction In the
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Instruction Manual Part 11
    ____________________________________________________ Instruction Manual Part 11 ____________________________________________________ Computer Edits for Mortality Data, Including Separate Section for Fetal Deaths Effective 2005 From the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION/ National Center for Health Statistics ____________________________________________________ Instruction Manual Part 11 ____________________________________________________ Computer Edits for Mortality Data, Including Separate Section for Fetal Deaths Effective 2005 Vital Statistics Data Preparation U.S. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Hyattsville, Maryland October 2004 2 Acknowledgments This instruction manual was prepared by the Division of Vital Statistics (DVS) under the general direction of Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D., Lead Statistician of the Mortality Statistics Branch (MSB) and Charles Rothwell, Chief (MSB). Arialdi Minino (MSB) wrote the text and coordinated production of the manual. Donna Glenn, Chief of Mortality Medical Classification Branch (MMCB), Joyce Bius, Tanya Pitts, Julia Raynor, June Pearce, and Tyringa Ambrose (MMCB, DVS) provided expertise in creating the valid and invalid ICD-10 codes and the edits. Sherry L. Murphy, Donna L. Hoyert, Robert N. Anderson and Kenneth D. Kochanek provided review of the instruction manual. David Johnson and Charles E. Royer of the Systems, Programming, and Statistical Resources Branch, (DVS) provided review of the demographic
    [Show full text]
  • Korea Railroad Corporation
    KOREA RAILROAD CORPORATION Issue of U.S.$ 150,000,000 Floating Rate Notes due 2024 (the “Notes”) Issued pursuant to the U.S.$2,000,000,000 Medium Term Note Program Issue Price: 100% of the Aggregate Nominal Amount Issue Date: November 29, 2019 This investor package includes (a) the offering circular dated August 28, 2018 relating to the U.S.$2,000,000,000 Medium Term Note Program (the “Program”) as supplemented by the pricing supplement dated November 18, 2019 relating to the Notes (the “Offering Circular”), and (b) this document dated November 29, 2019 as the cover page to the Offering Circular (the “Investor Package”). The Notes will be issued by Korea Railroad Corporation (the “Issuer”). Application will be made to the Taipei Exchange (the “TPEx”) for the listing of, and permission to deal in, the Notes by way of debt issues to professional investors as defined under Paragraph 1, Article 2-1 of the Taipei Exchange Rules Governing Management of Foreign Currency Denominated International Bonds of the ROC only and such permission is expected to become effective on or about November 29, 2019. TPEx is not responsible for the contents of this Investor Package and no representation is made by TPEx as to the accuracy or completeness of this Investor Package. TPEx expressly disclaims any and all liabilities for any losses arising from, or as a result of, the reliance on, all or part of the contents of this Investor Package. Admission for listing and trading of the Notes on the TPEx is not to be taken as an indication of the merits of the Issuer or the Notes.
    [Show full text]
  • EURASIA Russian Heavy Artillery
    EURASIA Russian Heavy Artillery: Leaving Depots and Returning to Service OE Watch Commentary: The Soviet Union developed large caliber artillery, such as the 2S4 ‘Tyulpan’ 240mm mortar and the 2S7 ‘Pion’ 203mm howitzer, to suppress lines of communication, destroy enemy headquarters, tactical nuclear weapons, logistic areas, and other important targets and to destroy urban areas and field fortifications. After the end of the Cold War, the Russian Federation placed most of these large caliber artillery systems into long-term storage depots for several reasons. The first is that they were intended to deliver nuclear, as well as conventional, munitions (the end of the Cold War meant that a long-range tactical nuclear weapon delivery was no longer needed). Another reason is that better tube (2S19M Msta-SM) and missile (MLRS/SRBM/GLCM) systems, such as new 300mm MLRS platforms, the Iskander missile system, and the 2S19M Msta-SM 152mm howitzer, allow Russia to fulfill many of the same tasks as large caliber artillery to varying degrees. The 2S4 ‘Tyulpan’ self-propelled mortar is equipped with a 240mm 2B8 mortar mounted on a modified Object 123 tracked chassis (similar to the 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzer) with a V-59 V-12, 520 horsepower diesel engine, capable of 60 km/h road speed. The Tyulpan has a crew of four, but five additional crewman are carried in the support vehicle that typically accompanies it. The system is capable of firing conventional, chemical, and nuclear munitions at a rate of one round per minute, although Russia reportedly now only has conventional munitions in service.
    [Show full text]
  • Installation and User Manual
    Installation and user manual EN CLOSED WOOD FIRES DON’T COMPROMISE. Product Kalfire W Product group Wood burning fireplaces with lifting door Application Open and closed Models Kalfire W45/48F Kalfire W60/51F Kalfire W65/38C Kalfire W66/48S Kalfire W70/33F Kalfire W71/62F Kalfire W80/52T Kalfire W85/40F Kalfire W90/47C Kalfire W90/47S Kalfire W100/61F Kalfire W105/47F Kalfire W105/47T Kalfire W120/38F Version January 2018 Language English 3 4 Preface Congratulations on purchasing your Kalfire W wood burning fireplace. This manual describes the installation, daily use and maintenance of all the fireplaces from the Kalfire W series. Read this manual carefully before installing and using the fireplace. Please complete the proof of guarantee (appendix C) and keep it with the invoice to verify the purchase date. Always keep this manual close to your fireplace An authorised installer will install the Kalfire W fireplace in compliance with the national or local applicable regulations. Check the fireplace for transport damage upon delivery. Report any transport damage to the supplier immediately. The supplier cannot be held responsible for any damage because of faulty installation. In case any problems occur or if you have any questions concerning the operation of your fireplace, please contact your Kalfire dealer. Your dealer is also the person to contact during the duration of the guarantee period. Kalfire BV has installed a telephone helpdesk, to support the technical department of her dealers, to make sure your dealer will be able to advise you in a professional way. All rights reserved. Nothing from this manual may be copied, distributed or translated into other languages, partly or wholly, without prior written permission from Kalfire.
    [Show full text]
  • Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592
    Technical Data Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592 Topic Page Description 2 Heater Element Selection Procedure 2 Index to Heater Element Selection Tables 5 Heater Element Selection Tables 6 Additional Resources These documents contain additional information concerning related products from Rockwell Automation. Resource Description Industrial Automation Wiring and Grounding Guidelines, publication 1770-4.1 Provides general guidelines for installing a Rockwell Automation industrial system. Product Certifications website, http://www.ab.com Provides declarations of conformity, certificates, and other certification details. You can view or download publications at http://www.rockwellautomation.com/literature/. To order paper copies of technical documentation, contact your local Allen-Bradley distributor or Rockwell Automation sales representative. For Application on Bulletin 100/500/609/1200 Line Starters Heater Element Specifications Eutectic Alloy Overload Relay Heater Elements Type J — CLASS 10 Type P — CLASS 20 (Bul. 600 ONLY) Type W — CLASS 20 Type WL — CLASS 30 Note: Heater Element Type W/WL does not currently meet the material Type W Heater Elements restrictions related to EU ROHS Description The following is for motors rated for Continuous Duty: For motors with marked service factor of not less than 1.15, or Overload Relay Class Designation motors with a marked temperature rise not over +40 °C United States Industry Standards (NEMA ICS 2 Part 4) designate an (+104 °F), apply application rules 1 through 3. Apply application overload relay by a class number indicating the maximum time in rules 2 and 3 when the temperature difference does not exceed seconds at which it will trip when carrying a current equal to 600 +10 °C (+18 °F).
    [Show full text]
  • Fock–Goncharov Coordinates for Semisimple Lie Groups
    FOCK–GONCHAROV COORDINATES FOR SEMISIMPLE LIE GROUPS S. GILLES Abstract. Fock and Goncharov [FG06b] introduced cluster ensembles, providing a framework for coordi- nates on varieties of surface representations into Lie groups, as well as a complete construction for groups of type An. Later, Zickert [Zic19], Le [Le16b], [Le16a], and Ip [Ip18] described, using differing methods, how to apply this framework for other Lie group types. Zickert also showed that this framework applies to triangulated 3-manifolds. We present a complete, general construction, based on work of Fomin and Zelevinsky. In particular, we complete the picture for the remaining cases: Lie groups of types F4, E6, E7, and E8. Contents Acknowledgements 2 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Classical Teichmüller space 2 1.2. Cluster ensemble structures 4 1.3. Higher Teichmüller spaces 5 1.4. Results 7 1.5. Historical context 7 2. Ingredients 8 2.1. Root spaces and Weyl groups 8 2.2. Unipotent subgroups 9 2.3. Coxeter elements 9 2.4. Generalized minors 9 2.5. Factorization coordinates 11 2.6. Quivers 11 2.7. Cluster ensembles 12 3. Key identities 13 3.1. Actions of a dubs 13 3.2. Actions of σG 13 3.3. Grid exchange relations 14 4. Coordinates on generically-decorated representations 15 4.1. Configurations and gluings 16 arXiv:2104.04941v1 [math.GT] 11 Apr 2021 4.2. Triangular quivers and Fock–Goncharov coordinate structures 17 4.3. From coordinates to representations 21 4.4. Regarding 3-manifolds 23 5. Main Result: Fock–Goncharov coordinate structures for non-An 23 5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support
    Wave 56 Influencer Poll Update January 2018 Public Release Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support 1 Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service 80% 71% 70% 71% 70% 66% 66% 66% 67% 63% 63% 63% 64% 61% 63% 60% 50% 46% 47% 47% 45% 44% 42% 43% 42% 39% 38% 40% 35% 32% 33% 34% 34% 30% 20% 10% Likely to Recommend: % Likely/Very Likely Likely to Support: % Agree/Strongly Agree Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Likely to Recommend Military Service Likely to Support Decision to Join § Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military increased significantly from 67% in 2015 to 70% in 2016. § However, Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military remained stable in January–March 2017. = Significantly change from previous poll Source: Military Ad Tracking Study (Influencer Market) Wave 56 2 Questions: q1a–c: “Suppose [relation] came to you for advice about various post-high school options. How likely is it that you would recommend joining a Military Service such as the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard?” q2ff: “If [relation] told me they were planning to join the Military, I would support their decision.” Likelihood to Recommend Military Service By Influencer Type Likelihood to Recommend Military Service 80% 70% 63% 59% 59% 60% 58% 60% 57% 56% 57% 55% 54% 53% 48% 55% 50% 54% 47% 52% 51% 44% 51% 47% 42% 42% 42% 49% 41% 43% 42% 45% 45% 46% 40% 42% 37% 41% 39% 41% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 39% 34% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 32% 33% 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 20% 25% 25% 24% 31% 29% 10% % Likely/Very Likely Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Fathers Mothers Grandparents Other Influencers § Influencers’ likelihood to recommend military service remained stable in January–March 2017 for all influencer groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018 Part 1 Introduction
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 1: Introduction Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 1: Introduction. The other parts are: Part 2A: United States - Submarines Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary German Literature Collection) Brian Vetruba Washington University in St Louis, [email protected]
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship University Libraries Publications University Libraries 2015 Twenty-ninth Annual Bibliography 2015 (Contemporary German Literature Collection) Brian Vetruba Washington University in St Louis, [email protected] Paul Michael Lützeler Washington University in St. Louis, [email protected] Katharina Böhm Washington University in St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/lib_papers Part of the German Literature Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Vetruba, Brian; Lützeler, Paul Michael; and Böhm, Katharina, "Twenty-ninth Annual Bibliography 2015 (Contemporary German Literature Collection)" (2015). University Libraries Publications. 20. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/lib_papers/20 This Bibliography is brought to you for free and open access by the University Libraries at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Libraries Publications by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Max Kade Center for Contemporary German Literature Max Kade Zentrum für deutschsprachige Gegenwartsliteratur Director: Paul Michael Lützeler Twenty-ninth Annual Bibliography 2015 Editor: Brian W. Vetruba Editorial Assistant: Katharina Böhm February 28, 2017 Washington University in St. Louis Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures Max Kade Center
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]