DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Forces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Forces Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Forces February 2004 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Washington, D.C. 20301-3140 This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent ad- vice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions, and recom- mendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense. This report is unclassified. i ii iii iv Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 The Future Environment: The Spectrum of Contingencies in 2030 .......... 1-3 1.3 Targets for Strategic Strike........................................................................ 1-4 1.4 Effectiveness of Currently Planned Capability.......................................... 1-4 1.5 Recommendations: Command and Control Networks .............................. 1-5 1.6 Recommendations: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance and Battle Damage Assessment................................................................. 1-7 1.7 Recommendations: Delivery Systems ....................................................... 1-8 1.8 Recommendations: Payloads ..................................................................... 1-9 1.9 Conclusion: Potential U.S. Strategic Strike Capability ........................... 1-11 2. CONCEPTS OF OPERATION ............................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Defining Strategic Strike ........................................................................... 2-1 2.2 The Future Agenda .................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 The Future Security Environment.............................................................. 2-7 2.4 Notional Contingencies..............................................................................2-9 2.5 Targeting Requirements........................................................................... 2-14 2.6 Shortfalls.................................................................................................. 2-16 3. C3ISR ELEMENTS ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Intelligence ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Surveillance and Reconnaissance .............................................................. 3-4 3.4 Future Tiered ISR Systems........................................................................ 3-8 3.5 Communications...................................................................................... 3-11 3.6 Command and Control............................................................................. 3-13 3.7 Other Features of C3ISR for Future Strategic Strike............................... 3-16 Summary: C3ISR Elements...................................................................... 3-19 4. C3ISR DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 C3ISR Development Plan.......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 The Importance of C3ISR Development ................................................... 4-8 Summary: C3ISR Development ............................................................... 4-11 5. DELIVERY SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Current Air Force ICBMs.......................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Current Air Force Cruise Missiles............................................................. 5-3 5.3 Current Air Force Bombers ....................................................................... 5-4 5.4 Current Navy Systems ............................................................................... 5-5 5.5 Capabilities and Shortcomings .................................................................. 5-8 5.6 Potential Approaches............................................................................... 5-10 5.7 Recommendations.................................................................................... 5-13 Summary: Delivery Systems..................................................................... 5-16 6. PAYLOADS ..........................................................................................................6-1 6.1 The Way Ahead..........................................................................................6-1 6.2 Shortfalls ....................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Non-Nuclear Payloads ...............................................................................6-3 6.4 Nuclear Payloads......................................................................................6-10 Summary: Payloads .................................................................................6-16 7. FUTURE SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES .........................................................7-1 7.1 Introduction................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Summary of Findings.................................................................................7-1 7.3 Conclusions..............................................................................................7-16 Summary: Future Systems and Technologies...........................................7-20 8. CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT.............................................................................8-1 8.1 Introduction................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Dimensionality ...........................................................................................8-2 8.3 Individual Functional Assessments............................................................8-4 8.4 Aggregation of Individual Assessments.....................................................8-7 8.5 Mapping Capabilities Against Adversary Value Models...........................8-9 A. TERMS OF REFERENCE ..................................................................................... A-1 B. TASK FORCE MEMBERS AND ADVISORS ....................................................... B-1 C. SUPPORTING DATA FOR CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT ................................. C-1 D. ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ D-1 1. Executive Summary Here we outline our objectives and review the context of our analysis. We also sum- marize our key recommendations. 1.1 OVERVIEW 1.1.1 Objective The Defense Science Board Summer Study Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Forces looks to the 30-year future with the objective of providing the President with a broad range of strike options to • Protect the United States and our forces abroad, • Assure friends and allies of our future commitment, and • Deal with future adversaries on terms favorable to the United States. The Task Force identified currently planned systems that will still be relevant and rec- ommended new systems for development. 1.1.2 Approach Figure 1-1 illustrates the Task Force’s approach. We began by characterizing the stra- tegic environment, moved next to assessing the role of strategic strike, and then identi- fied shortfalls in current plans. We then analyzed these shortfalls and recommended appropriate solutions. These solutions—and the accompanying analysis—appear in chapters 2 through 6 of this report. Throughout the study process, we also assessed future systems and technolo- gies. The results of this assessment helped shape and guide the proposed solutions mentioned above. The conclusions of the future systems and technologies assessment appear in chapter 7 of this report (a supplemental appendix—to be published sepa- rately—will provide additional detail). Chapter 8 and appendix C summarize the im- pact of this assessment. 1-1 Strategic Environment Role of Strategic Strike Shortfalls of Current Plans I SR B / DA C 3 De S liv yst er em y s P ay R lo eco ad m m en da Future Systems & tio Technologies ns Figure 1-1: The Task Force’s approach. 1.1.3 Definition For the purposes of the Task Force, a strategic strike is “a military operation to deci- sively alter an adversary’s basic course of action within a relatively compact period of time.” A strategic strike can be either (1) an isolated event such as the Eldorado Can- yon attack on Libya, or (2) part of a military campaign such as the Vietnam War’s Linebacker II strikes or the attack on Saddam Hussein himself at the outset of Opera- tion Iraqi Freedom. 1.1.4 Policies The series of policy studies on strategic issues conducted by the current administration provides a basis for an orderly transformation of strategic capabilities and supporting forces. From the National Security Strategy, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the Defense Planning Guidance the Task Force drew three key principles: 1. Tailor capabilities for broad goals: assure, dissuade,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Number 3 2011 Korean Buddhist Art
    NUMBER 3 2011 KOREAN BUDDHIST ART KOREAN ART SOCIETY JOURNAL NUMBER 3 2011 Korean Buddhist Art Publisher and Editor: Robert Turley, President of the Korean Art Society and Korean Art and Antiques CONTENTS About the Authors…………………………………………..………………...…..……...3-6 Publisher’s Greeting…...…………………………….…….………………..……....….....7 The Museum of Korean Buddhist Art by Robert Turley…………………..…..…..8-10 Twenty Selections from the Museum of Korean Buddhist Art by Dae Sung Kwon, Do Kyun Kwon, and Hyung Don Kwon………………….….11-37 Korean Buddhism in the Far East by Henrik Sorensen……………………..…….38-53 Korean Buddhism in East Asian Context by Robert Buswell……………………54-61 Buddhist Art in Korea by Youngsook Pak…………………………………..……...62-66 Image, Iconography and Belief in Early Korean Buddhism by Jonathan Best.67-87 Early Korean Buddhist Sculpture by Lena Kim…………………………………....88-94 The Taenghwa Tradition in Korean Buddhism by Henrik Sorensen…………..95-115 The Sound of Ecstasy and Nectar of Enlightenment by Lauren Deutsch…..116-122 The Korean Buddhist Rite of the Dead: Yeongsan-jae by Theresa Ki-ja Kim123-143 Dado: The Korean Way of Tea by Lauren Deutsch……………………………...144-149 Korean Art Society Events…………………………………………………………..150-154 Korean Art Society Press……………………………………………………………155-162 Bibliography of Korean Buddhism by Kenneth R. Robinson…...…………….163-199 Join the Korean Art Society……………...………….…….……………………...……...200 About the Authors 1 About the Authors All text and photographs contained herein are the property of the individual authors and any duplication without permission of the authors is a violation of applicable laws. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS. Please click on the links in the bios below to order each author’s publications or to learn more about their activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Catalogue of the Paintings, Sculpture and Drawings and of the Walker Collection
    Bowdoin College Bowdoin Digital Commons Museum of Art Collection Catalogues Museum of Art 1930 Descriptive Catalogue of the Paintings, Sculpture and Drawings and of the Walker Collection Bowdoin College. Museum of Art Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/art-museum-collection- catalogs Recommended Citation Bowdoin College. Museum of Art, "Descriptive Catalogue of the Paintings, Sculpture and Drawings and of the Walker Collection" (1930). Museum of Art Collection Catalogues. 4. https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/art-museum-collection-catalogs/4 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum of Art at Bowdoin Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Museum of Art Collection Catalogues by an authorized administrator of Bowdoin Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal00bowd_2 BOWDOIN MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS WALKER ART BUILDING DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUE OF THE PAINTINGS, SCULPTURE and DRAWINGS and of the WALKER COLLECTION FOURTH EDITION Price Fifty Cents BRUNSWICK, MAINE 1930 THE RECORD PRES5 BRUNSWICK, MAINE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Illustrations 3 Prefatory Note 4 Historical Introduction 8 The Walker Art Building 13 Sculpture Hall 17 The Sophia Walker Gallery 27 The Bowdoin Gallery 53 The Boyd Gallery 96 Base:.:ent 107 The Assyrian Room 107 Corridor 108 Class Room 109 King Chapel iio List of Photographic Reproductions 113 Index ...115 Finding List of Numbers 117 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE Walker Art Building — Frontispiece Athens, by John La Farge 17 Venice, by Kenyon Cox 18 Rome, by Elihu Vcdder 19 Florence, hy Abbott Thayer 20 Alexandrian Relief Sculpture, SH-S 5 ..
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge
    Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts & Robert Work 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge by Andrew Krepinevich Barry Watts Robert Work Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2003 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA’s analytic-based research makes clear the inextricable link between defense strategies and budgets in fostering a more effective and efficient defense, and the need to transform the US military in light of the emerging military revolution. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government contracts. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 http://www.csbaonline.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... I I. NEW CHALLENGES TO POWER PROJECTION.................................................................. 1 II. PROSPECTIVE US AIR FORCE FAILURE POINTS........................................................... 11 III. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND ASSURED ACCESS: A CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .29 IV. THE ARMY AND THE OBJECTIVE FORCE ..................................................................... 69 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Cold War, the United States defense posture called for substantial forces to be located overseas as part of a military strategy that emphasized deterrence and forward defense. Large combat formations were based in Europe and Asia. Additional forces—both land-based and maritime—were rotated periodically back to the rear area in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Salvo 31 Dec 08.Indd
    U.S. ARMY WATERVLIET ARSENAL SALV Since 1813 “Service to the Line, On the Line, On Time” Vol. 08, No. 5 U.S. Army Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, NY (www.wva.army.mil) Dec. 31, 2008 Arsenal Briefs Body Forge Have you thought about your New Year’s resolu- tion? If so, for only $10 you can have unlimited use of the remodeled Body Forge facility. Please call Kyle at 266-4829 for more information. Office/Shop Inspection Now that your attention has been captured, Col. Scott N. Fletcher will conduct a “holiday” walkthrough of the Arsenal on 22 Dec. beginning at 8 a.m. So, Mike Ippolito, this is an early warning for you to hide your comic books. Holiday Decorations Not to be the Scrooge of Watervliet, but all holiday The electormagnetic gun concept was the cover story in the 1932 Modern Mechanics magazine. decorations need to be tak- en down by 5 Jan., unless you are John Hockenbury Benét, Arsenal Electrify Old Concept when everyday is a holi- By John B. Snyder gun system that will once again but also will increase the day. change the history of warfare destructive power and accuracy The Chinese are widely - maybe for the next thousand of lighter munitions. And, a Arsenal Town Hall known to have discovered years. weapon system that will also gunpowder more than 1100 Imagine a weapon system improve Soldier survivability that eliminates the logistical on the battlefield by reducing Col. Scott N. Fletcher will years ago, an event that radically requirements of resupplying the enemy’s ability to acquire conduct his first Arsenal changed warfare from what was powder propellant to artillery, his firing position.
    [Show full text]
  • A Salvo Model of Warships in Missile Combat Used to Evaluate Their Staying Power
    A Salvo Model of Warships in Missile Combat Used to Evaluate Their Staying Power Wayne P. Hughes, Jr. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93943 A methodology is introduced with which to compare the military worth of warship capabilities. It is based on a simple salvo model for exploratory analysis of modern combat characteristics. The “fractional exchange ratio” is suggested as a robust way to compare equal-cost configurations of naval forces. because we cannot know in advance how and where the warships will fight. To aid in exposition, definitions of all terms are included in Appendix A. The methodology is illustrated with important conclusions from para- metric analysis, among which are 1. Unstable circumstances arise as the combat power of the forces grows relative to their survivability. (Stable means the persistence of victory by the side with the greater combat potential.) 2. Weak staying power is likely to be the root cause when instability is observed. 3. Staying power is the ship design element least affected by the particulars of a battle, including poor tactics. 4. Numerical superiority is the force attribute that is consistently most advan- tageous. For example, if A’s unit striking power, staying power, and defensive power are all twice that of B, nevertheless B will achieve parity of outcome ifit has twice as many units as A. 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* I. BALANCED WARSHIP DESIGN Staying power, the ability of a ship to absorb hits and continue fighting, is a major attribute of warships. Developing a warship design in which offensive power, defensive power, and staying power are in balance according to some criterion, though ultimately a matter of judgment, can be enhanced by some transparent analysis employing simple combat equations.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Art and Body Politics in New York City, 1961-1975 By
    Minimal Art and Body Politics in New York City, 1961-1975 by Christopher M. Ketcham M.A. Art History, Tufts University, 2009 B.A. Art History, The George Washington University, 1998 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ARCHITECTURE: HISTORY AND THEORY OF ART AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEPTEMBER 2018 © 2018 Christopher M. Ketcham. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author:__________________________________________________ Department of Architecture August 10, 2018 Certified by:________________________________________________________ Caroline A. Jones Professor of the History of Art Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:_______________________________________________________ Professor Sheila Kennedy Chair of the Committee on Graduate Students Department of Architecture 2 Dissertation Committee: Caroline A. Jones, PhD Professor of the History of Art Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chair Mark Jarzombek, PhD Professor of the History and Theory of Architecture Massachusetts Institute of Technology Tom McDonough, PhD Associate Professor of Art History Binghamton University 3 4 Minimal Art and Body Politics in New York City, 1961-1975 by Christopher M. Ketcham Submitted to the Department of Architecture on August 10, 2018 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture: History and Theory of Art ABSTRACT In the mid-1960s, the artists who would come to occupy the center of minimal art’s canon were engaged with the city as a site and source of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Vauban!S Siege Legacy In
    VAUBAN’S SIEGE LEGACY IN THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION, 1702-1712 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jamel M. Ostwald, M.A. The Ohio State University 2002 Approved by Dissertation Committee: Professor John Rule, Co-Adviser Co-Adviser Professor John Guilmartin, Jr., Co-Adviser Department of History Professor Geoffrey Parker Professor John Lynn Co-Adviser Department of History UMI Number: 3081952 ________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3081952 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ____________________________________________________________ ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ABSTRACT Over the course of Louis XIV’s fifty-four year reign (1661-1715), Western Europe witnessed thirty-six years of conflict. Siege warfare figures significantly in this accounting, for extended sieges quickly consumed short campaign seasons and prevented decisive victory. The resulting prolongation of wars and the cost of besieging dozens of fortresses with tens of thousands of men forced “fiscal- military” states to continue to elevate short-term financial considerations above long-term political reforms; Louis’s wars consumed 75% or more of the annual royal budget. Historians of 17th century Europe credit one French engineer – Sébastien le Prestre de Vauban – with significantly reducing these costs by toppling the impregnability of 16th century artillery fortresses. Vauban perfected and promoted an efficient siege, a “scientific” method of capturing towns that minimized a besieger’s casualties, delays and expenses, while also sparing the town’s civilian populace.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Producers in This Chapter Were Selected on the Basis of a Predetermined Set of Criteria
    Aecom (United States) Airbus Group (the Netherlands) Nuclear ATK (United States) Babcock & Wilcox (United States) BAE Systems (United Kingdom) Weapons Bechtel (United States) Boeing (United States) CH2M Hill (United States) Producers Finmeccanica (Italy) Fluor (United States) GenCorp (United States) General Dynamics (United States) Honeywell International (United States) Huntington Ingalls Industries (United States) Jacobs Engineering (United States) Larsen & Toubro (India) Leidos (United States) Lockheed Martin (United States) Northrop Grumman (United States) Raytheon (United States) Rockwell Collins (United States) Safran (France) Serco (United Kingdom) TASC (United States) Textron (United States) Thales (France) In some nuclear-armed states – in particular the United ThyssenKrupp (Germany) States, the United Kingdom and France – private companies URS (United States) carry out the work of maintaining and modernising nuclear arsenals. This report looks at companies that are providing the necessary infrastructure to develop, test, maintain and modernise nuclear weapons. These companies are involved in producing or maintaining necessary elements to keep nuclear weapons in these arsenals. The companies described in this chapter are substantially involved in the nuclear weapons programmes of France, India, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States and are themselves based in France, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. In other nuclear-armed countries – Russia, China, Pakistan and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) – the maintenance and modernisation of nuclear forces is carried out primarily or exclusively by government agencies. The nuclear weapons producers in this chapter were selected on the basis of a predetermined set of criteria. • Information on investments is publicly available. • The company is directly involved in the development, testing, production, maintenance or trade of nuclear weapons related technology, parts, products or services.
    [Show full text]
  • Siloed-Thinking.Pdf
    1 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent ABOUT FAS The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that brings together members of the science and policy communities to collaborate on mitigating global catastrophic threats. Founded in November 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists by scientists who built the first atomic bombs during the Manhattan Project, 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. In 1946, FAS rebranded as the Federation of American Scientists to broaden its focus to prevent global catastrophes. Since its founding, FAS has served as an influential source of information and rigorous, evidence- based analysis of issues related to national security. Specifically, FAS works to reduce the spread and number of nuclear weapons, prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism, promote high standards for the safety and security of nuclear energy, illuminate government secrecy practices, and prevent the use of biological and chemical weapons. The Nuclear Information Project provides the public with reliable information about the status and trends of the nuclear weapons arsenals of the world’s nuclear-armed countries. The project, which according to the Washington Post is “one of the most widely sourced agencies for nuclear warhead counts,” uses open sources such as official documents, testimonies, previously undisclosed information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as independent analysis of commercial satellite imagery as the basis for developing the best available unclassified estimates of the status and trends of nuclear weapons worldwide.
    [Show full text]