4 ms·
"One weapon that nuclear planners want to make from recycled parts and designs is the W93 — billed as the first new warhead for the nation’s nuclear arsenal sin
by beloch 4y ago
"One weapon that nuclear planners want to make from recycled parts and designs is the W93 — billed as the first new warhead for the nation’s nuclear arsenal since the Cold War."
...
“It’s important to keep these parts around,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear expert who held federal posts for three decades before leaving government service in 2005. “If we had the manufacturing complex we once did, we wouldn’t have to rely on the old parts.” He added that other nuclear powers can and do make new atomic parts.
---------------
If you read "The Bomb", by Fred Kaplan, there is a telling scene in which Trump was briefed by the Pentagon on the state of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal. Trump was shown a chart that showed the dramatic drop in the total number of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has peaked at over 32,000 in 1969, but was down to about 2,500 in the active arsenal. This was presented as a good thing. The U.S.'s warhead count had dropped dramatically because they had phased out tactical warheads intended for battlefield use. Such warheads were hazardous to maintain and the military had eagerly retired them once they were obviated by more modern conventional weapons that could do the same job with less collateral damage. The nuclear warheads that the U.S. still had were tailored to meet modern requirements and were far better suited to that task than 1969's arsenal would have been.
Trump didn't understand that being able to do the same job with fewer nuclear warheads was good, and told the group that he wanted more warheads. He wanted the 32,000 the U.S. had once had and was not satisfied by arguments to the contrary. This prompted secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to comment that Trump was a "fucking moron" shortly after he left the meeting. Trump would become obsessed with this number and repeatedly ask for more nuclear warheads to be made on several later occasions.
The B83 had the largest yield of any nuclear weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal, but it's an obsolete weapon. If the U.S. gets into a hot nuclear war, they're unlikely to rely on bomber planes with gravity bombs such as the B83, like they would have in the 60's. Such a war would likely be over before they even got to their targets. If the U.S. is retiring the B83 now, it's because they can destroy the same targets in far less time with other weapon systems.
Dismantling weapons such as the B83 does reduce the risk of accidents, theft, and loss, even if the components go onto shelves for potential reuse in new weapons. However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. is, in any way, losing capabilities here. Let's just hope those capabilities are never actually tested.
- vagrantJin 4y ago> However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. is, in any way, losing capabilities here What is this theoritical nonsense of dreams of hot nuclear wars and proceed to chest thump about having better weapons? No nuclear device has landed on US in war time. What do you base those assumptions on? Do you think a country would face the US head on like trench warfare in the 1700s? You think a belligerent nation would start a war with tge biggest military in the world and roll up with the trebuchets filled with nuclear bombs and start slinging at Washington? Holy sh*t.