Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Never fear, new Nukes will soon be here!

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
In a world where budgets are tight, tensions are high and people are generally sick of war...what should we re-dedicate ourselves to having ready for production? Why, a new fighter/bomber capable nuclear weapon, of course! Silly.. What, did someone think we'd look to the betterment of mankind with the resources available?

Nawwww...... To the skies we look, but what goes up absolutely does come down. In fact, that's kinda the problem at the moment. It comes down a little wrong...... Err.... Yeah..


Additional design details of the new B61-12 guided standoff nuclear bomb are emerging with new images. The image above shows a full-scale B61-12 model hanging in a wind tunnel at Arnold Air Force Base.

The test “uncovered a previously uncharacterized physical phenomenon,” according to Sandia National Laboratories, that would affect weapons performance.


Okay, is it just me or does anyone else get a real uncomfy feeling when "Previously uncharacterized physical phenomenon" appears as a descriptive in the same story as experimental nuclear weapons? Hey, what could possibly go wrong! ....Oh.. Right...


Several hundred millions more are required to integrate the B61-12 on five different aircraft, including Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian and Turkish fighter-bombers. An estimated 480 B61-12 bombs are planned, with first production unit in 2020.

The B61-12 will also be integrated on the new F-35A Lightning II aircraft by 2025. The combination of the guided standoff B61-12 with the stealthy fifth-generation F-35A fighter-bomber will significantly improve the military capabilities of NATO’s nuclear posture in Europe.
Source: FAS

Before anyone gets the idea that the West is somehow uniquely nuke happy, it should be noted that the Russian Federation is fielding a new Ballistic Missile Submarine and Missile for it to carry. Nuclear capable, of course. New Bombers, on a timeline likely similar or shorter than this by now as well as the land based nuke forces seeing high priority for major upgrading over the last few years.

The "Game" of M.A.D. is a mutual game, in every sense. I hope no one is ever rash or just plain insane enough to actually use one in a way that triggers mass release in any form.

In other news... A technical foul seems to be in progress with that game (Obama Administration Decision Weakens New START Implementation) but that probably deserves a thread all it's own in a more political setting. The B61 has been under development and carried under different variants for quite a bit longer than any one leader can be considered for..and deployment of this version is out to 2023 and beyond for some aircraft. So... It's a generational kind of problem, on both sides of the Atlantic, I'd say.

They all just need to find a big Easter Bunny to hug (check date) or Bunnyette, and hunt for some eggs. Give war and the means of outright obliterating whole areas of our planet's surface a rest.

(twitches nose and hops off to hide some more eggs before dawn)




posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



The "Game" of M.A.D. is a mutual game, in every sense. I hope no one is ever rash or just plain insane enough to actually use one in a way that triggers mass release in any form.


Ask me again abut this when the US dollar loses it's reserve currency status. If ever these things will fly that's where I'm betting my money.

"A previously uncharacterized physical phenomenon” ... huh?? Is that techno-geek speak for it doesn't work right? I'm thinking it is. Oh great.
edit on 392am4848am32014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



Several hundred millions more are required to integrate the B61-12 on five different aircraft, including Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian and Turkish fighter-bombers. An estimated 480 B61-12 bombs are planned, with first production unit in 2020.


Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute, are we selling these to Turkey?!



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

It appears to be a bonus perk of being a NATO member in a strategic location.


As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

By the recognised definition, these five countries are “undeclared nuclear weapons states”.
Source

Turkey also has a special distinction as producer of the F-16 Fighter outside U.S. production lines. It wasn't something to be concerned about until recently with internal troubles the US may or may not have been behind supporting.

It's a crazy world.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Since they ae calling it the B61 Mod 12 and it's a "stand off" weapon, I believe they are saying the flight characteristics aren't up to par and they need to do some more work on getting that up to speed. Nuke weapons? Well, I like the "Strangelove" paradigm. Build one big one that can crack the planet in half, and then make it hollow. As hollow as a campaign promise. Yeah, that hollow. And your good to go! You have a deterent weapon! just keep the Snowdens away from it! Nuclear weapons. As useful as a toaster in your bath tub! I think NATO's "nuclear" posture in Europe should be restricted to this. Nuclear Medicine. As in using rado-active materials to HELP people. And besides, why put them on "fighter Bombers" when you could put them on the B-37B Space Bomber? It's better than F.O.B.S. and at least you can steer the darn thing! Nuclear weapons? I'm pretty sure 99.5 percent of ALL Human beings would say the same thing? "Are the good for anything else other than turning school kids into shadows on a concrete wall" No they are not. Now, if you wanted to invest all tht money into something worth while? Build a space ship instead! Maybe we can get ALL the nuclear weapons capable countries to pitch in on it. Get rid of the nukes and build and International Space Ship! The current ISS doesn't count. The ISS we have now is a financial TRAVESTY! Oh well, one can always dream !



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


What, did someone think we'd look to the betterment of mankind with the resources available?

Why, yes! New resources in the form of nuclear waste are being generated ongoing. And what better way to utilize waste than to make weapons grade material? Of course that is pretty useless unless you incorporate the material into a bomb and then you need a new fighter jet to deliver that and an aircraft carrier to deliver the jet.

Think of all the industry and economy that wouldn't exist without war development? I mean, what would we do with our resources if we didn't prepare for war? Not that the bombs would ever be intentionally used or anything, just in case we are losing.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Same old story.. Someone else can't build em yet we can ship them all over the friggin world and to Muslims in Turkey. This world is insane.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

So much for the whole nuclear non-proliferation treaty eh?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Wrabbit2000, a stand-off weapon? Any yield published on it. Also, what happened to non-proliferation agreement?

Since when does NATO membership automatically allow nukes?

May have to ask Zaphod on this one but it sounds like a gravity weapon like a JDAM? That would put it outside existing agreements, at a guess.

This whole freaking planet is crazy!



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
"A previously uncharacterized physical phenomenon” ... huh?? Is that techno-geek speak for it doesn't work right? I'm thinking it is. Oh great.


No, it means that the radiation breaks the electronics down in unexpected ways that they didn't foresee.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No. In times of war, our allies are going to have to drop some weapons. That means that their aircraft have to be compatible with our weapons.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

To reply to both of the last at once..I'm not really sure on the NPT? It's a set of documents I've skim read, but that's a long long way from understanding it enough to address this. At some point I really need to just take the time to read it start to finish, with all it's supporting stuff to understand.

They just declared the Russian Missile test to be a major potential arms control violation because it's a MIRV warhead. It's their centerpiece though, and one they've been very openly talking about for quite some time now. They're supposed to be hyper sonic MIRV warheads with the specific purpose of countering and defeating United States defense systems. You'd think...that was a no no.

Then we get this come up from OUR side..and just as I was thinking I could finally write a clear, uncluttered "Russia Stinks!" thread...(facepalm) I had to find our side shoveled mud into everything to end all that wonderful clarity. Figures.....

So flip a coin on START treaty violations. It seems both sides are guilty, and recently too. Ongoing. I just have no idea on the Non-Prolif treaty and how it fits U.S. weapons deployment or NATO command decisions for the same?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
May have to ask Zaphod on this one but it sounds like a gravity weapon like a JDAM? That would put it outside existing agreements, at a guess.


Not at all. It's just an extended range gravity weapon, so the launch platform doesn't have to risk being caught in the blast anymore. It's not against any treaty that I am aware of off the top of my head.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

MIRV warheads are allowed, but you're only allowed three on a missile bus. I believe the new Russian missiles carry 8 again, which goes against the treaty.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Scary. It is so scary to think that this modern missiles can travel so fast and hit an objective in just under a minute...

Scary times.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

No. In times of war, our allies are going to have to drop some weapons. That means that their aircraft have to be compatible with our weapons.


Thanks for that, I saw Turkey listed and my brows raised above my hat.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Just about all of our allies are capable of dropping most of our current tactical inventory. A few are even developing their own types to put on aircraft they're buying from the US. That way we can supply them with weapons in the case of a long term conflict.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ack... I just went looking and I was all set to say you were right! ...and before the last President stuck his foot down his throat, as he was apt to do from sheer overwhelming stupidity, that WAS the case. (sigh)


Phase II, each Party's total number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads was not to exceed 3,000-3,500. Of this number, no more than 1,700-1,750 were to be deployed on SLBMs. Phase II required the elimination of all heavy ICBMs and all ICBMs on multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) (although some of the latter were to be downloaded to one warhead).The MIRV ban did not apply to SLBMs.


Sounds good...except, I believe, we never got to Phase II. Hmm...


START II modified START I missile "downloading" rules governing which MIRVed missiles may be converted to a single-warhead configuration. START II allowed each side to download two existing types of missiles by up to four warheads per missile, with no limit on the total number of missiles or warheads affected. Each side was also allowed to download 105 ICBMs by up to five warheads per missile. In practice, these conditions meant Russia may download 105 of its UR-100Ns [NATO designation SS-19 "Stiletto," START designation RS-18], the only Russian in-service ICBM that qualified for downloading, and was to deactivate all of its 10-warhead RT-23UTTKh [NATO designation SS-24 "Scalpel," START designation RS-22] ICBMs.


Then I found why that had been a waste of time to read...


2002: On 13 June, US President Bush declared that the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which he had announced 6 months earlier in accordance with the Treaty's provisions, was formally taking effect, thereby marking the end of the ABM Treaty. On 14 June, the Russian Federation announced its withdrawal from the START II Treaty due to US refusal to ratify the Treaty and to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Source: Specifics of the START II Treaty

Given how the systems ended up which that had been done to develop and delpoy..I just want to cry for what we threw away on no long term gain made. At least that gave a frame work to complain from.

"New START Treaty"

That's the quick tech spec summary of the latest treaty and...

Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program

I just found that, which gives full New START text (which I'm downloading to word search on MIRV specifics) and a whole truck load of related or supporting material. I'll let ya know if I find updated treaty agreements on MIRV deployment post-START II. Nothing yet. The words aren't even in the documents I've searched so far.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what I was saying. JDAM=standoff low yield (tacticals?) outside any agreement.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I remembered it was less than 8, which was downgraded from the original high of 10 or more. It would have been nice if Phase II had gone into effect. I'd love to see all the MIRVs go away.






top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join