The state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is slowly getting worse … and the government has no plan to fix it

Minuteman_III_test_launch - Public Domain

The foundation of America’s nuclear arsenal is fractured, and the government has no clear plan to repair it.

The cracks appear not just in the military forces equipped with nuclear weapons but also in the civilian bureaucracy that controls them, justifies their cost, plans their future and is responsible for explaining a defense policy that says nuclear weapons are at once essential and excessive.

It’s not clear that the government recognizes the full scope of the problem, which has wormed its way to the core of the nuclear weapons business without disturbing bureaucracies fixated on defending their own turf. Nor has it aroused the public, which may think nuclear weapons are relics of the past, if it thinks about them at all.

This is not mainly about the safety of today’s weapons, although the Air Force’s nuclear missile corps has suffered failures in discipline, training, morale and leadership over the past two years. Just last week the Air Force fired nuclear commanders at two of its three missile bases for misconduct and disciplined a third commander.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

1 thought on “The state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is slowly getting worse … and the government has no plan to fix it”

  1. The problem I have with obsolete weapons is we do not need to build more obsolete weapons. They are expensive. They are costly to maintain. They leave disposal problems for many years afterwards.
    What we do need is a way to keep any missile from reaching our shores. There are many different avenues we can take to insure that no weapon gets through our defenses. But offensive weapons in the past have proven most effective in defending our shores.
    The first problem is making a system that no one can destroy by aiming at a stationary target. That includes every missile installation in the country. Those are stationary targets.
    We have the mistaken belief that we are safe. No one is safe. Not here, not anywhere on the planet is safe from some suicidal idiot thinking he or she is going to paradise because they committed suicide at the cost of someone else. 9/11 should have been an eye opener.
    Nuclear arsenals are only good as a stalemate between nations. That doesn’t work. Especially with suicidal nut jobs with strange beliefs.
    No matter what number of atomic weapons one has, it is not enough. Except the overkill guarantees that no one will survive to be the winner in a war of this kind.
    SO why build more?
    I would be going for Tesla-type weapons instead of nuclear-type weapons.
    For instance, some fairly strange things happen in an intense electro-magnetic field. Some of which make nuclear weapons likely to become a deficit in the arms race overnight. Why? The way I understand it they could likely blow up in your face before they get launched.
    I do not know the physics of why this is so.
    So if you concentrate on conventional warfare what do you have to work with?
    Well, you have the worst blunder in history in the U.S Armed Forces right now.
    Everyone on the planet wants to build bigger and better conventional weapon systems at huge expense.
    That is why you have such dinosaurs as Aircraft Carriers. That is why you have idiots making nuclear-powered submarines. What happens to the nuclear power if all the crew is dead and the sub is wrecked? Can you say BOOM! Because no one is controlling that nuclear power plant and it is likely deep in the crust of the Pacific Ocean where it can blow the plates apart and cause endless super volcanoes.
    You have stealth subs. You have stealth bombers. They sort of act against one another.
    A typical Aircraft Carrier costs how much? I have heard numbers like 1 billion dollars a piece.
    Just how long will it last against a small fleet of submarines all firing at the same time. Torpedoes everywhere around the Carrier.
    Or how long would it last against a fleet of suicidal bombers coming in at 25 feet above sea level?
    I am no weapons expert. But some things are obvious.
    Russia found this out the hard way in a small occupied country called Afganistan. The entire army was bankrupted by small missiles that shot down a fleet of Combat Helicopters. The expense was less than 1,000 dollars per missile to take out enemy equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were shot at from horseback!
    There are lessons that need to be learned from South Vietnam and Afganistan. One of those lessons is logistics. Expensive does not necessarily spell winning.

Comments are closed.

The Most Important News