America's stupefying stupidity

From - http://p080.ezboard.com/fthefinalphasefrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=6817.topic&start=61&stop=70


Just watched a hearing about America's strategic nuclear forces on C-Span. They discussed how America's total number of warheads, already massively reduced over the past two decades, will be halved again compliments of requests from the Bush Administration by 2012. The 4-star general reporting this was all over himself in gloating over the new accuracy of missiles and how this alleviates the need for sizable warheads. Furthermore, new "kinetic" warheads can dig up to two meters into the ground before detonating!

They closed the hearing by noting how only 4% of the defense budget is now going towards strategic nuclear forces. Out of curiousity, I decided to take a look at what percentage of Russia's defense budget is spent on strategic nuclear forces. What do you know....a full 90% of Russia's military expenditures go towards its nuclear capabilities!

See - http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/96_24.htm

and - http://www.csis.org/ruseura/PONARS/policymemos/pm_0179.pdf

What's insane is that the Pentagon actually believes the numbers given to the West about total outlays for the Russian military. Supposedly only $40 billion is spent by Russia on its military. To make up for the massive financial burden of running the strategic nuclear arsenal, Russia's army has been depleted from a 3.5 million man force to just 850,000. The conventional forces in Russia have been left to rot. Thus, Russia's no longer deemed a major military threat to the U.S.

Of course, the problem is that conventional forces will be irrelevant in fighting an all-out third world war. Strategic unconventional weapons, and nuclear missiles especially, will be paramount in determining the victor and this mainly in the first hour of all-out hostilities....a point emphasized over and over again in Russian nuclear war fighting strategy.

There is every advantage in Russia allowing its conventional forces to go to pot if this misleads the West into a false sense of security. Not only is this strategic disinformation, allowing the conventional army to disband minimizes the targetability of Russia's military in the event of full-scale nuclear war. Similarly, the breakup of the Soviet Union has minimized targetability as well.

Of course, the numbers given to the West are fudged beyond all veracity such that the U.S. grossly underestimates the resources Russia is expending in developing its military. However, American intel can't help but notice the overemphasis on strategic nuclear capability. But, of course, since the West sees Russia's conventional forces falling into total disarray, Western intel presumes that Moscow is overweighting nuclear capabilities to make up for the loss of conventional prowess. The reality, however, is that strategic nuclear capability is the focus of investment because Russia is planning to fight and win an all-out nuclear against the West. Thus, as the U.S. nuclear stockpile has massively dwindled, Russia has maintained and/or upgraded its arsenal of some 25,000 nuclear weapons.

What's dumbfounding is how the U.S. is spending billions on bunker-busting bombs that can not touch the deep, hardened encasement of Russia's strategic nuclear goliath. While we are perfecting missiles that can penetrate 20-30 feet into the ground, Russia is continuing to perfect and utilize tunneling technology to create underground command and control infrastructure MILES under the ground. What's more, Russia's military production capabilities have likewise all gone underground....and far too deep for our fancy missiles to ever penetrate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/overview_c3i.htm

America is developing the capability to deploy conventional military power throughout the world in order to be a global policeman while Russia has pulled in its horns to perfect what's most important in deciding who will win WW3: strategic non-conventional forces. While America deemphasizes its strategic nuclear capabilities, Russia has reemphasized this capability knowing that this is what determines the outcome of the coming war with America.

"All warfare is based on deception. When able to attack, seem unable; when active, seem inactive; when near, make the enemy believe you are far away; when organized, feign disorder; if weak, pretend to be strong, and so cause the enemy to avoid you; when strong, pretend to be weak, so that the enemy may grow to be arrogant." - Sun-tzu in The Art of War

Click to expand...

Every time we take a whiz...the Russian/Chinese hand is on our whizzanator...

Our hand, on the other hand, might just be on a sausage.

"Is this streight from the CIA?"

"I am told our hand never touches a 'whizzanator' without being double gloved...so who knows?"

Lets hope these guys are wrong in their warning...


West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists


By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 04/04/2005)

British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said.

The news emerged after interviews with a group of American scientists with ties to the Los Alamos nuclear research facility, where the first atomic weapon was manufactured.

Vanguard Class missile submarine
HMS Vanguard carries Britain's nuclear deterrent, Trident

One of them, Richard Morse, of the University of Arizona and a former Los Alamos weapons designer, said the casing of the W76 nuclear warhead was so thin that it would probably fail if used. The British Trident warhead, the country's sole nuclear weapon, is based on the W76.

Mr Morse said: "What is out there on those boats is at best unreliable and probably much worse."

The claims have been vigorously denied by US officials, who say that the warhead "looks like a pretty good weapon". They say the warheads have not been tested for 13 years because of the global moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons but were successfully detonated before then.

Everet Beckner, the head of the nuclear arsenal at Los Alamos, said there were no plans to redesign the W76 but admitted to the New York Times that that could change.

The story emerged after what was described as "acrimonious" exchanges between worried scientists and the leadership of America's nuclear weapons programme.

That led four scientists, three of them former Los Alamos employees and one still working there, to seek a secret meeting with weapons officials to discuss their fears.

They met in March last year. Dr Morse said: "It was a verbal mud-wrestling match. Officials from Los Alamos and the government would not be candid with us. We told them things they did not know."

The issue is of central importance despite the end of the Cold War. Countries such as North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear programmes that Washington believes have a military goal. Both have active and ambitious long-range missile programmes.

Britain's nuclear weaponry, thought to number about 190 warheads, is carried exclusively aboard the four Trident submarines, Vanguard, Vigilant, Vengeance and Victorious.

While America still has air-launched nuclear weaponry, it too has become more dependent on its submarine missiles. Dr Morse said the growing reliance on submarine weaponry had revived his long-standing worries about the casings of the W76.

During the 1970s there was pressure to make warheads as light as possible to allow more to be fitted on top of a relatively thin missile. Although the radiation casing was made of uranium, which is double the weight of lead, it was to be super-thin - in places only as thick as a beer tin.

The casing is critical because it has to hold together for nanoseconds as the nuclear chain reaction begins, releasing temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun. If the case fails, the bomb can fail too or explode with less than its intended force.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/wsub04.xml

imaginative said:

Lets hope these guys are wrong in their warning...


West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists


By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 04/04/2005)

British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said.

The news emerged after interviews with a group of American scientists with ties to the Los Alamos nuclear research facility, where the first atomic weapon was manufactured.

Vanguard Class missile submarine
HMS Vanguard carries Britain's nuclear deterrent, Trident

One of them, Richard Morse, of the University of Arizona and a former Los Alamos weapons designer, said the casing of the W76 nuclear warhead was so thin that it would probably fail if used. The British Trident warhead, the country's sole nuclear weapon, is based on the W76.

Mr Morse said: "What is out there on those boats is at best unreliable and probably much worse."

The claims have been vigorously denied by US officials, who say that the warhead "looks like a pretty good weapon". They say the warheads have not been tested for 13 years because of the global moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons but were successfully detonated before then.

Everet Beckner, the head of the nuclear arsenal at Los Alamos, said there were no plans to redesign the W76 but admitted to the New York Times that that could change.

The story emerged after what was described as "acrimonious" exchanges between worried scientists and the leadership of America's nuclear weapons programme.

That led four scientists, three of them former Los Alamos employees and one still working there, to seek a secret meeting with weapons officials to discuss their fears.

They met in March last year. Dr Morse said: "It was a verbal mud-wrestling match. Officials from Los Alamos and the government would not be candid with us. We told them things they did not know."

The issue is of central importance despite the end of the Cold War. Countries such as North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear programmes that Washington believes have a military goal. Both have active and ambitious long-range missile programmes.

Britain's nuclear weaponry, thought to number about 190 warheads, is carried exclusively aboard the four Trident submarines, Vanguard, Vigilant, Vengeance and Victorious.

While America still has air-launched nuclear weaponry, it too has become more dependent on its submarine missiles. Dr Morse said the growing reliance on submarine weaponry had revived his long-standing worries about the casings of the W76.

During the 1970s there was pressure to make warheads as light as possible to allow more to be fitted on top of a relatively thin missile. Although the radiation casing was made of uranium, which is double the weight of lead, it was to be super-thin - in places only as thick as a beer tin.

The casing is critical because it has to hold together for nanoseconds as the nuclear chain reaction begins, releasing temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun. If the case fails, the bomb can fail too or explode with less than its intended force.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/wsub04.xml

Click to expand...

I was wondering if anyone was going to post this article.

Unfortunately, I thing they are right.

My brother has a PHD in metallurgy, with a "special" interest in electron microscopy and nuclear science. He told me something many years ago conerning the nature of nuclear radiation and it's effects on the materials in the immediate environment. He said that the radiation (I think it is the protons - I am not a scientist)) emited tend to change the shape of the molecules of material over time. This has an effect on nuclear power plants and can cause stress fractures that can cause leaks. That why old nuclear power plants are considered dangerous. When he was researching this, this was not known. It is now though. This same problem could apply to the casing for the W76 nuclear warhead. IMHO.

Another thing he said concerned the plutonium at the core of a nuclear device. He admitted that this was hypothetical, but I would tend to believe him since he has seen the effects of radiation up close using some of the most powerful electron microscopes in the world, at least when he was doing this type of research. He said that over time the protons emitted from the core of the plutonium should eventually degrade the plutonium itself since it would also be passing through the core as well. Enough that the core could become brittle, crumbly and useless. When I questioned him more he admitted that he did not know for sure. He was basing this judgement on his knowledge and experience in the field of nuclear research using electron microscopy.

This leads to the article quoted above. Based upon what my brother told me, I would tend to agree with the article in that the old warheads may be duds and/or much reduced in their potency.

They met in March last year. Dr Morse said: "It was a verbal mud-wrestling match. Officials from Los Alamos and the government would not be candid with us. We told them things they did not know."

Click to expand...

I think the nuclear scientists in the above quote had something serious to say. They weren't in a verbal mud-wrestling match for no reason.

What does this mean? When taken in context of the opening article of this thread, it is very serious. The Russians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese and North Koreans must be sitting back with big smiles. They must be wondering why America and Britain(for that matter) are letting their nuclear defenses fall apart. But we know, don't we. Can anyone say New World Order?

So much for "nuclear deterrent". Although I don't think anyone is about to test America's nuclear arsenal to see if it is really broken. At least not yet.

This is not good news.