Feb. 2020 article: In state of Nebraska, Trump admin. simulated a US nuclear response to an imaginary Russian attack–not on the US–but on Europe, “just weeks after the US deployed a new low-yield submarine-launched warhead commissioned by Donald Trump [in 2018]."…Under Donald Trump, US bowed out of three nuclear agreements as of August 2020.
2/24/2020, “US staged ‘limited’ nuclear battle against Russia in war game,” UK Guardian, Julian Borger in Washington
“The Pentagon has briefed about the simulated exchange in a move that could signal
The US conducted a military exercise [in Nebraska] last week [Feb. 2020] which simulated
a “limited” nuclear exchange with Russia, a senior Pentagon official has confirmed.
The war game is notable because of the defence department’s highly unusual decision to brief journalists about the details and because it embodied
the controversial notion that it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out world-ending conflict.
The exercise comes just weeks after the US deployed a new low-yield submarine-launched warhead
commissioned by Donald Trump [in 2018],
as a counter to Russian tactical weapons and intended to deter their use.
According to a transcript of a background briefing by senior Pentagon officials, the defence secretary, Mark Esper, took part in what was described as a “mini-exercise”
at US Strategic Command in Nebraska.
Esper played himself in the simulated crisis,
an attack on a US target in Europe.
“The scenario included a European contingency where you are conducting a war with Russia, and Russia decides to use a low-yield limited nuclear weapon
against a site on NATO territory,”
a senior official said. “And then you go through the conversation that you would have with the secretary of defense and then with the president, ultimately, to decide how to respond.”
The official said that “in the course of [the] exercise, we simulated responding with a nuclear weapon”,
but described it as a “limited response”.
The limited response could suggest
the use of a small number of nuclear weapons,
or an existing low-yield weapon, or the new W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched missile which was deployed in the Atlantic for the first time at the end of last year [2019]. The deployment only became public at the end of January.
At the same time as describing last week’s war game,
Pentagon officials defended the fielding of the W76-2.
“It’s a very reasonable response to what we saw was a Russian nuclear doctrine and nuclear capability that suggested to us that they might use nuclear weapons in a limited way,” a senior official said.
The briefing was first reported by National Defense, a trade magazine of the National Defense Industrial Association.
Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, pointed out that it was extremely rare for the Pentagon to give such detailed briefings about nuclear exercises and suggested it
could have been a marketing exercise for the new weapons
being added to the US arsenal.
“Remember, it’s only a few weeks ago that we had the official confirmation that this new low-yield warhead had been deployed,” Kristensen said.
“And we’re now moving into a new budget phase
where they have to go to Congress
and try to justify the next new nuclear weapon
that has a low-yield capability which is a sea-launched cruise missile. So all of this has been
played up to serve that process.”
Advocates of the new US weapons say they represent a deterrent against Moscow believing it can use a tactical nuclear weapon without a US response, as Washington would have to choose between not responding, or dramatically escalating through the use of a much more powerful strategic nuclear warhead.
Arms control advocates are concerned that the leadership in both the US and Russia are developing a mindset in which their vast nuclear arsenals are not just the ultimate deterrent but weapons that
could be used to win “limited” conflicts.”
……………………………………………….
***********************************
Added: Jan. 2020: New nuclear submarine commissioned by Trump in 2018 began patrolling Atlantic Ocean waters in late 2019:
1/29/2020, “Deployment of new US nuclear warhead on submarine a dangerous step, critics say,” UK Guardian, Julian Borger
“First submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead makes a nuclear launch more likely, arm control advocates warn.”
“The US has deployed its first low-yield Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine that is
currently patrolling the Atlantic Ocean,
it has been reported, in what arms control advocates warn is a dangerous step towards making a nuclear launch more likely.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the USS Tennessee – which
left port in [state of] Georgia at the end of last year [2019]– is the first submarine to go on patrol armed with the W76-2 warhead,
commissioned by Donald Trump two years ago [2018].
It has an explosive yield of five kilotons, a third of the power of the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima and considerably lower than the 90- and 455-kiloton warheads on other US submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
The Trump administration’s nuclear posture review (NPR) in February 2018, portrays this warhead as a counter to a perceived Russian threat to use its own “tactical” nuclear weapons
to win a quick victory on the battlefield.
Advocates of W76-2 argued that the US had no effective deterrent against Russian tactical weapons because Moscow assumed Washington would not risk using the overwhelming power of its intercontinental ballistic missiles in response, for fear of escalating from a regional conflict to a civilian-destroying war.
Critics of the warhead say it accelerates a drift towards
thinking of nuclear weapons as
a means to fight and win wars,
rather than as purely a deterrent of last resort.
And the fielding of a tactical nuclear weapon, they warn,
gives US political and military leaders a dangerous new option
in confronting [perceived or alleged] adversaries other than Russia.
Trump’s NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] says the US could use nuclear weapons
in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks”,
including but not limited to “attacks on US, allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure”.
The US Navy and Strategic Command did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Hans Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project at FAS [Federation of American Scientists], said the report on the arming of the USS Tennessee is based on briefings from officials.
“We have had conversations with people inside, and they’ve been pretty clear that this has happened,” Kristensen said.
“They see a need to talk about it to some extent, because if people don’t know it’s out there, then how can it deter?”
“This is a very rapid mind quick turnaround for a nuclear weapon, and that’s obviously because it was a fairly simple adjustment of an existing warhead,” he added. “They have argued that this is to deter Russia, but it
also has clear implications or potential use against other adversaries, not least North Korea and Iran.”
Kristensen said: “Certainly the low-yield collateral effect that would come from this weapon would be very beneficial to a military officer who was going to advise to the president whether we should cross the nuclear threshold.””
………………………………………..
********************************
Added: In Feb. 2020, Pentagon announces that UK will spend billions on new nuclear weapons:
2/22/2020, “Pentagon reveals deal with Britain to replace Trident," UK Guardian, Jamie Doward
The decision was revealed by Pentagon officials who disclosed it before an official announcement has been made by the government.
The revelation has dismayed MPs and experts who question
why they have learned of the move –
which will cost the UK billions of pounds –
only after the decision has apparently been made.
It has also raised questions about the UK’s commitment to staunching nuclear proliferation and the country’s reliance on the US for a central plank of its defence strategy.
Earlier this month [Feb. 2020], Pentagon officials confirmed that its proposed W93 sea-launched warhead, the nuclear tip of the next generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles,
would share technology with the UK’s next nuclear weapon,
implying that a decision had been taken between the two countries to work on the programme.
In public, the UK has not confirmed whether it intends to commission a new nuclear warhead. The Ministry of Defence’s annual update to parliament, published just before Christmas, says only: “Work also continues to develop the evidence to support a government decision when replacing the warhead.”
But last week [Feb. 2020] Admiral Charles Richard, commander of the US strategic command, told the Senate defence committee that there was a requirement for a new warhead, which would be called the W93 or Mk7. Richard said: “This effort will also support
a parallel replacement warhead programme in the United Kingdom,
whose nuclear deterrent plays an absolutely vital role in NATO’s overall defence posture.”
Ed Davey, acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “It is totally unacceptable that the government seems to have given the green light to the development of
new nuclear weapon technologies
with zero consultation and zero scrutiny.
Britain under Johnson increasingly looks like putty in Trump’s hands. That Britain’s major defence
decisions are being debated in the United States, but not in the UK,
is a scandal.
Under Johnson, it seems that where Trump leads, we must follow.”
Alan Shaffer, Pentagon deputy under-secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, also made reference to the new UK programme in a briefing session at the annual nuclear deterrence summit, in Alexandria, Virginia. “I think it’s wonderful that the UK is working on a new warhead at the same time, and I think we will have discussions and be able to share technologies,” Shaffer said.
David Cullen, director of pressure group the Nuclear Information Service, said:
“The UK’s reliance on US knowledge and assistance for their nuclear weapons programme means
they will find it almost impossible to diverge from any development path the US decides to take.
“We are legally bound
to take steps towards disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,
but this would take us in the opposite direction.”
It is understood that the US had agreed with the UK not to make any announcement while parliament was in recess. However, US defence officials were apparently oblivious to the agreement and confirmed the programme’s existence –
to the embarrassment of the UK government.
Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the development of the new warhead
posed significant geopolitical problems.
“Britain and the US have come a long away from being leaders in reducing the role of nuclear weapons and contemplating the possible road toward potential disarmament
to re-embracing nuclear weapons for the long haul.
They are obviously not alone in this, with Russia, China and France doing their own work. So, overall, this is
a serious challenge for the international non-proliferation regime,” he said.
Tom Plant, director of proliferation and nuclear policy at the independent security thinktank, Rusi, said the
about the new weapon was a concern.
“There’s been a presumption from those in opposition and analysts like myself that it should come to parliament in some way, like the 2016 vote on Trident. I suspect that the MoD’s position is that
they don’t want it to.
What the programme doesn’t need from their perspective is lots of scrutiny. But if there’s going to be a decision it should absolutely come to parliament.”
The MoD said: “As previously stated in the 2015 defence review, we can confirm that we are working towards replacing the warhead. We have a strong defence relationship with the US and will continue to remain compatible with the US Trident missile. An announcement about the UK’s replacement warhead programme will be made in due course.”
………………………………………..
*****************************
Added: August 1, 2020: “Nuclear hawks are…pushing to lock in spending [while Trump is in office] in case there is a change of administration….Under Donald Trump, the US has now left three nuclear agreements.…The total cost of the US nuclear weapons modernisation programme is expected to be far in excess of $1trillion.”
8/1/2020, In April 2020 letter, “UK lobbies US to support controversial new nuclear warheads,” UK Guardian, Julian Borger
“[April 2020] Letter from defence secretary seen by Guardian draws Britain into debate pitting Trump administration against many Democrats.”
“The UK has been lobbying the US Congress in support of a controversial new warhead for Trident missiles, claiming it is critical for
“the future of NATO as a nuclear alliance”.
A letter from Britain’s defence secretary, Ben Wallace, seen by the Guardian, urged Congress to support initial spending on the warhead, the W93.
The letter, sent in April [2020] but not previously reported, draws the UK into a US political debate, pitting the Trump administration against many Democrats and arms control groups over whether the the $14bn W93 programme is necessary. The US navy already has two warheads to choose from for its submarine-launched Trident missiles.
The close cooperation on the W93 casts further doubt on the genuine independence of the UK deterrent – parliament first heard about it when US officials accidentally disclosed Britain’s involvement in February – and the commitment of both countries to disarmament.
The UK is also supporting the administration’s efforts to speed up work on the warhead and its surprise $53m request for initial weapon design work in the 2021 budget,
two years ahead of the previous schedule.
Sceptics believe the rush is intended to lock in funding before the election. A Biden administration would be likely to review or even cancel the W93 programme.
“These are challenging times, but
it is crucial that we demonstrate transatlantic unity and solidarity
in this difficult period,” Wallace told members of the House and Senate armed services committees.
“Congressional funding in [2021] for the W93 program will ensure that we continue to deepen the unique nuclear relationship between our two countries, enabling the United Kingdom to provide safe and assured
continuous-at-sea deterrence for decades to come.”
The British intervention comes as the initial funding for the warhead hangs in the balance. It was approved by the House and Senate armed services committees but blocked at least temporarily, by a House energy and water subcommittee last month.
Congressional staffers said they could not recall such a direct UK intervention in a US debate on nuclear weapons.
“We’ve never had a letter of this sort before, so it was a little bit surprising that this is the issue that they chose to weigh in on,” a committee aide said.
The UK insists its Trident nuclear deterrent is autonomous, but the two countries share the same missiles and coordinate work on warheads.
The current UK Trident warhead, the Holbrook, is very similar to the W76 warhead, one of two the US navy uses in its own Trident II missiles.
The US and UK versions of the W93 are also expected to resemble each other closely. Both countries will use the same new MK7 aeroshell, the cone around the warhead that allows it to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere, which will cost another several hundred million dollars.
Little has been disclosed about the W93, but it is thought to be based on
a design that was tested during the cold war
but not made part of the US stockpile at the time. It will potentially be the first new warhead design in the US stockpile since the cold war and is expected to be of considerably higher yield than
the current W76, which is already six times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima 75 years ago next week.
The demand for funding for the W93 is particularly controversial in the US as the W76 and a higher-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead, the W88,
have already been subject to multibillion-dollar upgrades.
“This is excess on top of excess,” Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, said. “We already have two SBLM warheads. The W76 just went through a major life extension programme and is slated to be good into the early 2040s, and the W88 is going through a major alteration.
“The US can continue to assist the UK’s arsenal
without rushing the development of an unnecessary, at least $14bn new-design, third SLBM warhead,” Reif added.
The total cost of the US nuclear weapons modernisation programme is expected to be
far in excess of $1tn….
Under Donald Trump, the US has now left three nuclear agreements
and his administration is reluctant to extend the last major arms control deal with Russia, the 2010 New Start treaty, which is due to expire in February.
The bonfire of nuclear accords, combined with the huge amounts spent on weapons like the W93, are a threat to the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the fundamental bargain by which countries without nuclear arms pledged not to acquire them
on condition the recognised nuclear powers (the US, UK, France, Russia and China) took steps to disarm, under article six of the treaty.
“When I look at something like the W93, it’s not, in and of itself, a violation of article six,” said Daniel Joyner, a University of Alabama law professor specializing in nuclear treaties. “It’s just a further data point to evidence, the current non-compliance of the US and UK with article six.”
In his [April 2020] letter to the congressional committees, Wallace wrote: “Your support to the W93 program in this budget cycle is critical to the success of our replacement warhead programme and to the long-term viability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent
and therefore, the future of NATO as a nuclear alliance.”
Alexandra Bell, a former state department official and now senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said the US-UK special relationship
had shown greater solidarity in promoting new weapons
than in arms control.
“The UK is noticeably missing when it comes to emphatic support for New Start extension, but yet at the same time it feels comfortable directly telling members of Congress what they should do about our own modernization plans,” Bell said. “I think that’s weird.”
Asked about the purpose of Wallace’s letter, a UK defense ministry spokesman said: “The UK’s existing warhead is being replaced in order to respond to future threats and guarantee our security. We have a strong defence relationship with the US and will work closely with our ally to ensure our warhead remains compatible with the US’s Trident missile.”
According to official figures, the US W76 warhead is viable until 2045 at least – and the UK version is expected to last until the late 2030’s, so there is no urgent technical need for replacement.
Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, said nuclear weapons hawks at the Pentagon, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Los Alamos National Laboratory were
pushing to lock in spending in case there is a change of administration.
“They would like to get this program endorsed by Congress this year, and they’re very close to it,” Mello said.
“Once it is a programme of record, it will take more for a future administration to knock it out.”…
The US and Russia, which is also upgrading its arsenal and developing new weapons, together account for more than 90% of all the nuclear warheads on the planet, and both countries are putting increasing emphasis on them in their rhetoric and defence postures.”…
………………………………….
Comment: The US isn’t a country, it’s a killing machine that exists only because US taxpayers are enslaved to it.
............
No comments:
Post a Comment