The US military is spending $1 trillion on something it hopes to never use

The US military is spending $1 trillion on something it hopes to never use

A fighter jet dropped an unarmed “nuclear gravity bomb” at a Nevada test range last month.

The nuke, called the B61-12, is a new weapon costing around $8.1 billion, but this pricey new bomb is actually less than 1% of a $1 trillion push to keep the US nuclear arsenal up-to-date. Officials also say the program will actually help reduce the number of nukes in the world.

That sounds like a wonderful goal, but it could be fueling the next nuclear arms race, one expert tells Tech Insider.

Here’s why.

A fresh START

In 2010, President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START treaty, which bound Russia and the United States to having just 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads each by 2018.

Around that time, the US had nearly 2,000 deployed warheads, while Russia had an estimated 2,600, according to the Arms Control Association. In order to hit that goal, the US is bringing some of its nukes back to be dismantled or put into storage (where they will no longer be considered “deployed”). Still other nuclear bombs are going through a “life extension program” that refurbishes and upgrades their aging components.

One is the B61-12 “gravity bomb” — a fancy term that just means falling through the air without guidance systems. With some spare parts of other bombs and a tail fin upgrade, the B61-12 will replace (and retire) at least four other models of nuclear bombs once it’s completed. The military also claims this will cut the total number of nuclear gravity bombs by “a factor of two.”

Similar to how some people might consolidate their debt into one lower bill, the strategy is meant to reduce the number of nuclear bombs and their destructive power, while still maintaining a “technical” edge. Further, upgraded bombs like the B61-12 will be able to fit onto next-generation aircraft like the F-35 Lightning.

But the upgrades are not without its critics.

“Apart from the stratospheric price, the most controversial element of the B61 upgrade is the replacement of the existing rigid tail with one that has moving fins that will make the bomb smarter and allow it to be guided more accurately to a target,” Julian Borger wrote in The Guardian.

Here’s a clip that shows the fins spinning up a B61-12 bomb:

giphy

The B61-12 program is also drastically over budget. Now estimated to cost between $8 and $10 billion, the government initially pegged its budget at around $1 to $2 billion, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

Francie Israeli, a spokesperson for the National Nuclear Security Administration, told Tech Insider that unforeseen technical issues, budget fluctuations, and other uncertainties can result in “substantial cost range changes.”

Still, the new gravity bomb is just one of many nukes the US has in its arsenal, which includes land- and submarine-launched warheads. About 200 of the air-dropped versions are positioned in Europe with US and NATO forces, which are a mix-and-match of different versions of the B61.

A new kind of arms race

nuclear-gravity-bomb-b61-12-target-drop-test-2015-10-20-nnsa

In a successful test of the B61-12 in October, an Air Force F-15E fighter dropped the weapon onto a target in the desert with near pinpoint accuracy — a drastic improvement, since America’s top generals argued in 2004 that accuracy shouldn’t be expected from a nuclear bomb simply dropping from the sky.

In the past, nuclear doctrine was such that weapons needed to have larger yields to make up for their inaccuracy. Now that won’t be the case.

Though the US and Russia will likely reduce their number of nuclear weapons, experts say a smaller number of more technologically-advanced bombs could arguably be more dangerous, especially in eastern Europe.

“Moscow has predictably classified work on the new modification as a threat and an arms race,” Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Tech Insider in an email.

In Sokov’s view, upgrading a bomb like the B61-12 probably doesn’t alarm the Russians all that much, but it could be used as an excuse for new Russian military moves that might spook former Soviet states such as Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, which joined NATO after they regained independence at the end of the Cold War.

This could mean Russian submarines armed with cruise missiles might patrol the Baltic Sea, or short-range ballistic missile systems could be placed near Poland — something threatened quite frequently by Moscow that NATO has countered with Patriot missile defense systems.

“They keep up constant pressure just to show they have influence,” Rokas Masiulis, Lithuania’s energy minister, told The New York Times of Russian naval exercises in the Baltic Sea. “It is all part of the general atmosphere of provocation and rising tensions in the region.”

A gloomy future

moscow_victory_parade_2010_-_training_on_may_4_-_img14Russia shows off its Iskander missiles at a victory parade in 2010.

While the US simultaneously modernizes and reduces its nuclear stockpile, Sokov tells Tech Insider it’s safe to say Russia is probably doing something similar in response.

But the key difference, he says, is that the Kremlin has invested considerable time and effort in long-range conventional weapons that are highly precise — non-nuclear bombs that are more usable — which Russia has already fired against targets in Syria.

“The future, I believe, looks pretty gloomy. I see modern conventional weapons used in Russian policy toward NATO as an overt or a covert threat,” Sokov said.

He noted that some allied countries may lobby for NATO nukes to be moved closer to Russia, which would trigger a response from Moscow.

“We are looking at a combined nuclear-conventional arms race in Europe in the near future,” Sokov told Tech Insider, “which will likely continue for an extended period of time.”

Copyright © 2015 Business Insider Inc. All rights reserved.

Original post businessinsider.com


Iskander (NATO designation SS-26 Stone) short-range ballistic missile

The Iskander (NATO designation SS-26 Stone) short-range ballistic missile is a successor to theOka (SS-23 Spider), which was eliminated under the INF Treaty. It was first launched in 1996 and was initially designated by NATO as the SS-X-26. It is considered the most advanced missile of its kind. The Iskander-M missile system was officially adopted by the Russian Army in 2006. Currently Russian Army operates only about 20 of these missile systems. Its export variant, the Iskander-E, was sold to Syria (26 units).

   The Iskander road mobile missile system is equipped with two short-range ballistic missiles, which substantially increases firepower of missile units. Each missile can be targeted independently. These missiles are capable of hitting moving targets, as target coordination can be adjusted while the missile is in-flight. The Iskander has several different conventional warheads, including cluster, fuel-air explosive, bunker-busting and electro-magnetic pulse. It can also carry nuclear warheads despite the fact that this will violate INF treaty. Maximum range of fire is 280 km for the export version and 400 km for the Russian Army version. Minimum range is 50 km.

   The Iskander was designed to overcome air defense systems. Missile files at supersonic speed, excessively maneuvers in the terminal phase of the flight and releases decoys. In some cases this ballistic missile can be used as an alternative to precision bombing.

   Missiles can be launched 16 minutes from traveling or 4 minutes from highest readiness. The second missile can be launched in less than a minute once the first missile is launched.

   The transport-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicle uses MZKT-7930 Astrolog 8×8 high mobility chassis. It is powered by the YaMZ-846 diesel engine, developing 500 hp. Vehicle can be airlifted by the An-124 transport aircraft.

   The Iskander TEL is supported by a reloading vehicle, based on the same 8×8 chassis, which carries two reload missiles. Full missile system also includes command vehicle, information preparation vehicle, maintenance and repair vehicle and life support vehicle. All of these vehicles are based on KamAZ 6×6 trucks. (military-today.com)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s