Could Iran Be Developing A...Nuclear Warhead?

You don't have to be too profound to put this in order:

1. Iran has a clandestine nuclear program.
2. Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon program. 

Don't they inherently tend to go together?

I'll be posting my resume at analyst.gov any moment now.

You Dropped A Bomb On Me

China shows off a new road-mobile missile-in-a-can.

A few things come to mind:

• Plan your trip carefully. No sharp turns, fellas


• When out of garrison, at all costs, avoid sliding off the road into the culvert. It could take hours for that wrecker to show up from base.


• We used to call the Soviets "Ivan." What should we call you?

Mobile systems certainly complicate targeting schemes and add survivability.

Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb

Oh the apoplectic comments we'll hear if a pro-nuke Newsweek think-piece should appear.

Commanding Officer of Navy Nuclear Weapons Facility Fired

The dreaded but ambiguous "loss of confidence." For more, check the Global Security Newswire.

Will the Pentagon Thwart Obama's Dream of Zero?

Dude, where's my unicorn?

While nukes are not our future, they are in our future and will be for a very long time.

Nukes will go away when their value is or approaches zero, which will likely mean when they are made obsolete by anti-nuclear methods yet to emerge or are superseded by superior weapons.

Today, people aren't calling for a world without flaming buckets of oil launched via catapult for the same reasons--it’s just no longer the best way to storm the castle.

Similarly, instead of being made obsolete, nuclear weapons could have their value greatly reduced by affecting the efficacy of their delivery systems, via viable missile and air defense systems.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who work directly for the President, is not mentioned anywhere in the article, despite the fact he is known to advocate for the Reliable Replacement Weapon, a modernization effort to ensure the viability of our nuclear deterrent. Part of the concept of deterrence is possessing a consequence should deterrence fail. If a U.S. adversary has no fear of the U.S. nuclear enterprise because the weapons won't work--or because there aren't any--deterrence is obviously greatly reduced.

For all the purported pushback the President is getting regarding the U.S. going to zero nuclear weapons from "generals in the nuclear chain of command," only two are mentioned, General Kevin Chilton, the Commander of USSTRATCOM and USAF Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz. Chilton is critiqued for correcting the assertion U.S. nuclear forces are on a "hair trigger," which those who have experience in the nuclear community know to be untrue. Then, Schwartz is critiqued for agreeing with Chilton. The author suggests these men are somehow disloyal by correcting an error in fact.

The "bolt out of the blue" scenario the author incorrectly characterizes as "launch under attack" is likewise flawed. We have ways of knowing what's going on well before an adversary gets to the point they would be starting a nuclear war, and it’s called posturing. Tensions would likely take a significant amount of time to reach the point nuclear weapons would be considered and all elements of U.S. power would be put to use to avoid war well before a nuclear attack. Because no rational player wants nuclear war, these parties will be exceedingly reasonable and prudent in taking actions to ensure such a thing doesn't happen.

In the end, the issue is not nuclear weapons per se, rather the issue is national security. As such, the real question is not "Should the U.S. pursue a zero nuclear weapons cram-down?" but rather "Is our national security best served by a world with no nuclear weapons?"

If the answer is yes, a follow on is "How do all those holding nuclear weapons get rid of them simultaneously?" with the final question being "How do we ensure they never come back?" If the follow on questions can't be adequately addressed, the goal of a world without nuclear weapons matters not.

As for me, I dream of a world with no cigarettes.

Someone Left The Space Out In The Rain

This article first appeared in Air University's The Wright Stuff.

While there are a number of truly awful songs in the inventory of the mind, one of the worst-ever all-timers has to be Richard Harris’ 1968 version of MacArthur Park. In MacArthur Park, Harris evokes the spirit of the true karaoke B-teamer; not nearly as bad as William Hung, but certainly not good, and perhaps more reminiscent of William Shatner’s later-arriving spoken-word version of Rocket Man. While MacArthur Park remains an interesting piece of work musically, the lyrical content is particularly, uh…unusual, especially the semi-famous stanza “MacArthur Park is melting in the dark, oh the sweet green icing flowing down. Someone left the cake out in the rain. I don’t think that I can take it, ‘cause it took so long to make it, and I’ll never have the recipe again.” So what do these bad lyrics have to do with today’s state of affairs? The last line, “I’ll never have the recipe again,” particularly brings to mind two recent events. The first is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon walk.

There are no doubt plenty of space advocates who wonder if the U.S. still has the “recipe” to ever achieve another manned lunar landing. There are others who will claim in no uncertain terms that we still have that recipe, but this compellingly brings up the follow-on question:“why?” While there is a lot of hand-wringing about the retirement of the space shuttle, it has done remarkably little to enhance U.S. space leadership. Generally our manned space program has been constrained to providing things like tune-ups for the aged Hubble Space Telescope or more likely, a ride to the International Space Station. The ISS itself is a low-value (but not low-cost) piece of space debris in search of a meaningful mission. Even consider the moniker the International Space Station. As Dennis Miller used to opine, this is similar to adding International in front of the otherwise unsexy yet functionally descriptive House of Pancakes. But I digress--the slide rule generation has left the building--who, if anyone, will be interested in taking their places?

The second “loss of recipe” regards an essential national security topic, in this case, nuclear weapons. Several months ago the GSA reported that the manufacturing know-how for a product called Fogbank, made at the Y-12 complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee had been lost. Fogbank was made from 1975 until 1989 and is alleged to be a necessary part of the W76 nuclear weapon which rides on the Navy’s Trident II sea-launched ballistic missiles. In the case of Fogbank, it seems the recipe was literally lost (or thrown away). Recapturing that knowledge cost close to $100 million and was no doubt a daunting challenge for today’s scientists and engineers who chances are, had to seek some gray-beard support.

Even the Russians are not immune to losing their recipe mojo. A test of their sub-launched Bulava ICBM failed again earlier this month. This is the sixth acknowledged failure in eleven launch attempts and it occurred about 28 seconds into launch. By the way, the Russians hate our missile defense programs. This is first because they work and might one day be capable of totally neutering their ICBMs, but also because they seem to motivate Russia to try and recapture their past-superpower glories – unfortunately and embarrassingly to demonstrate their catastrophic ineptness. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated he has a 90-percent plus confidence in the U.S. missile defense system. The Russians are now estimated to be spending about one-quarter of their defense budget--money they don’t have--on nuclear weapon and nuclear-delivery systems. Reset, anyone?

While some are concerned about China and India as they are diligently working to create robust manned space programs, there is no way we can stop them, nor should we. For the U.S., our manned space flight program has proven to be a particularly poor investment--essentially a “stunt” program--which was always all about looking good in the shower vis-à-vis the USSR versus providing productive capabilities. While flowery manned space flight language like “to inspire current and future generations” sounded great and served a purpose in its time, future manned space exploration must have a better purpose.

Manned space flight has traditionally lacked an “in order to” imperative. This is because robotic space exploration, with satellites that don’t need air, water, food, or space toilets seem to be doing the job cheaper, faster, and better. Additionally, while finding out about the universe or looking for alien life forms is no doubt fascinating --creating a large intellectual sand-box for scientists to play in--again, it should be accomplished for a purpose. You don’t run diagnostics on your car, computer, or even your body for fun, you do it for a purpose, normally to make it work better. Unmanned space, however--using satellites--provides weather, communications, surveillance, and positioning, navigation, and timing. Look at GPS; unmanned space has proven itself highly valuable in making things work better; manned space has not.

Axis-of-evil states like North Korea and Iran now have space programs--they’re called missiles--with North Korea already having tested nuclear weapons and Iran well on the way. So tell me again how anyone can not be for missile defense? It sure beats MacArthur Park melting in the dark.

MacArthur Park, penned by composer Jimmy Webb, was dramatically improved with Donna Summers’ 1978 cover, resulting in a massive move forward in listenability. The Summers’ version itself follows a common-to-life pattern: over time, things normally get better…but only with effort. Songs, materials, and services like missile defense generally improve, and sometimes the music does as well, provided you keep the recipe well within reach. In music, as in life, if you don’t use it you lose it.

Mark Stout is a researcher at Air University’s National Space Studies Center. The opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and may not reflect the views and policies of the US Air Force or the Department of Defense.

Russian subs near US coast pose no threat: Pentagon

Have you ever wondered how we square the presence of Russian subs with the Monroe Doctrine? Nuclear weapons on land in Cuba are not acceptable, but those in the water are waived off.

Just one of those things...

Obama Puts Arms Control at Core of New Strategy

I'm not sure why the WSJ ran this article. It will not provide any profound insights and contains a number of non sequiturs. The title is eye-catching (well, to some), but the lead paragraph immediately launches into nuclear deterrence, which we know from our studies is not the same as arms control. The article's purpose is further opaqueified when it then moves into the human rights arena.

Author Peter Spiegel points out the administration's attempt to link human-rights and U.S. democratization efforts, using President Ronald Reagan as a model, since he "engaged with Soviet leaders on arms control even as he condemned their human-rights record." Left unsaid was that President Reagan was able to engage from a position of strength, having plussed-up the nation's nuclear capabilities with the Pershing II , Ground Launched Cruise Missile and Peacekeeper ICBM. systems.

The take-away is the assessment by Brent Scowcroft, who thinks the world is at a tipping point regarding nuclear proliferation. If Iran goes nuclear (anyone think they won't?), will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey follow? North Korea's already gone nuclear and Japan has responded by buying more missile defense. Will they reach a point when they go nuclear, too?