"The Pentagon has completed initial draft plans for several emerging low-yield sea-launched nuclear weapons intended to deter potential attackers and add new precision strike options to those currently possible with the existing arsenal.
While final requirements for both a low-yield sea-launched nuclear cruise missile and long-range sub-launched low-yield warhead are still in development, Pentagon officials tell Warrior Maven the process has taken several substantial new steps forward."
A Trident missile with a low-yield warhead "would offer a yet-to-exist long-range low-yield sea launched weapon. The existing Trident II D5 has a massive 100-kiloton yield, bringing massive destructive power to large swaths of territories – entire cities and well beyond."
Also covered by:
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:38PM (1 child)
LOL. More troll news from Shitstain News For Trolls.
(Score: 4, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:51PM
Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:41PM (4 children)
The latency is an interesting story. The -4 was first deployed before I started kindergarten and it took a quarter century from them to replace all of them with -5s, until 2005. The -5 project started essentially immediately after the -4 started deploying no time off, and they started deploying while I was still in K12. Some -5 were deployed close to 30 years ago. The -4 had a service life of about a quarter century and if you do some hand waving assuming all goes well the -5 is going to have a service life around 65 years which is staggering B-52-like. Figure the -6, assuming they call it the -6, will start getting deployed in the 2040s.
Its interesting that the -5 project started right after the -4 started production, but there's a thirty or so year gap between manufacturing the -5 and starting the -6 project. A whole generation of aerospace engineers has come and gone between the -5 and -6 projects. Of course there were modernization projects on the -5 so its not like every naval aerospace engineer was unemployed, but still...
You could say the -5 was a refined -4 or more of a -4.1 or -4.5 at most, so taking the big multi-decade leap to -6 plus corruption is worse now, means its not gonna be a ten year dev project, I'd be surprised if they squirt the -6 out in less than 20 years of R+D. Thats where I get my 2040s estimate.
The real fun would be mixing modern drone tech with cruise missile ideas, ballistic is kinda old school and easy to shoot down or damage enough not to go "boom" unlike drones. Of course that stuff is probably going on, just classified. Sorta like the carriers are legacy that can't be gotten rid of due to entrenched interests, we can't get rid of ballistic boosters for the same reason, even though they're mostly militarily worthless.
(Score: 1) by JustNiz on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:13PM (2 children)
Yeah I'd lurve to know what the US military *REALLY* has in its back pocket. I'm thinking it must be like 50 years on from the tech we see them publicly playing with.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:49PM (1 child)
Given this country's inability to keep a secret, I suspect there is a LOT less in said back pocket than you think.
We've been caught flat footed with weapons designed for the last war so many times its become sort of a joke.
(The only upside if this is that we are usually fighting opponents even further behind or more entrenched).
In short, you would have heard something about it by now, especially over the leak-a-minute Obama years
And other than a sneaky mini-spaceshuttle (X-37B) there's not much even rumored about.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:59PM
There's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft) [wikipedia.org]
While the details are certainly nonsense, something was out there at Mach 5.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:13PM
> ...plus corruption is worse now
Reference? {Of course not, this is VLM so I'm dreaming - grin}
I was recently scanning a few issues of our local paper from the 1960s (we are taking apart a "hoarder house" that also has interesting things mixed in) and without particularly looking I noted a couple of military and government spending scandals.
It does seem that military programs take longer now, but there could be several reasons. For example, the world is more complex (and with faster/better communications we spend more time absorbing the complexity). The weapon systems are also more complex (this may or may not be a good thing). And also, unlike during the Cold War, we appear to have a pretty good lead on other arms suppliers--the motivation to move quickly may be lacking?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:34PM (6 children)
The US military has the means to slaughter every human on the planet in a matter of hours. They also have the means to slaughter the heads of state of every government on the planet, also in a matter of hours. And every government on the planet knows that. That means there's no real need to deter anybody any further than the Pentagon already has.
As for precision-strike options, the US military can drone-strike anywhere, quickly, so again there's nothing really to be gained here.
So, what it sounds an awful lot like to me is "Please give my friends billions to go play with their toys out in the ocean."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:40PM
Looked from the other end, that presents a problem for potential targets, and those of them who are commanding larger scientific effectives are probably commissioning research projects for solving that problem, and *that* presents yet another problem to US military, so development of better weapons must be kept in pipeline constantly.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:08PM (3 children)
My uninformed speculation is that they are talking about the novel, naval, low-yield nukes to provide options and deterrence to China.
Did something similar with respect to Soviet tanks in Europe.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:11PM (1 child)
Exactly.
The only reason to go after low-yield nukes is that Russia has already developed and stock-piled several versions of them and has been talking loudly about lowering the threshold for their use.
(US has some rather ancient versions of these too, but has never deployed them in the field as they were designed mostly to stop a massive Soviet armored invasion of Europe.)
The US has never had a believable deterrent to a very small tactical nuke. Nobody believes the US would use a 100-kiloton response (taking out entire cities) to a small battle field nuke used to take out a US forward Airbase, or a Kim Jung Un mini-nuke dropped on Guam.
The Russian Hypersonic vehicles [cnbc.com] (currently unstoppable) can deliver a small nuke any where in the world. First use of such would probably be non nuclear, just to judge world opinion. If I were Ukrane, I'd be very worried.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:40PM
Right: They'd just drone-strike or bomb all of the places Kim Jong Un is likely to be, simultaneously, from their nearby bases in Korea and Japan.
As for the Chinese, the biggest threat in their arsenal is cutting off trade to the US, and/or dumping their investments in US T-Bills and US dollars in general. And that's a threat you can't make go away by blowing things up.
And regarding the Russians, if they provoke anything in Ukraine, then the US will have no reason to keep the gloves on in Syria. Also, an attack on their ally Iran is now in a lot more likely, because the next step after Syria would be to take over Iran and then push into the Caucuses to get control over Russia's oil and gas supplies. All of which can be done with the weapons currently available to the US.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 06 2018, @10:40PM
You left out navel nukes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 07 2018, @01:32PM
In the NAVY!
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:35PM (1 child)
To prepare for war.
Quoth Metallica.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by JustNiz on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:15PM
War, what is it good for? absolutely nothin'. Say it again.
Frankie.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by JustNiz on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:19PM (2 children)
Do the words "precision" and "nuclear" sound inherently incompatible to you too?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:15PM
Tsar Bomba didn't need precision, but it could still benefit from it.
Seems that the US continues to downsize nuclear yields, perhaps hoping to make the threat more credible that we just might use a "little nuke" somewhere, someday. Meanwhile, the propaganda that reaches me from the heart of darkness (Москва) says that the other side is crafting ever bigger bombs where a single one could not only take out the nuclear submarine base up the coast here, but also F-up the million+ population city 50 miles away.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:20PM
No.
If they do to you, then you are living hopelessly in the past. Even Krazy Kim can produce a mini nuke.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:33PM (4 children)
I've laid awake at nights, worrying what we would do if we ever needed a low-yeild, precision nuclear blast - and couldn't deliver it. /sarcasm
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:47PM
High yield nuclear means paranoia. Low yield nuclear means new, lower cost imperialism. I see a progress there. No more fiery death for the whole planet, but just for exemplary parts of defiant nations.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Snotnose on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:10PM (2 children)
I've laid awake at nights looking at the stars, when I suddenly think "Hey! What the hell happened to my roof?!"
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:14PM
Why am I on fire? 💥🔥😎
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:39PM
Roofs is where bad people put solar panels. You don't need no roof if you've got glorious coal!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:07PM (2 children)
they need to quit investing time in weapons with so much collateral damage. weapons should only affect the government being targeted or at worst the target country's systems and the humans that depend on it. no need to murder all the animals for mile, turn the sea red, start a nuclear winter, pollute the land with radioactivity, etc. also, maybe lift the ban on assasinations. why are we shielding governments that don't listen to their people from high turnover? instead we allow them to kill all their people. let them kill each other and try to replace each other. let the governments go broke and fall into chaos. that's what they should be doing instead of being propped up to screw everyone and the earth.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:23PM
Nice rant, but have you actually read what this issue is about.
Its about building weapons of EXACTLY THE KIND YOU WISHED FOR.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 07 2018, @01:35PM
As to why we avoid assassinations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination [wikipedia.org]
Yes, they seem like a clean way to do things, but that is why they are so troublesome.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:01PM
It's an interesting coincidence that I just finished reading Walter J. Miller Jr.'s "Canticle for Leibowitz". One hopes it's not a synchronicity.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.