Christmas came early this year (for defense contractors in Connecticut)

By now we've all heard the news about the House of Representatives passing the massive 2015 National Defense Authorization Act last week; now it just has to clear the Senate (should be child's play). Hey, it's just $585 billion (in U.S. taxpayer dollars!!!).

Connecticut is a recipient of a decent portion of this largess, giving special meaning to "Made in Connecticut." The Connecticut Mirror ran an article on the bill that spelled out the shell game that is being played with the OHIO Class Replacement Program (New Trident) that will be built in Connecticut.

...a special gift is the bill's establishment of a "National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund" that would allow the Pentagon to put as much as $3.5 billion in a special account, outside the Navy's normal shipbuilding budget. It would pay for a new class of submarines that could be built by Electric Boat in Groton. 

The special fund allows the Pentagon to pay for these expensive ships without appearing to bust the Navy shipbuilding budget.

The author states that building New Trident with that nifty new slush fund with the fancy name will only give the appearance of not busting the Navy's shipbuilding budget. Construction of 12 New Tridents will ultimately cost approximately $100 billion; that's one big slush fund!

AND, this alternative funding method had been used at once before (for another very special program!!!):

The establishment of the fund is a tactic that hasn't been used since the 1980s when former President Ronald Reagan created a similar way to pay for his "Star Wars" missile defense program.

Now that is truly telling! The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was foisted on President Reagan by Edward Teller. The probable effectiveness of SDI was highly questionable, and the program was ultimately scaled back significantly. Ironically, the effectiveness of continuing to deploy ballistic missile submarines 25 years after the end of the Cold War could easily be questioned, unless you're the COO of the Lexington Institute ("a think tank that promotes defense contractors and large Pentagon budgets")

The Ohio-class sub is the most important warship in the entire fleet because it is meant to deter a nuclear war," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.

While it can be argued that strategic nuclear deterrence worked throughout the Cold War (with many a near-miss... phew!!!), we now live in an era of non-state actors (terrorists), potential failed states, regional political instability and potential instabilities related to climate change; it's an increasingly tense world folks. We should face the fact that deterrence is an outdated concept in today's world. As veteran cold-war policy makers Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Sam Nunn said in a January 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

Nuclear deterrence is a far less persuasive strategic response to a world of potential regional nuclear arms races and nuclear terrorism than it was to the cold war.

Of course, there has been no debate as to the need to replace the undeniably aging fleet of Trident submarines. We just keep hearing the repetition of the need to maintain our strategic deterrent. As it stands, it's not about whether or not we will build New Trident but rather who will build it.

The special fund was proposed by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., who heads the seapower subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and whose district is home to Newport News Shipbuilding. 

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, whose district includes Electric Boat and Naval Submarine Base New London is also a longtime advocate of the plan. The New London base would be protected by another provision of the bill which prohibits funding another round of base closings.

With dueling shipyards (and their Representatives) competing for the mammoth OHIO Class Replacement, it's definitely looking like Christmas came early to Connecticut one shipyard or another. This is one those moments when I actually want to see the Grinch come and steal the presents!

Editor's Note: The article (and all quotes) cited in this post are from Defense Bill Has Billions For Subs, Planes, Copters Made In Connecticut, By ANA RADELAT, The Connecticut Mirror, December 8, 2014, Source URL: http://www.ctnow.com/business/hc-ctm-defense-bill-connecticut-spending-20141208,0,871572.story

Rep. Courtney: Funding New Trident by Hook or by Crook

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday, and it included some major pork ($1.3 for FY15) for General Dynamics Electric Boat, which is engaged in research and development for the OHIO Class Replacement boats and will, of course, build them as well.

Launch tubes for New Trident built by General Dynamics Electric Boat

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Electric Boat (in an article in TheDay.com) is quoted as saying, "This year's NDAA is another strong show of support for eastern Connecticut's submarine industrial base and our top-notch workforce..." Courtney spoke with The Day and gave a "rundown" on how the NDAA affects his Congressional district. Here is what he says about New Trident (OHIO Class Replacement):

The defense bill allots $1.3 billion for the Ohio-class replacement program, which replaces the Ohio-class boats with ballistic-missile submarines, the newest class of submarines. 

The funds will come primarily through Navy Research and Development, but some funding will also come from the U.S. Department of Energy and military construction account. 

Electric Boat will perform research and development work for this new class of submarine, which is scheduled for a 2021 construction start. 

The bill also includes the creation of a separate national sea-based deterrence fund to pay for the Ohio-class program, something lawmakers including Courtney have talked about for a few years. Courtney said the defense bill makes the fund "a matter of law ... and sets up the authority for it to be funded starting next year." 

The defence bill gives the U.S. Department of Defense the authority to move up to $3.5 billion from unused 2014, 2015 and 2016 funding to start the sea-based deterrence fund. 

If the program were paid for out of the Navy's shipbuilding account, Courtney said, "it would suffocate" funding for other programs like surface ships and the Virginia-class submarines.

Overall, the Ohio-class replacement program is a $95 billion endeavor.

What is particularly noteworthy is the "national sea-based deterrence fund" that creates a funding stream for New Trident outside of the existing Navy shipbuilding account, thereby reducing the tension that was created by the competition for shipbuilding dollars. New Trident would have created a huge dent in the Navy's shipbuilding budget, effectively sinking many conventional shipbuilding projects.

This is essentially a huge shell game. The proponents of New Trident are full steam ahead, and damn the illogic of re-building an unnecessary Cold War nuclear weapons system (nearly a quarter century after the end of the Cold War).

Source URL for article cited in this post: http://www.theday.com/military/20141204/electric-boat-a-beneficiary-of-defense-bill-priorities

House passes Defense Reauthorization: Trident gets full funding

The House of Representatives passed the massive ($584 billion) FY 2015 Defense Reauthorization Bill. Of that money, $1.8 billion (fully funded) will go to continuing research and development for the next generation ballistic missile submarine to replace the current Trident (OHIO Class) fleet. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says (among other things) that this bill "strengthens our economy in Eastern Connecticut." Of course, what Courtney avoids talking about is the huge risk to the U.S. economy, and in fact the global economy, from any use of nuclear weapons.

Building a new generation of Trident as well as other new nuclear weapons systems practically guarantees a future in which at some point these horrific weapons will be used. At that point, all bets are off. Depending on scope of use as well as the geographic area(s) directly and indirectly affected, regional economies and the global economy will be affected.  

But we should digress for a moment from economic factors, which so many supporters (particularly those in Congress) like to cite in pushing new nuclear weapons systems. Beyond the economic devastation of even a limited nuclear war, the effects on the environment that sustains civilization will be unimaginable. Among them will likely be limited or total collapse of civilization as we know it.

If our members of Congress truly represent the people, they need to think beyond short term economic stimulus for their districts and begin to look at the long-term good of the people who (we hope) will be here after we have gone (hopefully leaving things a little better rather than much worse).

Think about that as you read the following article announcing this past week's House vote. What are our priorities???

*********************

House passes $584B Defense Reauthorization Bill, includes $5.9B for sub construction

By Adam Benson
The Norwich Bulletin
abenson@norwichbulletin.com
(860) 908-7004
Posted Dec. 4, 2014 @ 9:39 pm

Electric Boat's multi-billion dollar contract for the continued construction of Virginia-class submarines was approved by the U.S. House Thursday as part of a $584 billion defense reauthorization bill, winning praise from regional economic development officials and the state's congressional delegation.

The measure, which sailed through the House on a 300-119 vote, heads to the Senate next week where it is expected to be approved.

“The kind jobs that come from producing the most sophisticated vessels in the world create an enormous amount of wealth for this area,” Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut President and CEO Tony Sheridan said. “We are a maritime community, and this kind of support from the federal government continues a long-standing tradition in Eastern Connecticut.”

Highlights of the bill include the authorization of $5.9 billion for the Virginia class submarine program, including $3.6 billion for two boats in 2015. The measure also fully supports the Block IV multi-year submarine contract completed earlier this year, which calls for 10 submarines to be built over the next five years.

A $1.3 billion budgetary request to continue research and development of the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement is also included in the bill, as is $133 million for the continued development of the Virginia class payload module.

“Despite a challenging fiscal climate, this bill maintains strong investments in our undersea fleet, including continued two-a-year production of Virginia-class submarines, and full funding for the Ohio replacement program and the Virginia payload module,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “The unrivaled work of the men and women of Electric Boat has inspired confidence in these programs for the future. This bill underscores our commitment to maintaining the best submarine fleet in the world, and strengthens our economy in Eastern Connecticut.”

And, if the Senate adopts the legislateon in its current form, there would be no base realignment and closure round in 2017.

Chris Zendan, a spokesman for the Naval submarine base in Groton, said Thursday the Navy doesn’t comment on pending legislation.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. said he is ready to support the bill in the Senate.
“I will fight strongly for approval of this very significant measure for Connecticut and our national security when it reaches the Senate next week,” Blumenthal said. “I am particularly pleased the Congress has recognized the contributions made by our Connecticut workforce to our national security by approving the products and weapons systems made in our state.”

John Beauregard, executive director of the Franklin-based Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board, said keeping the region’s military sector operating at existing levels helps stabilize an economy that has been gaining traction in recent months.


Original article sourceURL: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20141204/News/141209749#ixzz3LAMaqIbX

Eric Shclosser: Time for "honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of...Trident"

Journalist Eric Schlosser broke new ground with his 2013 book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. Through his careful and exhaustive research on nuclear weapons for this book Schlosser has become a respected voice regarding nuclear weapons safety and policy.

In the article below in The Herald Scotland, Schlosser says (among other things) that "There should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of having Trident..." Although Schlosser was speaking to a Sottish audience, he was obviously speaking to the subject of Trident on both sides of the Atlantic. Both are relics of the Cold War, and supporters justify their continued existence (and the building of replacement fleets) using Cold War rationale.

We can only hope that Schlosser will continue to travel and speak on the topic, bringing it to the forefront of public discourse on both sides of The Pond so that we can have an open and honest dialogue about why we need to continue spending trillions of dollars on weapons that we can never use and that present such huge risks to humanity.

Note: Text in the article highlighted in BOLD is my emphasis.

*********************

Eric Schlosser: there should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of Trident

Teddy Jamieson
Senior Features Writer
Herald Scotland, heraldscotland.com
Tuesday 25 November 2014

On the morning of September 19 this year Scotland woke to find that, among other things, it was still a nuclear state.

The choice to stay within the United Kingdom meant that Faslane remains home to Britain's nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future.

But with the Trident missile programme up for renewal in 2016 the investigative journalist Eric Schlosser believes it should remain a live issue. "I have to say whether you support them or you oppose them, nuclear weapons should be an issue of great concern and interest in Scotland and I hope there's a very vigorous debate about them because they're in your backyard," Schlosser told Herald Scotland.

A british Trident submarine at its home port, Faslane, Scotland

Anyone who has read Schlosser's latest book, Command and Control; The Story of Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Safety, can understand why. Schlosser who made his name with Fast Food Nation, his expose of the fast food industry in the United States, has spent the last six years looking at the record of nuclear weapons in the United States since their invention until the present day. Between 1950 and 1968 alone he discovered at least 1,200 nuclear weapons were involved in significant accidents. A single safety switch prevented the detonation of a hydrogen bomb in Faro, North Carolina, in 1961. And that record of accidents continues to the present day.

"There's this mentality that because it hasn't happened it can't happen and that's just a fallacy," Schlossser says. "You could say because of the laws of probability it is more likely to happen now than ever before."

Schlosser, who is based in New York, is travelling to Vienna this week to talk at an international conference on nuclear weapons. Speaking from his home he said that the message he intends to give is that nuclear weapons are complex, dangerous machines, "and, like all machines, they go wrong".

"It seems that human beings are much better at creating these systems than controlling them, understanding them or knowing what to do when they go wrong."

The American military is currently struggling with aging nuclear weapons and poor morale among those looking after them.

 A U.S. Trident submarine 

Last week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who has now stepped down, announced that The Pentagon will have to spend $10bn to make emergency fixes to its nuclear weapons infrastructure which is also suffering from broken and missing equipment, poor leadership and inadequate training and staffing.

"There's been incredible complacency in the management of nuclear weapons," Schlosser argues. "They're just not glamorous for the military any more. There's an acknowledgment within the United States military that they pretty much have no use except for deterring an attack on the United States. The military doctrine of the United States right now is whenever possible, as much as possible, to minimise civilian casualties and nuclear weapons are the exact opposite of that."

And America, he points out, has more experience than most in dealing with nuclear weapons. As such it represents best practice. "And yet still we've come close again and again and again. That tells you something about the challenge of managing it."

With India and Pakistan increasing their nuclear capabilities and fears that Iran could develop nuclear weapons through its nuclear power programme we should be worried. Schlosser is not convinced that a deal in the talks with Iran - which have just been extended after failing to meet the deadline - can ever be reached, especially with a very conservative US Congress now in place.

But if Iran does progress to join the nuclear club that raises issues beyond the inevitable escalation of tensions in the Middle East, he points out. "Being a new nuclear weapons state means not having very much experience of this technology meaning a much greater risk of a catastrophic accident."

That doesn't describe Scotland, of course, but Schlosser believes Trident itself is problematic. "It was built for a very specific purpose during the cold war and certain choices that were made make it potentially more dangerous as a weapons system; specifically the type of rocket fuel used in the third stage of the missile and the type of conventional explosive used in its warhead. If you have a fire and an explosion you can have a fair amount of plutonium scattered and you might even have a nuclear yield at some level.

"There should be an honest appraisal of the risks and benefits of having Trident and not just a boilerplate denial that these things are perfectly safe, because they're not.

"If you were going to make the Trident missile today you would not design it the way that it is and it would be a safer weapons system so you could argue one or two things. Get rid of them or load them very carefully and unload them very carefully and protect them from any terrorist activity very carefully."

###

Source URL for original article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/eric-schlosser-there-should-be-an-honest-appraisal-of-the-risks-and-benefits-.1416918630

Schlosser's book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, published by Penguin Books, is available at public libraries and booksellers everywhere.

Electric Boat gearing up for New Trident

General Dynamics' Electric Boat division is seeing dollar signs... no, make that billions of dollar signs as plans for a new generation of U.S. ballistic missile submarines move forward at all possible speed!!! Electric Boat has a contract with the Navy worth up to 2.3 billion to manufacture the common missile compartment (CMC) tubes for the 12 New Trident submarines as well as the UK's 4 new ballistic-missile submarines, along with extra tubes for an onshore test facility. Of course, this is just the beginning for Electric Boat, which will involve the lion's share of work on the New Trident subs.

As the following article explains, the State of Connecticut is giving Electric Boat a generous 10-year, $10 million loan to help the company out with its expansion of its submarine production facilities while parent General Dynamics' earnings have risen while revenues have held steady at $7.75 billion! The nation's whirlwind nuclear modernization effort is a boon to General Dynamics, the State of Connecticut, and of course the members of Congress who ensure that valuable tax subsidies are maintained for companies like Electric Boat.

The OHIO Class submarines are massive boats carrying massive thermonuclear destructive power in their missile tubes, and the nation can afford neither the astronomical cost of construction (estimated at $100 billion or more) nor the huge risk borne not only by U.S. citizens, but by all of humanity should those missiles (with their multiple thermonuclear armed warheads) ever be used. New Trident will only accelerate the growing nuclear submarine arms race, a race in which there will be no winners, only losers.

Photo courtesy of General Dynamics

*******************

Electric Boat plans $31M Connecticut expansion

By Jeff Clabaugh, Broadcast/Web Reporter, Washington Business Journal

Originally published on October 29, 2014 in Washington Business Journal

General Dynamics' submarine-making division Electric Boat, which won a $17.6 billion Navy contract this year for construction and delivery of Virginia Class submarines, will invest $31.5 million to expand its Connecticut production facilities.

Electric Boat is also expected to create 200 new jobs in Groton, Connecticut, where a company facility currently employs 8,700.

Connecticut's Department of Economic and Community Development is providing Electric Boat with a 10-year, $10 million loan as part of the expansion, a loan it won't have to pay back if it meets its new employment target.

"Today's announcement supports the required facility expansion that will help Electric Boat affordably deliver submarines to the U.S. Navy," said Electric Boat president Jeffrey Geiger in a statement.

The expansion will accommodate both Virginia Class production and the Ohio Class replacement program, the newest class of submarines.

The expansion includes Electric Boat's acquisition of land and buildings currently owned by Pfizer Corporation, as well upgrades to its existing facilities and equipment.

Jeff Clabaugh covers general assignment and provides business coverage for WTOP.

Source URL for original article: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2014/10/electric-boat-plans-31m-connecticut-expansion.html 

New Trident: “a program of highest national interest”

Editor's Note: As the following article makes clear, New Trident is the Navy's "top priority" in shipbuilding, and it's full steam ahead working towards building the first subs at an astronomical cost of at least $100 billion. All this despite the fact that no one has yet justified the need for 12 New Tridents (or any of the other proposed replacements for the other legs of the nuclear triad for that matter).

Energy Undersecretary: SSBN(X) Key to Maintaining Sub-based Leg of Nuclear Triad

By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent

Updated: October 30, 2014 10:02 AM in Seapower Magazine

WASHINGTON — Building a replacement for the nuclear-powered Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines is “a program of highest national interest,” the Energy Department official who oversees the Naval Nuclear Reactors effort to produce a new nuclear power plant for the future strategic deterrence boats said Oct. 29.

“It’s very, very important that we maintain this, the most survivable leg, of the [nuclear deterrence] triad,” said Frank Klotz, the undersecretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and head of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Klotz, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who had commanded the Air Force Global Strike Command, which manages the land-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear-capable bombers, said “the other two legs of the triad are equally important for the synergistic effects that they bring to the force. But this is one that we absolutely must get right.”

In a breakfast session with the Defense Writers Group, Klotz also talked about his agency’s efforts to extend the life and modernize the two types of nuclear warheads for the Trident D-5 strategic ballistic missiles that now arm the Ohios and will be used for the future strategic submarines.

In describing the array of programs he manages, Klotz said he has “special responsibility for Naval Reactors, which was started largely by ADM [Hiram] Rickover and still bears much of his imprint. It has been producing naval reactors for aircraft carriers and submarines for several decades now and continues to do that in an exemplary manner and safely.”

Naval Reactors, officially known as Naval Nuclear Propulsion and currently commanded by ADM John Richardson, was created in 1946 as part of the Manhattan Project and was led by Rickover for more than three decades.

“I will say, as a former Air Force officer, that I am extraordinarily impressed by both the capability and performance of America’s sea-launched nuclear deterrent force: the people, the equipment, the weapon system,” Klotz said.

The Navy has listed the Ohio-replacement program, commonly known as SSBN(X), as its “top priority” in shipbuilding and initially planned to start building the first submarine in 2019. The program has been revised to start construction of the lead boat in 2021.

The program of record is for 12 new submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class “boomers.” The smaller force is considered adequate because the plan is to produce a reactor that can last for the life of the boat, which could be 30 years or more.

Klotz said the life-of-the-ship reactor “is extraordinarily important on two levels. It’s extraordinarily important on cost, because one of the largest elements of the total operating costs of a nuclear submarine over its life has been replacing the (reactor) core when that has come due. That’s very expensive.

“The other aspect of that is when you go into the deep overhaul that is necessary to replace the core, you’re taking a submarine out of service, for a long time. And so, if you have a life-of-the-sub core, you avoid both cost and you avoid extensive down time as you refuel the reactor.”

According to Naval Reactors, “Reactor design work is ongoing and supports FY2019 [fiscal year 2019] Advance Procurement of long lead reactor plant components and FY2021 ship construction start. Reactor procurement is required in FY2019 to support delivery to the shipyard by FY2025.”

Klotz said his “great concern on the Ohio replacement — and for the elements of the other two legs of the triad — is the enormous cost that will be involved in those programs.”

The Navy has estimated the lead SSBN(X) could cost $12.4 billion, including $4.8 billion in non-recurring engineering and design work. NAVSEA officials hope to get the cost of the follow-on boats down to $4.9 billion. But that still would be more than one-third of usual annual shipbuilding budget.

Other elements of Klotz’s organization are working on programs to reduce the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, while extending the life and improving the safety and reliability of the existing warheads.

Two of the nuclear warheads in that effort are the W-76-1 and the W-88, which can be used in the independently targeted re-entry vehicles in the Trident missiles.

Klotz said the W-76s are halfway through a life-extension program to keep them operational for another 20 or 30 years, while the W-88s are in an alteration program that “will replace the arming, fuzing and firing assembly,” which was produced decades ago. “It’s time to refurbish that part of the overall system. And there also will be some limited life component changes made.”

Production has not started on the W-88 modernization, but testing has been completed on the new components.

Source URL for original article: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141029-dwgnukes.html?utm_source=NSSPI+News+Digest&utm_campaign=38e01ea1c9-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d96553fdd0-38e01ea1c9-407564469 

Taxpayers do NOT deserve a useless $100 billion nuclear weapons system!!!

General Dynamics Electric Boat's Congressional delegation, along with the Navy's chief of naval operations, is pumping up the company's next generation ballistic missile submarine program. Ostensibly "analytically sound, technically sound, good engineering and a deliberate management process to bring the best cost-value that the taxpayers deserve [according to Adm. Jonathan Greenert]," New Trident is anything but "analytically sound" or anything remotely resembling "the best cost value that the taxpayers deserve."

New Trident is quite simply PORK. It is a Cold War relic in search of a second life, and should it be reborn in its new incarnation, life on earth will certainly be threatened. Building a next generation first strike nuclear weapons system (and yes, Trident was originally developed to be used in a first strike capacity) will take the world down the rabbit hole of continued nuclear proliferation. Ballistic missile submarines are the newest must-have weapons systems for any nuclear nation, and the US (followed by Russia) is setting the example for the rest of the world.

As for what taxpayers deserve, it is anything but a $100 billion ("$80 billion" is low balling it) nuclear weapon system that we can never use (unless we want to end life on Earth as we know it). This is fiscal insanity!!! While Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Joe Courtney think that New Trident will be the "linchpin of the nation's defense," it provides no defense at all. The doctrine of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence, upon which the US bet all its chips during the Cold War, cannot stand up to a thorough analysis in the new world order. It is dangerous to continue espousing such an archaic doctrine.

The principal beneficiaries of this massively wasteful weapons program will be Electric Boat (and other contractors associated with the project), followed by their Congressional cheerleaders whose election coffers will benefit from the largess of companies like Electric Boat. The rest of us (taxpayers) will be left to foot the fill. We the Taxpayers of this nation do NOT deserve a useless $100 billion nuclear weapons system!!!

It is time to challenge our members of Congress to cut wasteful military spending, and New Trident is an important place to start. Are any of your members of Congress up for re-election this November? Now is the time to call their offices and ask where they stand on New Trident. What will they do during the lame duck session after the election - cut funding for New Trident or make sure it is fully funded??? And just who will we launch those Trident II D-5 missiles against when push comes to shove?!?!?!

Click here to get phone and email contact information for your Congress members.

Read on for the full article (appropriately located in the "Local Business" section of The Day Connecticut) from which I pulled the quotes used above. And then, make that phone call or send that email!!!

***********************

Blumenthal, Courtney tout program for Trident sub successor

By Scott Ritter
Day Staff Writer

Publication: theday.com

Published September 23. 2014

Lawmakers briefed on plans at EB

Groton — Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation vowed Tuesday to continue to press for funding for the nation’s next-generation ballistic-missile submarines, calling the $80 billion program a linchpin of the nation’s defense.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Joe Courtney, along with Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, received updates on the program in a briefing Tuesday at Electric Boat. EB is expected to begin detailed design work for the new sub — which will replace the Navy’s aging Ohio-class boats — in 2017.

“The essence here is this boat will be the strongest, stealthiest, most sustainable of any in the history of the word,” Blumenthal said at a press conference following the closed-door briefing. “And it will be that way for the remainder of the century, without exaggerating.”

The first of the 12 boats would begin patrolling the world’s oceans in 2031, four years after the Navy’s 18 Ohio-class submarines, which carry Trident missiles, begin retiring. Blumenthal and Courtney said the timing was critical.

“There’s really no margin for error here in terms of any delays that might be thrown out there for budget reasons,” said Courtney, D-2nd District. “Obviously, we’ve got to go back and get this done during the lame duck session” that begins after the November mid-term elections.

The House approved the annual defense-authorization bill in May, but the Senate has been slow to take it up. Blumenthal, a Democrat, said Senate leaders were committed to bringing it to a vote before Congress adjourns for the holidays.

Both measures include language for the new submarine class that “absolutely hits the mark … in terms of keeping the project on track,” Courtney said.

Construction of the new ballistic missile boats would begin in 2021. The submarines will take seven years to build, followed by three years of testing, according to EB.

Greenert, the Navy’s senior military officer and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said replacing the Ohio-class submarines “is my Number One program.”

“This is analytically sound, technically sound, good engineering and a deliberate management process to bring the best cost-value that the taxpayers deserve,” Greenert said.

s.ritter@theday.comTwitter: @scottwritter

Article source URL:  http://www.theday.com/article/20140923/BIZ02/140929904/1047/NWS

US ready to host Britain's NUKES if Scotland goes Rogue

As much as I strongly support Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, this recent headline made me question my position (if only for a moment).

"Send British nukes to US if Scotland votes Yes say military chiefs"

GREAT! As if the US doesn't already have far too many nuclear weapons!!!

Senior military officials in the UK told the Sunday Express that "BRITAIN’S independent nuclear deterrent should be moved to the Unites States if Scotland gains its independence."

Phew!!! It looks like Britain's four Tridents won't be sailing for King's Bay, Georgia any time soon. The article in the Express does, however, make for some very interesting reading.

First, the notion that Britain has an "independent" nuclear deterrent. Besides the Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles they lease from the United States, there is the issue of intelligence sharing with the UK. As Air Commodore Andrew Lambert put it, "we rely on the US for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence." Independent indeed!!!

Should Britain have to move its nuclear weapons operations "south of the border", it would (according to the article) "cost around £3bn and take up to ten years." On the other hand, "'renting space'" in the US would be cheap in comparison.

Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner is strongly supportive of the idea of basing the UK's Trident fleet in the US, and said such a proposal "would have very strong Republican support in Congress." No kidding!!! We certainly need more nuclear weapons, don't we?!?!?!

Of course, the conservative think tanks are all over this one.  "Luke Coffey, a former MoD [Ministry of Defence] aid to Dr Liam Fox and now with Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation said: 'In the chance that the vote is Yes, the first policy paper I will be writing is to recommend that the United States Government does allow the hosting of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.'"

Of course, Coffey couldn't resist slamming the French. “The US would make much more sense [as a base for the British Trident] than, say, France which is less dependable over this kind of issue." Sacre bleu!!!

Coffey did get one thing absolutely right: “There is zero debate here [the US] about nuclear weapons and the idea of having an extra four submarines would not be an issue." Yes, even TWELVE New Tridents are a non-issue!!! One would be hard pressed to find anything resembling a "debate", let alone any discussion of Trident and the issues surrounding it in the United States.

For now, British Trident will continue to sully Scottish soil. Both the British and Americans will continue preparing to build their new ballistic missile submarines. And while the debate continues over basing Trident on Scottish soil, we must do our best to engage people in the US in a serious discussion and debate about why we continue preparing to build the very means of humanity's extinction.

The most important piece here in the US will be putting pressure on Congress to strip funding for New Trident in the 2015 fiscal year funding cycle and beyond. If Rep. Sensenbrenner's comments are an indicator, we have a difficult task ahead of us.

Source URL for reference article: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510636/Nuclear-weapons-should-move-to-US-if-Scotland-independent  By Marco Giannangeli, published Sunday, September 14, 2014

New Trident: Can you say "$113 Billion"???

The Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments (CSBA) has released its "FY 2015 WEAPONS SYSTEMS HANDBOOK." The report covers a broad range of U.S. weapons systems, including nuclear weapons. The report provides an excellent graphic showing the increasing annual costs of the SSBN(X) program as it moves from research and development into the procurement (construction) phase toward its ultimate $113 billion price tag. The paragraph below is from the CSBA report:

The Navy’s current fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines is the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. The Navy has already extended the life of the Ohio-class boats beyond their original design life and plans to begin retiring them in the late 2020s. The Navy has begun a program to design and build a fleet of 12 replacement subs for the Ohio-class, but this program is not yet listed in the SAR. While the Navy has not yet released a formal cost estimate, some cost information can be derived from RDT&E funding included in the budget request and the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. Using the RDT&E funding identified for the program in the FY 2015 budget request and assuming roughly $5 billion in additional development funding will be needed in FY 2020 and beyond, the total RDT&E cost of the program is likely to total some $12 billion in then-year dollars. Navy plans indicate that procurement of the first sub will begin in FY 2021, followed by the second in FY 2024, and one sub per year from FY 2026 to FY 2035.123 Using a first unit cost of $12 billion and average procurement unit cost of $6.5 billion (in FY 2015 dollars), the total procurement costs would be roughly $101 billion (in then-year dollars).124 The total program cost would be $113 billion in then-year, or $90 billion in FY 2015 dollars, making it second to only the F-35 program in terms of future funding requirements.

New Trident Fiscal Year Expenditures (Source: FY 2015 WEAPONS SYSTEMS HANDBOOK )

Source URL for CSBA report: http://bit.ly/1nAlWLL

New Trident Creating New Submarine Arms Race: Opinion by Lawrence Wittner

Opinion: New nuclear submarine arms race poses great danger

The USS Louisiana arrives at its homeport, the Naval Submarine Base in Kings Bay, Ga., on Friday, Aug. 29, 1997. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy, John Hill)

Reprinted from The Times of Trenton guest opinion column originally published on August 12, 2014 at 6:04 AM

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Ever since the horrors of submarine warfare became a key issue during World War I, submarines have had a sinister reputation. And the building of new, immensely costly, nuclear-armed submarines by the U.S. government and others may soon raise the level of earlier anxiety to a nuclear nightmare.

This spring, the U.S. government continued its steady escalation of research and development funding for the replacement of its current nuclear submarine fleet through one of the most expensive shipbuilding undertakings in American history — starting in 2031, the phasing in of 12 new SSBN(X) submarines. Each of these nuclear-powered vessels, the largest submarines the Navy has ever built, will carry up to 16 Trident ballistic missiles fitted with multiple nuclear warheads. All in all, this new submarine fleet is expected to deploy about 1,000 nuclear warheads — 70 percent of the U.S. government’s strategic nuclear weapons.

From the standpoint of the U.S. military, nuclear-armed submarines are very attractive. Capable of being placed in hidden locations around the world and remaining submerged for months at a time, they are less vulnerable to attack than are ground-launched or air-launched nuclear weapons, the other two legs of the “nuclear triad.” Moreover, they can wreak massive death and destruction upon “enemy” nations quite rapidly.

From the standpoint of civilians, the new Trident submarine fleet is somewhat less appealing. Strategic nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons in world history, and the use of only one of them over a large city could annihilate millions of people instantly. If the thousands of such weapons available to the U.S. government and other governments were employed in war, they would incinerate most of the planet. Thereafter, radioactivity, disease, nuclear winter and starvation would end most remaining life on Earth.

Of course, even in an accident, such weapons could do incredible damage. And, over the years, nuclear-armed submarines have been in numerous accidents. In February 2009, a British and a French submarine, both nuclear-powered and armed with nuclear missiles, collided under water in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Although the two vessels were fitted with state-of-the-art detection equipment, neither spotted the other until it was too late to avert the collision. Fortunately, they were moving very slowly at the time, and the damage was limited (though enormously expensive to repair). But a sharper collision could have released vast quantities of radioactive fuel and flung their deadly nuclear warheads across the ocean floor.

In addition, when the dangers are so immense, it is worth keeping in mind that people, like the high-tech nuclear submarines, are not always infallible or reliable. Submarine crews — living in cramped quarters, bored and isolated for months at a time — could well be as plagued by the poor morale, dishonesty, drug use and incompetence found among their counterparts at land-based nuclear missile facilities.

Taxpayers, particularly, might be concerned about the unprecedented expense of this new submarine fleet. According to most estimates, building the 12 SSBN(X) submarines will cost about $100 billion. And there will be additional expenditures for the missiles, nuclear warheads and yearly maintenance, bringing the total tab to what the Pentagon estimated, three years ago, at $347 billion.

People might be forgiven for feeling some bewilderment at this immense U.S. government investment in a new nuclear weapons system. After all, back in April 2009, amid much fanfare, President Barack Obama proclaimed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” This was followed by a similar commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world made by the members of the U.N. Security Council, including five nuclear-armed nations, among them the United States. But, as this nuclear weapons buildup indicates, such commitments seem to have been tossed down the memory hole.

In arguing for the new Trident submarine fleet, U.S. military leaders have pointed to the fact that other nations are maintaining or building nuclear-armed submarines. And they are correct about that. France and Britain are maintaining their current fleets, although Britain is on the verge of beginning the construction of a new one with U.S. assistance; Israel reportedly possesses one; China is apparently ready to launch one in 2014; India is set to launch its own in 2015; and Pakistan might be working to develop one. Meanwhile, Russia is modernizing its own submarine ballistic missile fleet.

In this context, there is an obvious alternative to the current race to deploy the world’s deadliest weapons in the ocean depths. The nuclear powers could halt their building of nuclear-armed submarines and eliminate their present nuclear-armed submarine fleets. This action would not only honor their professed commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world, but would save their nations from making enormous expenditures and from the possibility of experiencing a catastrophe of unparalleled magnitude.

Why not act now, before this arms race to disaster goes any further?

Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany.

Follow The Times of Trenton on Twitter @TimesofTrenton. Find The Times of Trenton on Facebook.

© 2014 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

Editor's Note: Wittner's Op-Ed is reprinted here without anyone's permission, although with credit given to the Times of Trenton, NJ.Com for helping bring about a public conversation about nuclear weapons!

Source URL for original article:  http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/opinion_new_us_trident_submarine_fleet_is_unnecessary_dangerous_expense.html

New Trident Sinking Navy's Surface Ships

Can you hear the sound of the klaxon and the command to abandon ship??? Or perhaps it should be "battle stations" as senior naval staff fight over what surface ships will be funded (or cut) as the Ohio Class Replacement program busts the Navy's shipbuilding budget. The following article is likely the opening salvo in what could become a protracted struggle over which programs (and which ships) will be built (or not) "'during the period of construction of the Ohio replacement.'"

Nowhere in this current conversation on Navy shipbuilding is there any mention of the Navy's rationale for building 12 submarines to replace the current Trident fleet (beyond the existing party line - "strategic nuclear deterrence"). The time for this conversation and debate is NOW! It is time to abandon Trident!!!

*************************

Navy Cancelled New Destroyer Flight Due to Ohio Replacement Submarine Costs

By Sam LaGrone
Published July 14, 2014 in USNI News

USS Truxtun (DDG-103) on July 9, 2014. US Navy Photo

The looming hit to the shipbuilding budget from the Navy’s plan to build 12 new nuclear ballistic missile submarines resulted in the cancellation of a fourth flight of Arleigh Burke destroyers (DDG-51) as well as the controversial plan to layup 11 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers (CG-47), the navy’s chief shipbuilder told a congressional panel in a recent hearing on cruiser and destroyer modification.

The shifts in the Navy’s large surface combatants come as the $100 billion bill for the 12 new boomers begin to take up more and more of the Navy’s shipbuilding budget — leaving less and less for other shipbuilding programs.

From 2021 to 2035, the service’s estimated shipbuilding budget will rise to about $24 billion a year at the peak of the Ohio replacement program, almost double the service’s traditional yearly outlays.

One of the largest future problems for the surface forces is how to coordinate the air defense of the carrier strike group — a role built into the aging Ticonderogas and not a native function of existing Arleigh Burkes.

“We need an air defense commander with deploying battle groups,” Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA), told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces in a Thursday hearing. “11 carriers, 11 carrier battle groups, 11 air defense commanders.”

Now, the air defense commander is the skipper of accompanying cruiser. The ship’s combat information center (CIC) has room for consoles and a staff of three to four for the carrier protection role.

“Our cruisers are commanded by a captain with a more senior staff on the ship and more individuals dedicated to the planning and execution of the air defense mission for the carrier strike group,” Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, the outgoing director of surface warfare (N96) for the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) told the panel. “That’s really how we drive that requirement for the cruisers and the air defense commander on the ship.”

Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea
(CG-58) and USS George Washington (CVN-77) on July 2, 2014.
US Navy Photo

Until the current budget, the follow-on to the air defense commander role was to be filled with a new flight of Arleigh Burke that would be built to fill the air defense commander role, Stackley said.

“We need to recapitalize those [cruisers] with a future ship class, either an upgrade to a DDG-51 — a Flight IV type of ship — or a cruiser,” Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA), told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces in a Thursday hearing. “We do not have the ability to do that during the period of construction of the Ohio replacement.”

Including an air defense commander capability on the upcoming Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke is unlikely given the limited margin remaining in the ship once the planned Air and Missile Defense Radar is installed, USNI News understands.

Absent a Flight IV and the next future surface combatant not due to start construction until 2028, the Navy wants to keep the cruisers that it has.

In February, the Navy proposed to layup half of its cruiser force in in a cost savings plan that would preserve the air defense component of the carrier strike group (CSG) and reduce manpower and operations and maintenance cost of the total 22 ship force to the tune of $4.7 billion.

The 11 ships would all go in layup by Fiscal Year 2016 and would come out of layup one at a time, receive a modernization upgrade to extend the cruisers into the 2040s and likewise the cruiser air defense commander role.

The plan has met resistance in Congress. Last month the House Appropriations Committee limited instructed the Navy to sideline no more than two Ticonderogas a year starting in Fiscal Year 2016 and have no more than six in lay up at any one given time.

###

Original source URL:  http://news.usni.org/2014/07/14/navy-cancelled-new-destroyer-flight-due-ohio-replacement-submarine-costs

Breaking Bad: The SSBN(X) Version

Finally a senior official in the U.S. Navy has uttered the word "unsustainable" in reference to funding the extraordinarily expensive OHIO Class replacement submarines. Of course, that hasn't altered the Navy's plans in the least (it's still living in a Cold War Nuclear Deterrence world!!!). It's still full steam ahead for a weapons system that can never be used, will continue to create a global nuclear proliferation nightmare, and put any possible hopes for cooperative global disarmament efforts on hold for who knows how many lifetimes. Read all about it below in this article from Breaking Defense.

"All bad things must come to an end," especially TRIDENT!!!

**************

Navy Finally Admits It Can’t Afford Fleet, Esp. New SSBNs

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.

Originally published in Breaking Defense on July 08, 2014

WASHINGTON: “Unsustainable.” That’s the Navy’s own official assessment of the spending rates required to keep the fleet large and modern enough to do its missions. For the service to state this in writing ratchets up not just the rhetoric but the likelihood of future budget battles in the Pentagon and on the Hill — especially over the immensely expensive program to replace aging Ohio-class nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs), which the Navy desperately wants someone else to pay for.

Every year, the Navy publishes a 30-year shipbuilding plan. Every year, both partisan and neutral observers deride it as fiscally unrealistic: “The way you fund the shipbuilding plan is fantasyland,” House seapower subcommittee chairman Randy Forbes once told me. But this year, for the first time, the Navy plan itself admits it can’t be done.

Senior admirals and officials have been increasingly candid in recent months about the mismatch between the ships they want to build and the money they’ll have to build them. But they’ve never before been quite this blunt, not in an official report to Congress.

“The Navy’s started to be a lot more blunt when [Rear] Admiral [Richard] Breckenridge testified before HASC last fall,” one Hill staffer told me. “At the time we thought he was leaning forward, but eight months later, it seems to be a consensus issue” among Navy leaders.

Last year’s report, submitted along with the 2014 budget request, said blandly that “the Department [of the Navy] will encounter several challenges in executing this shipbuilding plan.” In stark contrast, this year’s report – sent to Congress months late, on July 1st – says bluntly that “it requires funding at an unsustainable level, particularly between FY25 and FY34.”

In particular, the new report continues, “the DON can only afford the SSBN procurement costs with significant increases in our top-line or by having the SSBN funded from sources that do not result in any reductions to the DON’s resourcing level.”

Navy boosters like Rep. Forbes have long argued that the at-sea leg of the nuclear triad is so important – and so expensive – that the Defense Department as a whole should bear the cost, not just the Navy budget. Admirals have said so as well. But to make the argument in the official shipbuilding plan amounts to a declaration of war against the traditional division of the budget among the four armed services.

What was unthinkable not too long ago, however, is now up for a vote in Congress. “I think we moved the ball with the SSBN special funding line,” the staffer told me. Despite bitter differences on many other issues, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have approved language creating a “national sea-based deterrence fund” outside the regular Navy budget to pay for the Ohio replacement. (The House passed the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, but the full Senate has yet to vote).

The Ohio replacement isn’t the Navy’s only problem, though. With the new SSBN, the Navy estimates – arguably over-optimistically – that it will require an average of $17.2 billion a year for shipbuilding from 2020 through 2035, one-third more than the recent years’ average of $13 billion. But even without the Ohio Replacement Program, the plan admits, they’d still be a couple billion over, at $14-15 billion a year. What’s more, while the Ohio replacement cost peaks after 2025, the costs of replacing other aging ships spike earlier, in the early 2020s.

The problem is the Navy is still living off the Reagan buildup. “Most of our current fleet is comprised of ships being built between 1980 and 1990,” the plan says. With most classes prone to wear out after about 30 to 35 years of service at sea, that means “block obsolescence” and mass retirements from now through 2025. “These retiring ships will need to be recapitalized at rates that are unaffordable in today’s environment.”

Particularly under pressure is the Navy’s cruiser fleet, the aging CG-47 Ticonderoga class. In the past, the service has proposed retiring seven older “Ticos” to save money, only to be shot down brutally by Congress. In this year’s budget, however, the Navy suggests semi-mothballing 11 of the 22 cruisers for years, then returning them to service, with modernized equipment, when the other 11 retire. This “innovative approach,” the plan says, “will enable us to spread retirements across longer periods and mitigate the impact of block retirement.”

Republicans, however, remain deeply skeptical that the Navy will ever bring the cruisers back. The Democrat-led SASC approved the mothball plan, but the Republican-lead HASC did not. That sets up a conference battle over whether to keep the ships – and where to get the money to keep them when sequestration is set to slash the budget.

###

Source article URL:  http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/mission-unsustainable-navy-officially-admits-it-cant-afford-future-fleet/

Doom from the Depths: Coming Your Way!!!

Lawrence S. Wittner, PhD, who wrote Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, has now written a concise, clear argument against building a new generation of ballistic missile submarines.

Published earlier today on the History News Network, Wittner's essay makes a compelling case for scrapping plans for New Trident. The US Government's current quest for nuclear weapons modernization is sending a clear message to other nations; and they are certainly (based on the evidence) following our example.

Wittner states what should be obvious: "Why not act now, before this arms race to disaster goes any further?"

**********************

Do We Really Want a New Generation of Nuclear-Armed Submarines?

by Lawrence S. Wittner

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, "What’s Going On at UAardvark?"

Ever since the horrors of submarine warfare became a key issue during World War I, submarines have had a sinister reputation. And the building of new, immensely costly, nuclear-armed submarines by the U.S. government and others may soon raise the level of earlier anxiety to a nuclear nightmare.

This spring, the U.S. government continued its steady escalation of research and development funding for the replacement of its current nuclear submarine fleet through one of the most expensive shipbuilding undertakings in American history -- the phasing-in, starting in 2031, of 12 new SSBN(X) submarines. Each of these nuclear-powered vessels, the largest submarines the Navy has ever built, will carry up to 16 Trident ballistic missiles fitted with multiple nuclear warheads. All in all, this new submarine fleet is expected to deploy about 1,000 nuclear warheads -- 70 percent of U.S. government’s strategic nuclear weapons.

From the standpoint of the U.S. military, nuclear-armed submarines are very attractive. Capable of being placed in hidden locations around the world and remaining submerged for months at a time, they are less vulnerable to attack than are ground-launched or air-launched nuclear weapons, the other two legs of the “nuclear triad.” Moreover, they can wreak massive death and destruction upon “enemy” nations quite rapidly. The Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review of 2014 explained that the U.S. Navy’s future fleet would “deliver the required presence and capabilities and address the most important war-fighting scenarios.”

From the standpoint of civilians, the new Trident submarine fleet is somewhat less appealing. Strategic nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons in world history, and the use of only one of them over a large city could annihilate millions of people instantly. If the thousands of such weapons available to the U.S. government and other governments were employed in war, they would incinerate most of the planet, reducing it to charred rubble. Thereafter, radioactivity, disease, nuclear winter, and starvation would end most remaining life on earth.

Of course, even in an accident, such weapons could do incredible damage. And, over the years, nuclear-armed submarines have been in numerous accidents. In February 2009, a British and a French submarine, both nuclear-powered and armed with nuclear missiles, collided underwater in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Although the two vessels were fitted with state-or-the-art detection equipment, neither spotted the other until it was too late to avert their collision. Fortunately, they were moving very slowly at the time, and the damage was limited (though enormously expensive to repair). But a sharper collision could have released vast quantities of radioactive fuel and flung their deadly nuclear warheads across the ocean floor.

In addition, when the dangers are so immense, it is worth keeping in mind that people, like the high-tech nuclear submarines, are not always infallible or reliable. Submarine crews -- living in cramped quarters, bored, and isolated for months at a time -- could well be as plagued by the poor morale, dishonesty, drug use, and incompetence found among their counterparts at land-based nuclear missile facilities.

Taxpayers, particularly, might be concerned about the unprecedented expense of this new submarine fleet. According to most estimates, building the 12 SSBN(X) submarines will cost about $100 billion. And there will be additional expenditures for the missiles, nuclear warheads, and yearly maintenance, bringing the total tab to what the Pentagon estimated, three years ago, at $347 billion. The expected cost is so astronomical, in fact, that the Navy, frightened that this expenditure will prevent it from paying for other portions of its shipbuilding program, has insisted that the money come from a special fund outside of its budget. This spring, Congress took preliminary steps along these lines.

People might be forgiven for feeling some bewilderment at this immense U.S. government investment in a new nuclear weapons system -- one slated to last well into the 2070s. After all, back in April 2009, amid much fanfare, President Barack Obama proclaimed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” This was followed by a similar commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world made by the members of the UN Security Council, including five nuclear-armed nations, among them the United States. But, as this nuclear weapons buildup indicates, such commitments seem to have been tossed down the memory hole.

In arguing for the new Trident submarine fleet, U.S. military leaders have pointed to the fact that other nations are maintaining or building nuclear-armed submarines. And they are correct about that. France and Britain are maintaining their current fleets, although Britain is on the verge of beginning the construction of a new one with U.S. assistance; Israel reportedly possesses one; China is apparently ready to launch one in 2014; India is set to launch its own in 2015; and Pakistan might be working to develop one. Meanwhile, Russia is modernizing its own submarine ballistic missile fleet.

Even so, the current U.S. nuclear-armed submarine fleet is considerably larger than any developed or being developed by other nations. Also, the U.S. government’s new Trident fleet, now on the drawing boards, is slated to be 50 percent larger than the new, modernized Russian fleet and, in addition, far superior technologically. Indeed, other nations currently turning out nuclear-armed submarines – like China and Russia -- are reportedly launching clunkers.

In this context, there is an obvious alternative to the current race to deploy the world’s deadliest weapons in the ocean depths. The nuclear powers could halt their building of nuclear-armed submarines and eliminate their present nuclear-armed submarine fleets. This action would not only honor their professed commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world, but would save their nations from making enormous expenditures and from the possibility of experiencing a catastrophe of unparalleled magnitude.

Why not act now, before this arms race to disaster goes any further?

###

Original Source URL at History News Network: http://hnn.us/article/156221 

Editor's Note: The blog post title is the original title given to this article by Wittner. 

Trident, Jobs AND Transition... or, Moving The Money!!!

Every community should have sustainable, long-term, good jobs now and for the future. Every level of government has a role to play to make that become a reality.

That statement opens a July 2nd Opinion piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about transitioning from an economy dependent on "defense" jobs to a local and sustainable economy. Although this opening does not mention the role of citizens in this process, the article makes it clear that local citizen engagement is key to making transition work.

Whether tanks or Trident, the essential process is the same in terms of local, citizen engagement in the process. Of course, in the case of Trident, we have a very steep hill to climb. There is no lack of funding to keep the Trident nuclear weapons system functioning 24/7 patrolling the seas ready to launch its Trident II D-5 missiles bristling with thermonuclear warheads at any location on the globe.

Therefore, the local economy is well stimulated by nuclear weapons spending, and there is little incentive to change. Just here in Kitsap County, tens of thousands of people depend on Trident to support themselves and their families. It will require a significant paradigm shift in our thinking about nuclear weapons to enable us to consider the utility (or lack thereof) of the Trident nuclear weapons system and ultimately make the important transition to local, civilian, sustainable economy.

What might the land where Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor and Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific look like in a future without Trident? What local, sustainable industries might this valuable land bordering Hood Canal support? How do we create the critical paradigm shift so necessary to create an opening for abolition and ultimately a local, sustainable economy???

Judith LeBlanc, Field Director for Peace Action shared the July 2nd opinion piece by email. Here is what she had to say:

The oped is the prelude to the efforts to utilize the Office of Economic Adjustment grant in Oshkosh as a public engagement opportunity on defense industry transition. The author participated in the Move the Money training conducted by Peace Action and National Priorities Project and is a part of the core organizing to develop a statewide strategy on defense industry transition. 

It will also be printed in the Capitol Times in Madison and reprinted in a regional labor publication. 

The oped and the planning underway in WI coming out of the Move the Money Training is an example of how relationship building, a proactive response to a local jobs crisis and a national effort to begin to answer the question what comes next when we do succeed in cutting the Pentagon budget come together. The next steps are being discussed: possible referenda, building support for a bi-partisan support for a state bill to establish "defense transition" commission as well as continued public education through local events along side of bird dogging during the midterm elections. 

The layoffs at Preisler's plant were not from cuts to the Pentagon budget. They were due to contracts ending from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. But it shows how we can join with labor now to plot the steps for a just transition from dependency on defense contracts for good paying union jobs to a local sustainable economy.

When it comes to the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Trident and the hundreds of billions to be spent on New Trident, is this money spent on weapons intended (by their very design) for omnicide a good investment??? May we, as citizens join together to say NO To NEW TRIDENT and YES to LIFE and LOCAL, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES!!!

Click here to read Future of the State Workforce, By Joe Preisler,  former president of UAW Local 578

Source URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-future-of-states-workforce-b99303692z1-265610181.html

Summary of the Important Facts on New Trident

If you are looking for a brief, easy-to-read overview of the Navy's Trident replacement program, you've come to the right place. Gabrielle Tarini, an intern at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has done an excellent job of summarizing the salient facts surrounding the Ohio-Class Replacement Program, aka: SSBN(X). I've reprinted it here complete with all of her reference links.

The SSBN(X) is part of the Pentagon's nuclear modernization plan, which, as Tarini reminds us, has been called a '"modernization mountain"' according to "one former Pentagon official." It is most definitely a mountain of Everest proportion as well as risk, and it's definitely a long fall.

**************************

 

Fact Sheet: The Ohio-Class 

Replacement Ballistic Submarine Program

by Gabrielle Tarini, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation

June 16, 2014

Background

The Ohio-Class Replacement program, also known as the SSBN(X), is a program to design and build a new class of 12 ballistic missile submarines to replace the U.S. Navy’s current force of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.

Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) form “the most survivable leg” of the U.S. nuclear triad, and are armed with Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

The first of the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs will reach the end of its 42-year service life in 2027. The remaining 13 boats will reach the end of their service lives at a rate of about one ship per year thereafter.

Only 12 rather than 14 SSBN(X)s will be needed to fulfill the Navy’s current strategic nuclear deterrent requirement of 10 operational (i.e. not undergoing maintenance activities) boats at sea at any given time because the SSBN(X) will be built with a life-of-the-ship nuclear reactor core. Thus, only 2 SSBN(X)s will be unavailable for service at any given moment.

The first Ohio-class replacement boat was scheduled to be procured in FY2019, but the Navy’s FY2013 budget deferred its procurement by two years to FY2021, largely due to fiscal constraints in the wake of the passage of the 2011 Budget Control Act. As a result of the deferment, the Navy will be left with only 10 total boats during the 2030s.

Financial Costs

The Navy’s FY2014 30-year shipbuilding plan estimated that the lead boat in the program will cost $12 billion. The cost of boats 2-12 was initially estimated by the Navy at $6 billion to $7 billion; however, the Department of Defense established that the target average cost per submarine should be $4.9 billion. The Navy has since undertaken cost cutting measures, but as of April 2014, it had only reduced the average unit cost to $5.36 billion. The Navy estimates the total 50-year lifecycle cost at $347 billion.

Some independent estimates of the cost to build the SSBN(X) are higher than the Navy’s estimate of approximately $77 billion (not including research and development). For example, an October 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put the procurement cost at $87 billion and the total development cost (including research and development) at over $100 billion.

The Modernization Mountain

The SSBN(X) is part of a larger effort to rebuild the U.S. nuclear triad and its associated warheads over the next 25-30 years. The procurement of the SSBN(X) will overlap in the 2020s with the Pentagon’s plan to spend an estimated $81 billion on a new generation of long-range strike bombers, some or all of which will be nuclear capable, and additional tens of billions of dollars on a new nuclear cruise missile and a new ICBM or life extension of the existing Minuteman III ICBM.

This ambitious nuclear modernization plan will create what one former Pentagon official has called a “modernization mountain” in the budget in the mid part of the next decade.

Many current and former government and military officials believe that it will be unaffordable to rebuild all three legs of the nuclear triad at the same time.

Opportunity Costs

Even with the Navy’s current effort to reduce the estimated unit cost of the SSBN(X) toward the $4.9 billion DOD target figure, there is concern that the program could crowd out funding for other Navy shipbuilding programs in the 2020s and early 2030s.

According to Navy officials, if the Navy were to fund the Ohio-Class Replacement program from its current shipbuilding budget, it would consume a third to half of the money in the budget and force the Navy to forgo the acquisition of up to 32 naval vessels.

Vice Admiral William Burke, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, stated that if the Navy bought the 12 planned SSBN(X)s with its own funds, the resulting battle force would be unable meet the current requirements to field a 306-ship fleet.

Possible Solutions

There have been several solutions proposed to lower the cost of the Ohio-Class Replacement program and its impact on funding available for other Navy shipbuilding programs:

1. Use a single block buy contract to consolidate the Ohio-class replacement boats and Virginia-class boats when their production synchronizes during the mid-2020s:

• A block buy contract could offer savings that would not be realized using separate contracts for the two submarine programs. 
• If the Navy decides to propose such a contract it would develop a legislative proposal in 2017.

2. Lengthen the procurement schedule and procure one SSBN(X) every two years rather than the Navy’s planned rate of one year:

• This option would not reduce the program’s total cost, but rather could reduce the impact of the program on the amount of funding available for other ships in certain years.
• However, this option could result in a loss of learning at the ship yard in moving from the one SSBN(X) to the next and create additional costs.

3. Fund SSBN(X) outside the Navy’s shipbuilding budget:

• This option would preserve Navy shipbuilding funds for other Navy shipbuilding programs.
• There is precedent for such an arrangement—most spending for missile defense (which is viewed as national program spending) is not funded through the individual military services.
• Supporters of this option also argue that strategic nuclear deterrence is a national mission, and thus the burden of the cost of the program should not fall on the Navy.
• Critics of this option argue that a special fund discourages hard choices and is unrealistic because the Pentagon must still find extra money for the program. It could also prompt the Army and Air Force to lobby for special treatment for some of their big-ticket procurement programs as well.

4. Cut the planned number of SSBN(x)s:

• A 2011 report published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) suggested that the Navy reduce the number of SSBN(X)s in the fleet to 10, but increase the number of launch tubes on each submarine to 20; this could save the Navy $7 billion over the life of the fleet.
• A 2013 report by the Stimson Center also suggests cutting the planned buy of SSBN(X)s from 12 to 10, with 16 launch tubes on each submarine. This recommendation would save $1 billion in the near term and an additional $10 billion in the 2020s.
• A 2013 report by the CBO on options for reducing the federal budget deficit analyzed the option of reducing the SSBN(X) force to 8 boats. The savings under this option would total $15.7 billion from 2015-2023. During the 2030s, this option could save an additional $30 billion by avoiding the purchase of 4 more replacement submarines. An 8 boat force would still provide a robust deterrent, and the Navy could still deploy the maximum number of warheads at sea consistent with New START.
• The Navy initially planned to purchase 24 Ohio-class boats; however, in 1991 Congress directed the termination of the program with the 18th boat, citing anticipated force limits under START-1. Not long after, 4 boats were converted into a conventional only role, bringing the number of nuclear submarines down to 14.

Congressional Action

Congress appropriated $1.1 billion in FY2014 for the Ohio-Class Replacement program.

The FY2015 budget request of $1.29 billion for the program is $190 million above the FY2014 appropriation.

The House and Senate Armed Services committees included provisions in their respective version of the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that would create a special National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to cover the cost of the Ohio-class submarine replacement outside of the Navy budget. Lawmakers hope that the bill would eliminate the competition for funding between the SSBN(X) and other shipbuilding projects—at least directly. As noted above, critics of the fund contend that the money for the SSBN(X) would simply be paid out of someone else’s (i.e. the Army or Air Force’s) budget, and argue that giving the Navy a pass on tough budget choices by the creation of a special fund would not solve the problem.

Gabrielle Tarini is a Summer 2014 intern at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation

Link to original article: http://armscontrolcenter.org/publications/factsheets/fact_sheet_the_ohio-class_replacement_ballistic_submarine_program/