So we are testing ICBMs again?

[MGW]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/27/us-flexes-muscle-tests-icbm-off-california-coast.html?intcmp=hpbt1

From the article:

"An unarmed Minuteman 3 nuclear missile was shot into the California night sky Thursday amid tensions with North Korea and Russia.

The missile was fired at 11:01 p.m. off the California coastline and was carrying a payload of test instruments. It was aimed toward the waters of the Kwajalein Atoll, an island chain about 2,500 miles southwest of Honolulu.

Col. Craig Ramsey, commander of the 576th Flight test Squadron, said the re-entry vehicle that carries the missile’s payload reached its target 30 minutes after the launch.

This was the second missile test the Air Force conducted this month in a series designed to confirm the reliability of the Cold War-era missile and all its components. The Minuteman 3, first deployed in 1970, has long exceeded its original 10-year lifespan. It is so old that vital parts are no longer in production."

What the #uck over? What are we doing here?

We basically just told the world we're still willing to nuke your ass despite our incompetence at any kind of coherent domestic or foreign policy.

Because, you know, if you use chemical weapons we'll say really bad things about you and spend a few million dollars to say we're training sumdudes to come and get you. But in reality we're going to watch Russia et all escalate a civil war into a world conflict.

Oh, and just for good measure we're going to make sure Iran can rebuild their military and develop their own nukes so they can play too.

I don't really have a good feeling about this. Anyone have a tin hat I can borrow?

[JV_]

We basically just told the world we're still willing to nuke your ass despite our incompetence at any kind of coherent domestic or foreign policy.

I don't think many of our adversaries fear us using nukes, or even a 5.56 for that matter, under the Obama administration.

[Chance]

ICBM testing is pretty much continuous. They have launches on a regular basis. The Navy tested one in November that freaked out parts of southern California (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/nov/07/mystery-light-sky-military-navy-drill/).

[RevolverRob]

Unarmed ICBMs have the potential to be used for a variety of things, not just as a nuclear threat. This one carried a range of test instruments, probably to gather information on trajectory, speed, atmosphere, etc.

If we are going to nuke another country, chances are high we are going to a bomb from a stealth plane or a nuclear cruise missile from a submarine. If we intended to "rattle sabres" at potential foes, we would have done missile launch "tests" from ships, subs, and/or planes. Sort of like how every once in awhile we sail a little "too close" to Chinese waters. GPS guidance is good enough to keep us out of Chinese waters. It's just us letting them know.

-Rob

[Jay Cunningham]

Rest assured God Emperor Trump will test many ICBMs in joint exercises with Glorious Leader Putin.

[Arbninftry]

We do this every year. If you really want to be pissed, you should see the shitholes we send our special forces to, with limited ammo every year. Sending a Special Forces Company with only small arms, and telling them your host nation will help you, and letting you flap in the wind with only maybe embassy support, can only lead to disaster. After all we know the State Department will really be there for you.
Can you say Ben Ghazi

[MGW]

I realize that Minuteman missiles can be launched unarmed. I didn't realize that we still tested them. Given the state of the world it just seems like a dumb thing to do. We know they work already.

I don't know, for some reason it seems different from buzzing an "island" near China.

Maybe it's because I don't trust the dude holding the button. Or any of his perspective replacements for that matter.

[LHS]

Oh, we know they worked at one point. Question is, do they still work nearly half a century later?

[Luke]

Aaaaand why are we using old stuff? With the technology we have today surely we can still build them?

[Chance]

Aaaaand why are we using old stuff? With the technology we have today surely we can still build them?

Developing, fielding, or constructing anything involving nukes is restricted by START and other treaties.

[Ntexwheels]

These launchings are just our wonderful government at it's fantastic best.. NOT.

[JV_]

I wonder how many of these launches are about testing the missiles, or our missile defense systems, and testing their ability to track objects.

[Andy in NH]

What the #uck over? What are we doing here?

Just like rotating the round in your chamber from time to time... <wink>


Oh, we know they worked at one point. Question is, do they still work nearly half a century later?

There are a number of articles that discuss Service Life Extension Programs here's one (http://thebulletin.org/pentagon-pushes-billions-refurbish-nuclear-bombs).


At an estimated cost of more than $11 billion, the life-extension program for the B61 bomb would be the most ambitious and expensive nuclear warhead refurbishment in history.


Aaaaand why are we using old stuff? With the technology we have today surely we can still build them?

I read an article some time ago (can't currently find the link) that stated the U.S. has not built a nuclear warhead since the late '80s and that all the people who know how to do it are retired and starting to pass away.

[JV_]

and that all the people who know how to do it are retired and starting to pass away.I'd believe that the people who've actually built one are passing away. I find it difficult to believe we haven't thoroughly documented the process.

[ranger]

We live in interesting times. Russia flexing muscles in Europe and NATO toothless after using the peace dividend to disarm, China flexing muscles in Asia, North Korea launching their crude version of a ICBM, Middle East even more messed up than usual - just read an article that said our ICBM test launches were a reminder that we still are a force to be reckoned with - if we choose to use that force.

We seem to be back in Cold War version 2 .......

US Army is scrambling to relearn old school "Decisive Operations" or whatever it is called now after about 13 years of counterinsurgency.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'd believe that the people who've actually built one are passing away. I find it difficult to believe we haven't thoroughly documented the process.

You'd be shocked then.

[Chuck Haggard]

Aaaaand why are we using old stuff? With the technology we have today surely we can still build them?

We may be higher tech now in many ways, but we also no longer have the ability to put a man on the moon. Just one example of what we can't do anymore.

[LOKNLOD]

This is just Obama trying to burn through them before Trump gets the keys...

:p

[MGW]

I wonder how many of these launches are about testing the missiles, or our missile defense systems, and testing their ability to track objects.

Hadn't thought of that. Probably a pretty good guess.

[Chance]

I'd believe that the people who've actually built one are passing away. I find it difficult to believe we haven't thoroughly documented the process.

There's a spectacular amount of tacit knowledge involved in such things. It resists even the most robust documentation.

[JV_]

There's a spectacular amount of tacit knowledge involved in such things. It resists even the most robust documentation.

Yes, I suspect you're right.

What comes after nukes? Is there a new tech in bombs where we're focusing our efforts?

[LHS]

I'd believe that the people who've actually built one are passing away. I find it difficult to believe we haven't thoroughly documented the process.

Even the most thorough documentation has unconscious assumptions in it. People who know the process intimately frequently forget about some little tidbit of vital knowledge they just know, but don't think about other people not knowing.

When I changed teams at work last year, I was replacing a guy who had built the installation from the ground up and documented it. I could barely make heads or tails of what he wrote, and despite two other pros assisting me, there are aspects we still haven't quite figured out, because of the little tidbits like that. I'd sure as hell hate to be in charge of a national security-level thing like nuclear missiles relying only on what my unreachable predecessors wrote down in the documentation.

[olstyn]

You'd be shocked then.

Regardless of whether the exact build process for missile warheads is documented, the physics is pretty well-known science. It's not like we'd be starting from a blank slate if for some reason we had to replace the whole arsenal.

[Chance]

Yes, I suspect you're right.

What comes after nukes? Is there a new tech in bombs where we're focusing our efforts?

Probably finding new and innovative ways to dump money into the F-35.

[Chuck Haggard]

I know a guy who knows some stuff about this stuff, without getting too deep into the weeds, they were a bit surprised when they cracked open a nuke awhile back for a systems check and to rehab the thing.

They had to start making phone calls and figure out who wasn't dead or too old to come back in and help out.

[PPGMD]

Developing, fielding, or constructing anything involving nukes is restricted by START and other treaties.

START limits the number of warhead per a missile. But there is nothing against developing new nukes, nor missiles. In fact the Russians are presently in the process of developing a new ICBM.

What we are really restricted on is new nuclear weapon designs. And not because we are prohibited from developing new nukes, but because of the various treaties prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons we have no way of knowing if the new design would actually work outside the computer.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Even the most thorough documentation has unconscious assumptions in it. People who know the process intimately frequently forget about some little tidbit of vital knowledge they just know, but don't think about other people not knowing.

When I changed teams at work last year, I was replacing a guy who had built the installation from the ground up and documented it. I could barely make heads or tails of what he wrote, and despite two other pros assisting me, there are aspects we still haven't quite figured out, because of the little tidbits like that. I'd sure as hell hate to be in charge of a national security-level thing like nuclear missiles relying only on what my unreachable predecessors wrote down in the documentation.

You mean like this problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK