Nuclear Modernization

[H Nelson]

Nuclear Modernisation

The Minuteman III missile has been modernised over the years. It has new boost stages, new guidance systems, even the new MK21 warhead. In fact, we could probably call it the "Minuteman III and a half". But what about its command and control system?

Well, the MMIII Nuclear C2 system is clearly aging. We are still using facilities from the '60s, and computer technology from the '80s. Our command cables have been buried in soft earth for decades, and god knows how long they will last.

Nuclear Weapons are still the US's 'defense backstop'. They are as critical as F-35s, Aircraft Carriers, Satellites, and Tanks. I want to know what the members of this esteemed forum think.

 

[Rimasta]

I do believe our strategic forces need an overhaul. While updating old equipment in my opinion should always be a given I see Russia and China working on newer generations of ICBM's & SRBM's designed with the idea of overcoming ABM defenses. Pakistan and India are in a similar arms race with strategic arms. The United States did retire it's fleet of more advanced peacekeeper missiles in a arms deal with Russia but I doubt the fleet of Minuteman 3's and Trident D-5's will be viable options in the face of integrated and layered ABM defenses. Therefore in order to maintain America's strategic deterrence I believe it necessary to upgrade many features of our offensive strategic forces.

 

[H Nelson]

I do believe our strategic forces need an overhaul. While updating old equipment in my opinion should always be a given I see Russia and China working on newer generations of ICBM's & SRBM's designed with the idea of overcoming ABM defenses. Pakistan and India are in a similar arms race with strategic arms. The United States did retire it's fleet of more advanced peacekeeper missiles in a arms deal with Russia but I doubt the fleet of Minuteman 3's and Trident D-5's will be viable options in the face of integrated and layered ABM defenses. Therefore in order to maintain America's strategic deterrence I believe it necessary to upgrade many features of our offensive strategic forces.

I agree. Its shows a lot of foresight for those countries to develop ABM counter measures when the US hasn't even developed a viable ABM system!

 

[T.C.P]

With the current state of the US's economy, I don't think building a whole new system will be a viable option here, how ever the US should keep up a continuous process of modernization of its nuclear capabilities to ensure that their systems can always hit their target, and so that they can always have an edge over their potential enemies.

 

[H Nelson]

With the current state of the US's economy, I don't think building a whole new system will be a viable option here, how ever the US should keep up a continuous process of modernisation of its nuclear capabilities to ensure that their systems can always hit their target, and so that they can always have an edge over their potential enemies.

Agreed. Modernisation of the MMIII has outpaced its command systems updates. Creating a new control computer isn't as sexy as making a better booster, but it can go a long way to ensuring a reliable deterrent.

These are the most destructive weapons on Earth, they deserve the best. Actually, we probably have a duty to ensure they have the best. I wonder which congressman will take up my cause...maybe one from Utah where they build the MMIII.

 

[My2Cents]

Well, the MMIII Nuclear C2 system is clearly aging. We are still using facilities from the '60s, and computer technology from the '80s. Our command cables have been buried in soft earth for decades, and god knows how long they will last.

Well, the physical facilities (silos, etc.) should be in decent shape if they are properly maintained. The computers have undoubtedly been upgraded several times, simply because it is impossible to get some of the parts anymore.

The cables come down to the question of whether they are simply buried or are in conduits, and the presence of ground water. It is likely for many reasons (such as EMP) that the cables are in conduits, in which case it should be relatively simple to pull though new cables through. It is also likely that the entire complex is located above the water table, so the conduits would be in decent shape after only 50 years.

 

[H Nelson]

Well, the physical facilities (silos, etc.) should be in decent shape if they are properly maintained. The computers have undoubtedly been upgraded several times, simply because it is impossible to get some of the parts anymore.

The cables come down to the question of whether they are simply buried or are in conduits, and the presence of ground water. It is likely for many reasons (such as EMP) that the cables are in conduits, in which case it should be relatively simple to pull though new cables through. It is also likely that the entire complex is located above the water table, so the conduits would be in decent shape after only 50 years.

Turns out they are not in conduits (that one took some research). They are also still using the same computer hardware from the last upgrade in '96.

Nuclear weapons are a far more cost effective method of defense than most imagine. You do not need many, they are incredibly destructive, and they don't need to be deployed or fed or trained. They just sit there until they are needed.

 

[T.C.P]

Turns out they are not in conduits (that one took some research). They are also still using the same computer hardware from the last upgrade in '96.

Nuclear weapons are a far more cost effective method of defense than most imagine. You do not need many, they are incredibly destructive, and they don't need to be deployed or fed or trained. They just sit there until they are needed.

I know that most people won't agree with me, but in my eyes, Nukes are peacekeepers.

How many huge wars would there have been by now between US and USSR, India and Pakistan, India and China had these countries not had any nukes.

 

[Waylander]

But the operators and security needs to be paid for.
The same applies to the delivery platforms.

ICBMs are not cheap and strategic bombers and boomers are even more expensive.

Just look at the strain the nuclear capability puts on the budgets of countries like France or the UK.

I am not arguing for or against Nuclear weapons but they are defenitely not cheap.

 

[My2Cents]

Turns out they are not in conduits (that one took some research). They are also still using the same computer hardware from the last upgrade in '96

The article is not clear whether or not the cable is directly buried of in conduits, but I will go with you that it was probably just buried. It certainly sounds shielded enough for it.

Wonder what processors they used in that 1996 upgrade. Probably the 80286 given the military’s slow procurement process. Hope they have a lot of spares stockpiled, it is out of production now. Same with any other IC’s from that period. :hul

 

[Tired Old Man]

I remember them building Titan silos when I was in Tech school at Lowry AFB. Have to say that eliminating the Peacekeepers didn't sit well with me. That Start II Treaty only reduces Strategic weapons and not all weapons. It does one heck of a job of reducing our seaborne leg of the Triad.

Meanwhile, back at the Kremlin, they're building a new seaborne missile based on the Topol-M plus new subs to haul them.

 

[Feanor]

Meanwhile, back at the Kremlin, they're building a new seaborne missile based on the Topol-M plus new subs to haul them.

That's been working out real well for them too.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well, the physical facilities (silos, etc.) should be in decent shape if they are properly maintained.

Buildings like ships, aircraft etc all have a life expectancy. Nodoubt the buildings and infrastructures are heavy duty, but it doesn't mean they will last forever with no maintence or repairs.

While many are above the water table (not all of them would be) they still need pumps to drain water, repairs, cabling, these installations are getting pretty old and will start costing coin to maintain. Im sure some accountant checks out facilities and works out how much they cost to maintain and someone works out how effective they are.

Most of the old silos were pretty expensive to maintain, those that have passed into the civilian hands have required extensive referbishment to keep up to code.