Could America's latest atomic weapon ignite a new arms race?

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:31:55 -0400

Inside the most expensive nuclear bomb ever made

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 3:36 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:36:19 -0400

I'll be honest, there is still room for improvement of atomic weapons, but there really isn't a need. Unless it's about better versatility, survivability, or something new, higher payload is completely pointless at this point.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 3:43 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:43:15 -0400

We already have sufficient Nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth. Do we really need to invest more money in that or are we planning on fighting off an alien invasion?

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Sep 1 at 2015 5:05 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:05:09 -0400

Just curious as to why you would have to be "precise" and require the use of "Dial-a-yield" technology to adjust the NUCLEAR BOMB's explosive force...
I mean... Did I really miss something somewhere??? Am I the only one not following the logic here? ROFLMAO!!!
Sorry, I couldn't help it!!! :D
I do hope that the actual one without the orange (inert) color will have a better color scheme so as to not mistake it for an external fuel or travel pod! HA! I kill me! :D

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Sep 1 at 2015 5:54 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:54:35 -0400

Iran will begin a new arms race.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Sep 1 at 2015 6:20 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:20:28 -0400

In my opinion, the B-61 in all of its Mods, is easily the most awesome weapon ever built. While the article doesn't mention it, I would guess that its explosive yield now looks much more like that of a neutron bomb than a 50's scortcher. Perhaps thats built into the fancy new dial-a-yield technology.

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Sep 1 at 2015 6:33 PM

MSgt Aaron Brite — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:33:44 -0400

I can see adding on a fin kit to a domb bomb even a nuke. That shouldn't make it a new weapon. The real crux of the matter is the near total refurbishment it takes to get to this point. Unlike regular bombs, the payload on these does nasty things to the rest of the bomb. Akin to storing a plane in a sea side hangar. The b61-12 is essentially a restored b61 with a lot of new parts. Depending on who's viewpoint you use, it can be a new weapon. As an example, EPA rules call a an emissions source "new" when the refurb costs around 50% of its value. At the cost of these, you could argue its "new". At this cost do we really need it?

Response by COL Korey Jackson made Sep 2 at 2015 5:46 AM

COL Korey Jackson — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 05:46:16 -0400

A new arms race with what nuclear power?
Russia?
Hasn't Russia already been modernizing their nuclear weapons while the United States has deliberately restrained its nuclear modernization for many years?

No, this will not ignite a new arms race.

This modernization activity to the B-61 is long-overdue. The improvement in weapons delivery Circular Error Probable (CEP) could actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons needed for a given target set.
Compare how many unguided bombs, such as Mark-80 series weapons) delivered by fast-movers it takes to destroy a designated target - to how many bombs (and reduced weapons yields) it takes when adding a GBU kit to the tail. Also consider the reduced collateral damage.
Not doing this modernization makes no sense, from an ordnance standpoint. Why would F-35's (or for that matter, F-16's) be saddled with dropping dumb bombs in today's world...especially if the bombs are nuclear?