As I stated, this one is having a tough time getting through.
This site garners FOIA and publishes their contents. It's called "The Nuclear Information Project" documenting Nuclear Policy and Operations.
http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/gs ... strake.htm
The Department of Energy is readying the Nevada Test Site for a large-scale, open-air, high explosive detonation on a tunnel complex. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the DOE customer which is conducting the test, is stressing that the test is not a nuclear blast and the Russian government reportedly has been notified to avoid misunderstanding about the event. "The test is aimed at determining how well a massive conventional bomb would perform against fortified underground targets," the Washington Post reported on March 31st.
No one - with the notable exception of Andrew Lichterman and John Fleck who first reported on this - seems to have tried to dig deeper than the press release from DTRA. I too have monitored the preparations for Divine Strake; It is much more than was reported
Make sure the Russians know what you're up to, so they fully understand what they need to do.
Divine Strake is neither a bomb nor conventional. Instead, the test is a detonation of a pile of chemical explosives to simulate a "low-yield nuclear weapon ground shock" effect to "improve the warfighter’s confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage."
Divine Strake, moreover, is an integral part of STRATCOM's new Global Strike mission, which is otherwise said to provide mainly non-nuclear means of defeating time-critical targets. Divine Strake is the first nuclear effects simulation of this kind against underground targets since President George W. Bush in Summer 2004 directed STRATCOM to "extend Global Strike to counter all HDBTs [Hard and Deeply Buried Targets] to include both tactical and strategic adversarial targets."
Want to make sure you don't use too much or too little so you can decide if it should be a Nuke or conventional bunker buster.http://www.nukestrat.com/us/guidance.htm
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Guidance
Although often seen as static and slow to change, U.S. nuclear weapons policy is actually subject to frequent updates via guidance documents that change the posture of the weapons and the doctrine that guide their use. This chronology lists the major known nuclear weapons guidance issued by the White House and the military since the Bush administration took office in 2001:
Check these out-
December 31: 2001- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld forwards the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) report to Congress. Among specifying conditions and capabilities for the future U.S. nuclear posture, the NPR also includes excerpts from other planning documents: FY04 Defense Planning Guidance and FY03-07 Future Years Defense Plan.
The FY04 DPG [Defense Planning Guidance] will provide guidance to coordinate and deconflict requirements for nuclear and non nuclear systems." The "initiatives reflected in the proposed FY03-07 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) include:
(1) Mobile and Relocatable Targets. DoD proposed to develop a systems-level approach, applied across the Services, for holding at risk critical mobile targets.
(2) Defeating Hard and Deeply-Buried Targets. DoD would implement a program to improve significantly the means to locate, identify, characterize, and target adversarial hard and deeply buried targets.
(3) Long Range Strike. DoD will pursue a systems level approach to defeat critical fixed and mobile targets at varying ranges, in all terrain and weather conditions, and in denied areas.
(4) Guided Missile Submarines (SSGNs). DoD has proposed to fund the conversion of four SSBNs, withdrawn from the strategic nuclear service, to SSGN configuration.
(5) Precision Strike. Effort to increase the number of targets than can be attacked on a single mission. Elements include a 'Multifunction Information Distribution System' to provide 'a jam-resistant, secure, digital network for exchange of critical information for strike capabilities,' a 'Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,' A 'Small Diameter Bomb,' and the 'Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle.'
(6) A New Strike System. "DoD will begin in FY03 to explore concepts for a new strike system that might arm the converted SSGNs. Desired capabilities for this new strike weapon include timely arrival on target, precision, and the ability to be retargeted rapidly."
Adding more subs and firepower just after 9/11. But it wasn't until a year after that they really got down and dirty.
September 14:2002- White House issues National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17, "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." The document states:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."
"Nuclear forces alone…cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles. Complementing nuclear forces with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrence posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."
A top-secret appendix to NSPD 17 specifically names Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya among the countries that are the central focus of the new U.S. strategy. A senior administration official briefing reporters on the new strategy, says the options include nuclear weapons. The motivation for the new strategy, according to one participant in the interagency process that drafted it, was the conclusion that "traditional nonproliferation has failed, and now we’re going into active interdiction."
The Joint Chiefs of Staff further explains that NSPD 17 "outlines a comprehensive approach to counter nuclear and other WMD. The strategy has three principal pillars:
(1) Counterproliferation to Combat WMD Use – recognizing that the possession and increased likelihood of WMD use by hostile states and terrorists are realities of the contemporary security environment.
(2) Strengthened Nonproliferation to Combat WMD Proliferation – determined to undertake every effort to prevent states and terrorists from acquiring WMD and missiles.
(3) Consequence Management to Respond to WMD Use – to reduce to the extent possible the potentially horrific consequences of WMD use at home and abroad."
September 17: White House issues the National Security Strategy of the United States. The document publicly formulates a more proactive preemption doctrine:
"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends....The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of our enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively....To support preemptive actions, we will…continue to transform out military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results."
This list continues up to March 2006, so you can read it yourselves.
On January 10, 2003, the new Unified Command Plan (Change 2) assigned a new mission to STRATCOM: Global Strike. The Unified Command Plan defined the new mission as:
"providing integrated global strike planning and command and control support to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."
STRATCOM (and before it Strategic Air Command and the Navy) has provided global strike capabilities for decades under the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), but the SIOP name was formally dropped in 2003 and replaced with Operations Plan (OPLAN) 8044. The name change reflected an effort to transform the top-heavy SIOP into a family of smaller flexible strike plans to better reflect the demise of the Soviet Union, a new emphasis on China, and planning against weapons of mass destruction proliferators.
Global Strike is different than OPLAN 8044. It is focused on small prompt and preemptive strikes against weapons of mass destruction targets anywhere on (and below) the surface of the Earth. The military operationalization of the Global Strike mission is Contingency Plan (CONPLAN 8022), which became operational in the fall of 2004.
» Global Strike Command Becomes Operational
» Space and Global Strike Component Command Concept of Operations
» Report: Global Strike Chronology
» Divine Strake: First large-scale nuclear simulation against tunnel
Global strike gives American strategists a world Monroe Doctrine, and permission to go into such countries as Iran and any others who challenge them.
The testing is underway. No longer can one test large Nukes, but small ones are more practical and will make for a sort of conventional battlefield situation. Again, humans will be the guinea pigs and the lambs for the slaughter. Pity the hiding civilians. Who will do the body counts when there aren't any bodies left. Special dog tags for soldiers that don't melt? A new Project for the Next American Century?http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/gs ... strake.htm
"The Tunnel Target Defeat ACTD will develop a planning tool that will improve the warfighter’s confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage."
Divine Strake reflects a concern in the Pentagon over what is said to be an increasing number of a underground facilities in potentially hostile countries. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review warned that the existing B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrator does not have sufficient capability against certain deeply buried targets. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator was supposed to provide additional capability, but Congress has refused to fund the weapon due to concern that it could lower the nuclear threshold.
Divine Stake is not an RNEP-type experiment because it simulates the use of a very low-yield nuclear weapon against an relatively shallow underground target. Divine Strake follows a previous 3D computer simulation conducted by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2004, which examined the use of a 10 kt nuclear detonation inside the U16B tunnel as an agent defeat weapon. The experiment concluded that the relatively large yield was necessary for radiation to penetrate through the entire length of the tunnel "indicating that such yields might be necessary to guarantee agent destruction stored inside large tunnel complexes."
Divine Strake, in contrast, does not simulate agent defeat destruction but simply envisions using the explosive yield of a small nuclear weapon to destroy or severely damage and underground structure. Also important is that the simulation is not directed against the tunnel entrances, but involves detonating the explosives on top of the surface above the tunnel.
How merciful of them to just
want to completely destroy, just make it totally unusable and radiated. Just barely. Sends a clear picture of what kind of chaos this can bring.
Contrary to most of the media reports, Divine Strake is not testing a conventional bomb but simply detonates a huge pile (700 tons) of Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil (ANFO). For comparison, the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. inventory is the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) bomb, which contains nearly nine tons of explosives with a yield of approximately 0.012 kt TNT.
The explosive power of Divine Strake will be approximately 593 tons of TNT equivalent, or roughly 0.6 kt. This is about double the lowest yield option on the non-strategic B61 nuclear gravity bomb, and suggests that Divine Strake may be intended to fine-tune use of the B61 bomb. There are three modifications of the non-strategic B61 bomb in the U.S. stockpile with yields ranging from 0.3 kt to 170 kt.
Who might they use this against. The first mention odf our next adversary and new Boogey man? Enter Red China, when we suck the life out of the Arabs and all their oil, there's always the sleeping giant.
According to the DOE, such HDBTs are used by adversaries for command and control, storage of munitions (including weapons of mass destruction, and long-range missiles), modern air defenses, a variety of tactical weapons, wartime refuge for national leaders, and a multitude of other offensive and defensive military uses.
An example of such a target may be the Chinese airbase at Feidong, which includes what appears to be a large underground facility for hiding aircraft and potentially also other of the capabilities mentioned by DOE.
Ah yes, our old friend and next demonized adversary. There are estimates on the amounts of atomic stockpiles China has and for now they are smaller than previously estimated. For now. America of course will force them to increase their amounts by forcing them to defend themselves. http://www.nukestrat.com/china/diachina.htm
In April 1984, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) published a secret Defense Estimative Brief on nuclear weapons systems in China. The brief was produced by DIA's China/Far East Division and provided a general overview of the number of Chinese nuclear weapons and gave detailed estimates for the number of Chinese nuclear warheads at the time as well a projections for 1989 and 1994.
The reconstructed document sheds important new light on the U.S. intelligence community's estimate of China's nuclear capability in 1984, at a time when U.S. and Chinese government officials were attempting to develop a joint stand against the Soviet Union. China's status was so appreciated that the U.S. removed China from the SIOP in 1981.
DIA's estimate sets China's total nuclear stockpile at 360, including 50 non-strategic Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADMs). The total estimate is noteworthy because it is some 50 warheads lower than most non-official estimate for China for 1984. DIA's estimate is also, curiously, 60 warheads lower than the number presented in its own handbook on Chinese armed forces published in November 1984.
DIA's estimates for the future, however, 592 warheads in 1989 and 818 warheads in 1994, proved to be completely off the mark: 50 and 100 percent, respectively, above the actual force levels for those years. This inability to predict -- even approximately -- the future size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal, is relevant for today's debate with the U.S. intelligence community predicting a "several-fold" increase in the Chinese stockpile that can hit the United States by 2015.
Better get ready America- they're getting ready. Keep stirring up the shit.
This next article is from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and they are giving their estimates on China's nuclear stockpile. http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.p ... nd03norris
China is modernizing its missile force as part of a program begun nearly two decades ago that features mobility, solid fuel, improved accuracy, lighter warheads, and a more robust command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system. ... The DF-31 will likely be targeted primarily against Russia and American bases and facilities in Asia. It is expected to begin deployment in 2004 or 2005.
China is also developing a modified version of the DF-31, the DF-31A. With an extended range of up to 12,000 kilometers. Its precise range is unknown. Deployment is predicted to occur between 2006 and 2010. According to the CIA, the DF-31A may be targeted against the United States and be tested "within the next several years." With a shorter range and a lighter payload than its predecessor, the DF-31A will be less capable of penetrating a potential U.S. missile defense system.
The Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have repeatedly stated that they expect China's nuclear arsenal to increase significantly over the next decade or so. The CIA predicted in December 2001 that by 2015 "the total number of Chinese strategic warheads will rise several-fold" to 75--100 warheads deployed primarily against the United States. The Pentagon recently predicted that the number of Chinese ICBMs capable of hitting the United States "could increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach up to 60 by 2010."
Past predictions about China's nuclear arsenal have proven highly inaccurate and exaggerated. For example, in the 1960s, U.S. Pacific Command estimated that China could have 435 nuclear weapons by 1973--that's three times as many as China actually had. In 1984, the DIA set "the best estimate" for the projected number of Chinese nuclear warheads at 592 in 1989 and 818 in 1994--approximately 50 and 100 percent above actual force levels for those years. 
The fact is that China's stockpile plateaued at approximately 400 warheads in the early 1980s.
These errors should be remembered when considering the latest predictions. Although it is possible that the number of warheads targeted primarily against the United States could increase "several-fold" between now and 2015, the overall size of the total Chinese stockpile will probably remain about where it is today.
Accurate predictions are difficult because of several unanswerable questions: Will China deploy more DF-31As than its currently deployed DF-5s (about 20)? Has China developed smaller and lighter warheads? Will China develop and deploy multiple reentry vehicles on its ICBMs? What countermeasures decisions might China take in response to a U.S. missile defense system? Only time will answer those questions accurately.
I'm sure Russia and China are developing their own bunker busters to penetrate deeper into our hidden fortresses as well. We have given them all kinds of incentives and ideas. There will be small yield tactical nukes everywhere soon, for those little skirmishes where we don't want to endanger our own troops with radiation fallout. Such are the new tactics of war. Close will be good enough.
Time gentlemen, time- the most valuable asset in the world. And we're fast running out of it. We're almost out of time to change the direction we're going. Remember, don't wake the sleeping giant.