Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top military official denied reports this week that Russia is looking to create a nuclear weapon designed to be used in space.
The remarks come after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) brought attention to the matter last week by warning that a foreign adversary was working on creating a &#8220;destabilizing&#8221; weapon and urged President Joe Biden to declassify the intelligence surrounding the weapon. Subsequent reporting said that the potential weapon would be used to knock out satellites critical to U.S. national security.
&#8220;Our position is clear and transparent: We have always been categorically against the deployment of nuclear weapons in space and we are still against it,&#8221; Putin claimed.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu claimed that Russia does not have the weapon and that the U.S. knew that Russia didn&#8217;t have the weapon, which is something that President Biden has already acknowledged.
Speaking at an event at the Munich Security Conference last week, the commander of Germany’s Military Space Command, Major General Michael Traut, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/commander-of-germanys-military-space-command-warns-about-potential-russian-space-weapon">said</a> that the weapon posed a serious risk to everyone.
“If somebody dares to explode a nuclear weapon in high atmosphere or even space, this would be more or less the end of the usability of that global commons [of orbit],” said Traut. “Nobody would survive an action like that — no satellite, either Chinese or Russian and American or European. If somebody calculates rationally, nobody would employ such a weapon in space.”
Lt. Col. “Tony” Vincent, an active duty scientist in the United States Air Force (USAF) who is currently the Director of Advanced Physics Courses at the Air Force Academy, wrote in a September 2022 piece about the dangers that are posed by a nuclear weapon being detonated in space.
Vincent <a href="https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/getting-serious-about-the-threat-of-high-altitude-nuclear-detonations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highlighted</a> what happened when the Atomic Energy Commission, in collaboration with the Defense Atomic Support Agency, detonated a nuclear weapon in low Earth orbit back in the Summer of 1962:
<blockquote>The test was codenamed Starfish Prime and it revealed an unfortunate lesson: Even one high altitude nuclear detonation is particularly effective at destroying satellites. Not only were satellites in the line of sight destroyed, but even satellites on the other side of Earth were damaged and rendered inoperable. Starfish Prime damaged or destroyed roughly one third of all satellites in low Earth orbit at the time.</blockquote>
Vincent said that commercial satellites need to become hardened against radiation to avoid being susceptible to a nuclear space weapon but cautioned that while the cost to do so has fallen, “this practice historically drives the component price up by roughly factors of 10 to 100 while potentially increasing size and mass of the total payload.”
He warned that there were two primary reasons that a country would want to use a nuclear weapon in space: to devastate America’s economy and/or to disrupt the U.S. military’s space-based assets that it uses for command and control.
“A nuclear explosion in space disproportionately hurts the United States as the largest single investor in space capabilities,” he wrote. “The United States nets almost $200 billion per year of real gross output from its space assets. Even though military satellites are designed to withstand a harsher charged particle environment, radiation hardening is not a magic cloak of invincibility. Military space assets will be degraded over time from the artificially amped radiation belt created from the nuclear detonation, meanwhile commercial satellites in low Earth orbit will be the first to fail from continually passing through these particle hot spots. Most satellites with a line of sight to the nuclear detonation will be destroyed from the resulting x-rays. Military space capabilities for command and control along with reconnaissance assets may still function for a period following the detonation, but the economic impact of degraded informational space products will be immediate.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Vincent further wrote that the threat that a nuclear space weapon could be used is higher than what most people likely think because a nuclear detonation in space against infrastructure would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would respond with a nuclear strike against the aggressor:
<blockquote>Once an adversarial nation with a disadvantage in space capabilities detonates a nuclear weapon in this domain, there is no benefit to respond with a similar attack. This act would further degrade space-based assets…
The attacked nation, then, must consider responding with conventional or nuclear weapons on Earth. Targeting cities and military installations with nuclear weapons is not an in-kind response to the initial action of nuking space and represents another significant escalation in the conflict. Space assets are not on par with human lives. Further, the attacking nation will also have nuclear weapons in reserve, and with the right mix of forces can hold targets at risk. Therefore, the attacked nation would have to weigh escalating to nuclear weapons use, knowing that it would invite a nuclear response on targets in the homeland. The obvious response is to signal that the use of nuclear weapons in space would be treated as a nuclear attack on Earth, but an adversarial nation could consider such a threat non-credible.
A nation may also be deterred from acting because every nation in the world is dependent upon space products to some degree. Therefore, using a nuclear weapon in space would be “self-harm.” However, as the history of war reveals, nations choose self-harm, such as when they collapse their own bridges and burn fields, to prevent an invader from gaining ground. Nuclear weapons are at the pinnacle of threat escalation, so the use of one is a sign of desperation with diminishing alternative options.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-intel-republican-warns-russian-space-weapon-may-blind-u-s-economy-and-military">House Intel Republican Warns Russian Space Weapon May ‘Blind’ U.S. Economy And Military</a>

RUSSIA-UKRAINE-CONFLICT

Russia Claims They Are Not Working On A Nuclear Space Weapon

Air &amp; Space

Mike Turner

Nuclear Weapons

Russia

Space

Vladimir Putin

World

The U.S. revealed this week that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/russia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Russia</a> is reportedly working on, or is at least considering building, a nuclear weapon designed to only be used in space as an anti-satellite weapon.
President Joe Biden addressed the matter a press conference on Friday, saying that there was no immediate threat to anyone on earth from the potential weapon, adding that there was &#8220;no evidence that they have made a decision to go forward with doing anything in space either.&#8221;
&#8220;So what we found out, there was a capacity to launch a system into space that could theoretically do something that was damaging, hadn&#8217;t happened yet,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And my hope is that it will not.&#8221;
Lt. Col. “Tony” Vincent, an active duty scientist in the United States Air Force (USAF) who is currently the Director of Advanced Physics Courses at the Air Force Academy, wrote in a September 2022 piece about the dangers that are posed by a nuclear weapon being detonated in space.
Vincent <a href="https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/getting-serious-about-the-threat-of-high-altitude-nuclear-detonations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highlighted</a> what happened when the Atomic Energy Commission, in collaboration with the Defense Atomic Support Agency, detonated a nuclear weapon in low Earth orbit back in the Summer of 1962:
<blockquote>The test was codenamed Starfish Prime and it revealed an unfortunate lesson: Even one high altitude nuclear detonation is particularly effective at destroying satellites. Not only were satellites in the line of sight destroyed, but even satellites on the other side of Earth were damaged and rendered inoperable. Starfish Prime damaged or destroyed roughly one third of all satellites in low Earth orbit at the time.</blockquote>
Vincent said that commercial satellites need to become hardened against radiation to avoid being susceptible to a nuclear space weapon, but cautioned that while the cost to do so has fallen, &#8220;this practice historically drives the component price up by roughly factors of 10 to 100 while potentially increasing size and mass of the total payload.&#8221;
He warned that there were two primary reasons that a country would want to use a nuclear weapon in space: to devastate America&#8217;s economy and/or to disrupt the U.S. Military&#8217;s space-based assets that it uses for command and control.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;A nuclear explosion in space disproportionately hurts the United States as the largest single investor in space capabilities,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;The United States nets almost $200 billion per year of real gross output from its space assets. Even though military satellites are designed to withstand a harsher charged particle environment, radiation hardening is not a magic cloak of invincibility. Military space assets will be degraded over time from the artificially amped radiation belt created from the nuclear detonation, meanwhile commercial satellites in low Earth orbit will be the first to fail from continually passing through these particle hot spots. Most satellites with a line of sight to the nuclear detonation will be destroyed from the resulting x-rays. Military space capabilities for command and control along with reconnaissance assets may still function for a period following the detonation, but the economic impact of degraded informational space products will be immediate.&#8221;
Vincent further wrote that the threat that a nuclear space weapon could be used is higher than what most people likely think because a nuclear detonation in space against infrastructure would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would respond with a nuclear strike against the aggressor:
<blockquote>Once an adversarial nation with a disadvantage in space capabilities detonates a nuclear weapon in this domain, there is no benefit to respond with a similar attack. This act would further degrade space-based assets&#8230;
The attacked nation, then, must consider responding with conventional or nuclear weapons on Earth. Targeting cities and military installations with nuclear weapons is not an in-kind response to the initial action of nuking space and represents another significant escalation in the conflict. Space assets are not on par with human lives. Further, the attacking nation will also have nuclear weapons in reserve, and with the right mix of forces can hold targets at risk. Therefore, the attacked nation would have to weigh escalating to nuclear weapons use, knowing that it would invite a nuclear response on targets in the homeland. The obvious response is to signal that the use of nuclear weapons in space would be treated as a nuclear attack on Earth, but an adversarial nation could consider such a threat non-credible.
A nation may also be deterred from acting because every nation in the world is dependent upon space products to some degree. Therefore, using a nuclear weapon in space would be “self-harm.” However, as the history of war reveals, nations choose self-harm, such as when they collapse their own bridges and burn fields, to prevent an invader from gaining ground. Nuclear weapons are at the pinnacle of threat escalation, so the use of one is a sign of desperation with diminishing alternative options.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-intel-chair-defends-statement-warning-of-destabilizing-foreign-military-capability" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Intel Chair Defends Statement Warning Of ‘Destabilizing Foreign Military Capability’</a>

RUSSIA-POLITICS-PUTIN

U.S. Military Official Explains The Threat Of A Russian Anti-Satellite Nuclear Weapon

Global Politics

Outer Space

On Wednesday, there was a big announcement from the House Intelligence Committee. The House Intelligence Committee chair tweeted a statement suggesting that there was a serious national security threat the American public needed to be made aware of.
This freaked everybody out because when vague national security related threats are made, suggesting they are serious enough they need to be declassified, everybody starts to have some palpitations.
As it turns out, it appears there is intelligence suggesting Russia is going to attempt to deploy a nuclear anti-satellite system in space.
Apparently, the Russians haven&#8217;t done it yet; the system is under development. We don’t know how far the technology has gone.
There are two questions: What would it mean if Russia actually were to do so? And, why are we finding out about this now?
To the first question: Presumably, America&#8217;s satellite technology would be seriously threatened, although if a nuke is detonated in space, it would not have the same ramifications as if it were detonated at high altitude. A nuclear weapon feeds on the air around it; it requires oxygen in order for it to continue expanding.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1906-russian-nukes-in-space-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
So if a nuclear weapon explodes in a vacuum — if in space — it doesn&#8217;t have quite the same impact as a nuclear weapon at high altitude. Effectively, radiation is blasted out, which significantly damages or degrades pretty much all the satellites within the immediate orbit. It would create a sort of perennial hotspot in that place or cause satellites that pass through it to be significantly damaged.
As the largest single investor in space capabilities, the United States could lose $200 billion per year of real gross output from its space assets. Military space assets would be degraded over time. A nuclear weapon in space would do great economic damage.
Is this the kind of serious national security threat that requires everybody to go on panic mode for a full day where everybody is thinking, Oh, my God. I need my bunker? No.
Now to the second question, which is: Why are we finding out about this now?
Possibly to induce more support for Ukraine. I have sympathy for the idea of giving aid to Ukraine, but I don&#8217;t think that amount of aid should be $60 billion. I don&#8217;t believe the United States has an interest in allowing Russia to simply walk over the entirety of Ukraine. I think that has significant negative geopolitical ramifications for the United States and American citizens.
But scaring the American people into green-lighting an aid package by releasing information about a serious national security threat doesn&#8217;t seem like a great tactic to get people in your corner.
Ultimately, it&#8217;s going to alienate more people than it draws.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

House Intelligence Chair Turner Warns Of Looming National Security Threat

Biden Administration Announces National Security Threat. This Raises Some Questions.

Ben Shapiro

Biden Administration

National Intelligence

Opinion

Readers Pass

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/iran" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Islamic Republic of Iran</a> now has enough weapons grade uranium to produce a nuclear weapon within a week, according to a new report.
The Institute for Science and International Security said that the threat level with respect to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon had entered into its &#8220;extreme danger&#8221; rating, the first time the threat level has ever gone that high, according to a report obtained by the <a href="https://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-can-build-nuclear-bomb-in-one-week-signaling-extreme-danger-for-western-world-report-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Free Beacon</a>.
The report said that the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program has &#8220;increased dramatically&#8221; since May 2023, in part due to the series of events that have unfolded in the wake of the Hamas&#8217; October 7 terrorist attack on Israel.
&#8220;The volatile situation in the region is providing Iran with a unique opportunity and increased internal justification for building nuclear weapons while the United States and Israel’s resources to detect and deter Iran from succeeding are stretched thin,&#8221; the report said. &#8220;The ongoing conflicts are leading to the neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat at a time when Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities have never been greater.&#8221;
The threat is even higher as Iran goes to greater and greater lengths to conceal its nuclear program, including building an underground facility that it hopes will be deep enough that America&#8217;s conventional bunker buster bombs won&#8217;t be able to destroy it.
The most alarming area of concern that the report identified was the nuclear breakout time for Iran, which refers to the amount of time that it would take the country to develop a nuclear weapon given its current capabilities.
&#8220;If Iran wanted to further enrich its 60 percent enriched uranium up to 90 percent weapon-grade uranium (WGU), used in Iran’s known nuclear weapons designs from the Amad Plan, it could do so quickly,&#8221; the report said. &#8220;It can break out and produce enough weapon-grade enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a week, using only a fraction of its 60 percent enriched uranium. This breakout could be difficult for inspectors to detect promptly, if Iran took steps to delay inspectors’ access.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;Using its remaining stock of 60 percent enriched uranium and its stock of near 20 percent enriched uranium, it could have in total enough weapon-grade uranium for six weapons in one month, and after five months of producing weapon-grade uranium, it could have enough for twelve,&#8221; the report added.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at Hudson Institute and the director of its Keystone Defense Initiative, highlighted how notion the Obama-Biden Iran nuclear was supposed to &#8220;moderate&#8221; the Iranians was a farce.
&#8220;Instead it flushed it with cash and Iran invested in its terrorism missions and its military,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Now it’s exporting weapons across the world, driving the proxy attacks against US forces, and advancing its nuclear program. Biden’s attempts to resurrect the disastrous deal and placate the Iran regime by waiving sanctions has resulted in a more capable, violent, and defiant regime.&#8221;
The news comes as the Biden administraiton launched what critics have said were weak retaliatory strikes late last week against Iranian-backed terrorists in Syria and Iraq, which were responsible for killing three U.S. soldiers late last month in a drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan. U.S. forces have been attacked approximately 170 times since mid-October.
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) said in its most recent analysis of U.S. relations with Iran that the situation was &#8220;trending very negative.&#8221;
In its assessment, FDD analysts <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/02/02/biden-administration-foreign-policy-tracker-february-3/#Iran">wrote</a> as it relates to Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program: &#8220;Despite a late December 2023 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warning that Iran had dramatically accelerated its production of high-enriched uranium, the United States did not request an emergency IAEA board meeting to hold Iran accountable.&#8221;

Iran Begins To Fuel The Country’s First Nuclear Power Station

Iran Now Has Enough Weapons Grade Uranium For A Nuclear Weapon With A Breakout Time Of 1 Week: Report

Hamas

Iran

The U.S. is reportedly planning to relocate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/nuclear-weapons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nuclear weapons</a> to the U.K. for the first time in nearly two decades to counter the threat of Russian aggression engulfing the European continent.
The Telegraph <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/26/us-nuclear-bombs-lackenheath-raf-russia-threat-hiroshima/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that it gained access to sensitive Pentagon documents that said the U.S. has &#8220;procurement contracts for a new facility at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk&#8221; that confirms the U.S. &#8220;intends to place nuclear warheads three times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb at the air base.&#8221;
The U.S. stored nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath during the Cold War. The base is now expected to carry B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs, which are more than three times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The bombs are small and can be delivered by F-16s, F-15s, and F-35s.
The threat from Russia is so serious that Admiral Rob Bauer (Royal Netherlands Navy), Chairman of the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/01/19/news/nato-warns-of-all-out-war-with-russia-in-the-next-20-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> last week that Europeans needed to be mentally ready to fight a major war against the Russians in the next two decades.
&#8220;The Pentagon had refused to comment on speculation that a new &#8216;surety dormitory&#8217;, first revealed in budget documents last year, was intended for the base, which is run by the US Air Force under British regulations and laws, to allow the US to house tactical nuclear weapons that can be deployed by F-35 fighter jets,&#8221; the report said. &#8220;The term &#8216;surety&#8217; is used by the Pentagon to refer to the need to keep nuclear weapons safe when they are not being used.&#8221;
The U.S. Department of Defense has ordered new equipment for the base, the report said, including &#8220;ballistic shields designed to protect military personnel from attacks on &#8216;high value assets.'&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Russia reportedly threatened to escalate the situation if the U.S. moves the nuclear weapons back to the U.K.
“If this step is ever made, we will view it as escalation, as a step toward escalation that would take things to a direction that is quite opposite to addressing the pressing issue of pulling all nuclear weapons out of European countries,” said Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman. “In the context of the transition of the United States and Nato to an openly confrontational course of inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia, this practice and its development force us to take compensating countermeasures designed to reliably protect the security interests of our country and its allies.”
A Pentagon spokesman told the newspaper that it would not &#8220;confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location.&#8221;

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE, MONDAY, JULY 21, 2014 – The forward section of the B61 nuclear bomb on display

U.S. To Move Nuclear Weapons To U.K. Amid Increasing Threat Of Russian Aggression: Report

Military

U.K.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced a new modernized nuclear bomb that will increase the military&#8217;s readiness to deter aggression and launch strategic attacks if needed.
The new bomb, designated the B61-13, will be a modernized version of the B61 nuclear gravity bomb and will be deliverable by modern aircraft to the target.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s announcement is reflective of a changing security environment and growing threats from potential adversaries,&#8221; said Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb. &#8220;The United States has a responsibility to continue to assess and field the capabilities we need to credibly deter and, if necessary, respond to strategic attacks, and assure our allies.&#8221;
&#8220;The B61-13 represents a reasonable step to manage the challenges of a highly dynamic security environment,&#8221; said Plumb. &#8220;While it provides us with additional flexibility, production of the B61-13 will not increase the overall number of weapons in our nuclear stockpile.&#8221;
The DOD said that the new bomb would include more features that enhance its safety, security, and accuracy.
The Federation of American Scientists notes though that the reason for the new bomb appears to be in-part a political push by the Biden administration to &#8220;get rid of the last megaton-yield weapon in the US arsenal: the B83-1.&#8221;
The B83-1 is currently the most powerful weapon in the U.S. military stockpile with a yield of over 1 megaton, which is equivalent to 1 million tons of TNT.
&#8220;The B61-13 will have the same maximum yield as the B61-7 (360 kilotons), according to defense officials, a significant increase compared with the 50-kiloton B61-12 it is intended to supplement,&#8221; the report said.
A 360 kiloton blast is 24 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan — which had a 15 kiloton yield — in the final days of WWII.

nuclear bomb

U.S. Announces New Nuclear Bomb For Arsenal

U.S.

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/department-of-defense" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Department of Defense’s</a> (DOD) current nuclear weapons management presents a major risk to national security, per the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
The GAO <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106735?utm_campaign=usgao_email&amp;utm_content=topic_natldefense&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, published on Thursday, found that the DOD has failed to resolve many oversight issues since 2021. The GAO — Congress’ auditing, evaluation, and investigative arm — also noted that problematic discontinuity in nuclear oversight structure began in the final week of the Trump administration.
“DOD has significantly modified its nuclear enterprise oversight structure multiple times since 2021, putting oversight continuity at risk and potentially affecting senior leaders’ ability to make informed decisions,” stated the GAO.
It was on January 14, 2021, six days before President Joe Biden took office, that Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller replaced the Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise Review Group (NDERG), which had addressed issues from nuclear enterprise reviews since 2014, with another group: the Secretary of Defense Nuclear Transition Review (SNTR). DOD then replaced the SNTR with another group last year: the Deputy’s Management Action Group (DMAG).
In an August 2021 <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-486" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> on SNTR, the GAO expressed concern that the group lacked specific roles and responsibilities, as well as procedures for internal and external communications.
Out of GAO’s three recommendations at the time, DOD has only implemented one: providing guidance to ensure the progress toward or completion of 2014 nuclear enterprise review recommendations. 
In a related January 2022 <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104061" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, the GAO issued four additional recommendations concerning DOD coordination with the Department of Energy (DOE), the agency responsible for the nuclear weapons modernization and infrastructure. None of these recommendations have been met.
In its latest report, the GAO again <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106735.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urged</a> the DOD to take up its unmet recommendations over the years: to clarify roles and responsibilities of oversight organizations; establish methods of communication and collaboration among oversight organizations; prioritize programs, projects, and activities within the nuclear enterprise; and monitor issues affecting the nuclear enterprise.
DOD’s oversight issues were identified as part of GAO’s review of the DOD’s nuclear triad modernization efforts. The nuclear triad are the land, sea, and air nuclear weapons that make up the nation’s deterrence system, all of which are decades past their planned service life.
The DOD estimates that modernization of the nuclear defense systems would cost about $350 billion over the next 20 years.
The land leg, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), currently consists of Minuteman III, a system nearly 50 years past its planned service life. The Minuteman III system is scheduled to be replaced by the Sentinel missile system in 2030.
The sea leg, ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), currently consists of the Ohio-class submarines originally designed in the 1970s to last 30 years. The DOD extended those SSBNs’ service life to 42 years, and is scheduled to replace them with the Columbia-class SSBNs beginning in 2027.
The GAO issued a <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106292" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> in January on the Columbia-class SSNBs with six recommendations on conducting a schedule risk analysis. None of these recommendations have been met.
The air leg, bomber planes, currently consists of the B-52 and B-2 bombers, the former in operation since the 1950s and the latter in operation since the 1990s. The B-52 bombers are anticipated to last through the 2050s with modifications — though the GAO stressed greater urgency in accomplishing modernization — while the B-2 bombers are scheduled to be replaced by the B-21 bombers sometime within the next few years.

Missiles

Biden Defense Department’s Nuclear Weapons Management Presents Major Risk, Per Gov Accountability Office

Biden Defense Department’s Nuclear Weapons Management Presents Major Risk, Per Government Accountability Office

Nuclear

Data gathered in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/russia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Russia</a>’s remote north suggests that Moscow may be working on testing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead far outside the boundaries of the country.
Activity around a base in Russia’s north suggests that Moscow is again running tests on the missile known as Burevestnik or SSC-X-9 Skyfall, according to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/video/russia-nuclear-missile.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times</a> analysis of satellite imagery and aviation data from the area. Russian President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/vladimir-putin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vladimir Putin</a> first publicly announced the development of the missile and four other rockets in 2018.
Russia previously tested the nuclear-powered missile from 2017 to 2019, according to an open-source review of evidence by the <a href="https://www.nti.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NTI-Hruby_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nuclear Threat Initiative</a> (NTI). All the tests were failures, and at least one had deadly consequences, resulting in the deaths of seven people.
“The Burevestnik is a nuclear-powered, nuclear-tipped subsonic cruise missile designed to have a range of about 23,000 km (14,000 mi),” the NTI report says, calling the weapon a “second-strike, strategic-range weapon of a type that has not been deployed by any other nation.”
Russia issued an aviation notice on August 31 warning of a “temporary danger area” around the northern known missile base. The warning has been extended several times and is now scheduled to last through October 6. Over the past month, activity at the base captured by satellite images has shown a truck and trailer with roughly the dimensions of the missile and a moveable shelter revealing and covering again the launch site, according to the NYT.
The U.S. Air Force has also appeared to increase its surveillance of the area, suggesting that the U.S. military has noticed increased Russian activity, as well.
The missile would likely fall under regulation by the U.S.-Russia New START treaty inked to tamp down nuclear proliferation between the two superpowers. Moscow has already been accused of violating the treaty numerous times, however. The agreement is scheduled to expire in February of 2026.
The New START treaty was almost scrapped in 2021. Former President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.axios.com/2020/05/21/new-start-treaty-trump-billingslea-arms-control" target="_blank" rel="noopener">withdrew</a> the United States from the Open Skies treaty with Russia in 2020, accusing Moscow of violating its terms. The former president seemed prepared to let New Start lapse in February 2021 when it was set to expire, but President Joe Biden took over the White House the month before.
The threat of Russia’s nuclear stockpile has been a conscious concern of experts watching developments in the war in Ukraine. Some experts have advocated that Ukraine be forced into a settlement with Russia to mitigate the risk that a lengthy war may drive Moscow toward using a nuclear weapon on the battlefield.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Biden acknowledged Russia’s nuclear threat in June, calling it “real.”
“When I was out here about two years ago saying I worried about the Colorado River drying up, everybody looked at me like I was crazy,” Biden <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-nuclear-weapons-threat-real-biden-warns-rcna90114" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> donors in California. “They looked at me like when I said I worry about Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. It’s real.”

Russia May Be Testing ‘Nuclear-Tipped’ Cruise Missile, Satellite Images Show

Russia May Be Testing ‘Nuclear-tipped’ Cruise Missile, Satellite Images Show

Ukraine

United States

North Korean state media warned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/u-s-military">U.S. Military</a> officials on Monday that &#8220;thermonuclear war&#8221; could break out after denouncing the U.S. and South Korea joint military drills test-firing strategic cruise missiles on the Korean Peninsula.
U.S. and South Korean militaries began their annual Ulchi Freedom Shield computer-simulated command post exercise, which Navy officials <a href="https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/3491680/the-republic-of-korea-and-united-states-announce-exercise-ulchi-freedom-shield/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> is designed to ensure the Alliance is ready to defend the Republic of Korea and promote security and stability in Northeast Asia. But North Korea has long viewed the drills as a potential war simulation.
&#8220;A thermo-nuclear war, the first ever in history, is more than likely on the Korean peninsula,&#8221; KCNA news agency <a href="http://www.vok.rep.kp/index.php/detail_com/comde/ien230822001/18/en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
The warning comes days after leaders of the U.S., South Korea, and Japan met at Camp David in Maryland last week to form their first stand-alone trilateral agreements dubbed the &#8220;Camp David Principles,&#8221; as threats from China and North Korea increase in the Pacific.
&#8220;The purpose of our trilateral security cooperation is and will remain to promote and enhance peace and stability throughout the region,&#8221; U.S. President Joe Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida <a href="https://apnews.com/article/camp-david-summit-biden-south-korea-japan-0bc36bb3705a3dc1b69dc8cd47b35dd3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> said in a joint statement.
The allied nations consented to ramp up ballistic missile defenses to counter North Korea&#8217;s nuclear missile threat.
North Korean state media reported authorities said the summit between allied nations aimed at formulating a &#8220;nuclear war provocation.&#8221;
&#8220;If the agreements fabricated at the Camp David Resort are additionally put into practice in the war drill &#8230; the possibility of outbreak of a thermonuclear war on the Korean peninsula will become more realistic,&#8221; KCNA news agency said.
According to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-kim-jong-un-cruise-missile-us-south-korea-drills-rcna100903" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC</a>, North Korea has conducted over 100 weapons tests, including nuclear-capable missiles designed to attack the U.S., South Korea, and Japan since the beginning of last year.
The state-run commentary also said the armed forces of North Korea &#8220;will wait for a chance&#8221; to &#8220;punish the hostile forces threatening the sovereignty of our state and our people&#8217;s right to live century after century is waiting for the moment of flush.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-says-camp-david-agreements-raise-possibility-thermonuclear-war-2023-08-21/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters</a>, the Japanese Coast Guard said North Korean officials plan to launch a satellite between Aug. 24 and Aug. 31 in the direction of the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea.
South Korean lawmakers reportedly said the North could protest the joint military drills and last week&#8217;s summit with the United States and Japan by showing force of military strength by test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

SKOREA-NKOREA-POLITICS

North Korea Warns US, South Korean Military Drills Could Trigger ‘Thermonuclear War’

North Korea

South Korea

U.S. Military

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/iran" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Islamic Republic of Iran</a> is reportedly nearing the threshold to test nuclear weapons as their ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium has dramatically accelerated under the Biden administration.
The Jerusalem Post <a href="https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-754467" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that Iran, which is the world&#8217;s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has sought technology that is illegal for them to have in order to further develop their nuclear weapons program, according to new intelligence reports out of Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
The reports said that Iran was moving fast in its advances, which &#8220;brings the option of a possible Iranian first nuclear test closer.&#8221;
&#8220;Last year, Iran proceeded with its nuclear program. The country continues to increase stocks of 20% and 60% enriched uranium,&#8221; one of the reports said. &#8220;By means of centrifuges, this can be used for further enrichment to the 90% enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon.&#8221;
The reports noted that Iran was continuing to violate laws in its drive to obtain nuclear weapons and that the country &#8220;engages in industrial espionage&#8221; in high-tech industries to further its weapons program.
The intelligence reports indicated that Iran has made a significant number of attempts to procure the materials needed to continue its efforts for &#8220;the production of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, other armaments or elements of new weapon systems.&#8221;
Israeli Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser (res.), an expert on Iran&#8217;s weapons program, told the foreign newspaper that Iran has shortened their &#8220;breakout time to a nuclear arsenal by illegally acquiring equipment and knowledge from various European countries.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;The reports only expose part of the Iranian efforts in Europe, and it would be wise to assume that many of those efforts have remained clandestine,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Iran is likely interpreting Western policy towards it as a sign of weakness since European and US actions against Iran (have) been passive and unintimidating.&#8221;

Iran flag

Iran Close To Starting Nuclear Weapon Testing

Iran Nuclear Deal

Sunday, August 6th, marks the 78th anniversary of the use of an atomic weapon on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days hence we will commemorate the obliteration of Nagasaki in the same manner. The success of the film “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/oppenheimer-review-the-amazing-christopher-nolan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oppenheimer</a>,” about the mercurial physicist who headed up the Manhattan Project that brought forth the nuclear age, has prompted rethinking on the subject. This is a good thing.
Much time has passed since these two seminal events not just in World War II, but the history of the human race. It marks the moment when the world saw the power our scientists at Los Alamos had unleashed upon an unsuspecting world. The power to destroy an entire city with one bomb was inconceivable before 1945. Now, nuclear weapons are glibly accepted as just another arrow in the quiver of our and other nations’ national defense. And yet, such a sublime anniversary and how it has shaped the post-war world, should be contemplated more than it is, regardless of how much time passes.
Of course, the key question remains: Was the use of nuclear weapons on Japan necessary? It is a question that haunts us to this day. For me, I must answer this by placing myself in the position of then-President Harry Truman, who made the decision to go forward with the missions. And as such, I must ask myself: what other choices did he have?
To answer this, let us first remember the situation in which Truman found himself in the summer of 1945. It is easy for us today, comfortable in the eighth decade of our Pax Americana, to forget just how devastating and violent the war had been. By July 16, 1945, when the Trinity test in the New Mexico desert detonated the first atomic bomb, Germany had surrendered and Europe lay in quiet ruins. But on the other side of the world in the Pacific, Japan, though battered and bloodied and with its empire greatly reduced, appeared far from willing to capitulate.
 On the contrary, the closer the U.S. armed forces got to the home islands, the more ferociously the Japanese resisted. From September 1944 to June 1945, the U.S. Marines, Navy, and Army had fought a series of battles that were bleeding them dry: Peleliu, Leyte, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Each battle had been weeks-long slugfests that saw U.S. casualties steadily mounting at an alarming rate. Indeed, Okinawa, the final and largest battle of the Pacific War, had also been the bloodiest. Some 12,500 US soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines had been killed with four times that wounded. And tellingly, the highest number of “battle fatigue” diagnoses (what we now call PTSD) were reported on top of the physical wounds from seemingly endless and exhausting combat with a foe who was determined to sell his life dearly for his god emperor. Reports from Okinawa also showed morale was crumbling, and the replacements fed into the meat grinder were often poorly trained and bewildered. Many didn’t even survive long enough to have their names included in the unit rolls. To be sure, Okinawa was a victory, as the island was eventually secured after 72 days of combat, but at a horrific cost; even the U.S. commander, Lt. Gen. Simon B. Buckner, Jr., was KIA. And as bloody as it was for the U.S. and Allies, it was worse for the Japanese. Figures are hard to verify, but over 110,000 Japanese troops and probably an equal number of Okinawan civilians if not more perished in what one Marine described as “Hell’s cesspool.”
So the agonizing dilemma that Okinawa and other ferocious fights prompted in the White House when considering the use of the atomic bomb was this: If the Japanese would fight so fiercely for these tiny dots of land in the Pacific, what would be the price to take Japan itself? Planners grimly predicted anywhere from 250,000 to one million U.S. and Allied losses. These would be stacked on top of the already 400,000 plus American dead the war had cost us. And who knew how many Japanese would eventually perish as every man, woman, and child would have been turned into warriors steeled to defend Dai Nippon from the Western barbarians? In fact, one U.S. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVXxPmpfhcU&amp;t=1765s">Marine veteran offered</a>: “I would hate to have been involved in the landing on the mainland of Japan. I doubt we could have pulled it off. We didn’t have the personnel.”
So it was while contemplating this disquieting prognostication that Truman was presented with a means to hopefully convince Tokyo that further resistance was futile. One must imagine, as were Truman’s advisors, how the American people would have reacted if, after burying anywhere from a quarter million to a million more of their sons, husbands, and fathers, they learned that Truman had had in his possession a potential war-ending weapon, but declined to use it. Indeed, impeachment would have been the least of his problems.
For Truman, therefore, there really was no choice. Some historians today — as did some of the more militant Japanese leaders at the time — argue that the losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than those of the firebombings of cities like Tokyo, in which 14 square miles of the capital had been burned out and some 100,000 Japanese civilians with it — making March 10, 1945, the deadliest one-day wartime death toll in history. And what finally tipped the balance was the U.S. backing away from its demand for “unconditional surrender” as that would have meant ending the imperial reign, and perhaps trying Hirohito for war crimes. Although Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who would be Japan’s de facto ruler during the occupation, understood that as the Japanese viewed Hirohito as a god and would obey any imperial edict, his survival and assent to an orderly occupation was indispensable to transitioning Japan into a peaceful and productive nation. We can never know.
Still, there was something awesome and sinister about the idea of just one B-29 with one bomb being able to inflict the same carnage upon a nation as one thought required hundreds. Hirohito and others who saw the handwriting on the wall understood that the war had entered a new, apocalyptic phase never before seen in human history. Hiroshima, they thought, may have been a fluke. A one-off to be endured and ignored. Indeed, no response to Truman’s ultimatum for surrender was forthcoming in the days after August 6th. But when on August 9th, the B-29 “Bock’s Car” dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, it became clear to the Japanese that Truman’s promised “rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth” was not just bravado. True, we had no more bombs at the ready yet, but, of course, Tokyo didn’t know this. So they finally yielded to reason and agreed to “endure the unendurable” as Hirohito instructed his subjects.
As for the world the bombings ushered in, it is still too early in the new age of the “after” in the historical timeline to tell whether setting loose the nuclear genie meant the end of such global cataclysms given Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) or, more ominously, simply began the denouement of the human race as the Damoclean sword of annihilation hangs above us, just waiting for a moment of global instability, or an empowered madman with access to a nuclear arsenal, to end us all. What we can say, however, is that if one were to graph the escalation of global war dead and suffering from ancient times until the end of 1945, the line moves inexorably from the lower left to the upper right. After 1945, though there is still war, the line drops precipitously. Perhaps, as Truman had intended, the use of atomic weapons as a deterrent to continued and future aggression has saved countless lives over the years. Whether this is just a breather before the final mass extinction of the human race, or an ushering of a less deadly epoch, only time will tell.
But in 1945, Truman made the right — indeed the only — choice available to him. And as the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in combat (so far) it gives us much to think on … but nothing to be ashamed of.
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities trader, author of two novels, and columnist. His writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, NY Daily News, National Review, The Federalist, The Hill, Zerohedge, and Daily Wire. His newest book, <a href="https://posthillpress.com/book/life-in-the-pits-my-time-as-a-trader-on-the-rough-and-tumble-exchange-floors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LIFE IN THE PITS: My Time As A Trader In The Rough-And-Tumble Exchange Floors</a> comes out in December and is available for preorder. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Harry Truman Speaking at Press Conference

Why Truman Made The Right Decision In Dropping The Atomic Bomb

Japan

Movies

Nuclear war

World War II

“Oppenheimer” is an amazing achievement; Christopher Nolan is the best living director.
There is no question about this. How do you turn a three-hour biopic about a nuclear physicist into a blockbuster movie with essentially one big explosion?
The movie is a masterclass. The filmmaking is beautiful to watch. It’s the best biopic about science ever made — and no others are even close. The performances are universally fantastic. There are many cameos of people who you will recognize in addition to lead actor Cillian Murphy, who turns in a great performance.
What’s fascinating about the film from a historical point of view is the pro-Oppenheimer angle. The basic thrust of the Oppenheimer story is that he was granted security clearance in order to help produce the atomic bomb.
There is good evidence that the Soviets were using J. Robert Oppenheimer in the early 1940s, even during the Manhattan Project, in order to facilitate the transfer of information. The man was deeply embedded in and surrounded by tons of communists. Many actual acting Soviet spies were present at Los Alamos during this period.
Everyone was worried about Oppenheimer’s communist ties. But they had no choice because most of the best nuclear scientists had sympathy with communists. Albert Einstein himself said of Vladimir Lenin, “I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity.”
One reason for the sympathy for communists was that most of Europe at this point was divided between fascists and communists. A lot of people who opposed the Nazis fell into the communist camp because the communists very often would promise equality of man and brotherhood. For a lot of Jewish expatriates who had been victimized by Nazis on the basis of race, they looked at communism, which suggested equality, and were sympathetic.
So Oppenheimer was brought to Los Alamos; despite serious suspicions about his security, he was given security clearance.
After the war, he became an ardent opponent of the development of the hydrogen bomb, saying it would lead to an arms race and perhaps the United States should share technology with the Russians. Then everyone would put down their weapons.
There are two ways to read that. Oppenheimer’s fans would suggest he was so stunned by the power of the bomb that he turned against the use of nuclear weapons and their possibility, with him saying, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” The other perspective is that he was perfectly fine using the bomb on Japan when the Soviets wanted the bomb to be used on Japan. But then as soon as the war was over, he didn’t want the United States leaping far ahead of the Russians in terms of nuclear technology, so he wanted to stop the development of the hydrogen bomb.
These suspicions led Lewis Strauss to organize a removal of Oppenheimer’s security clearance. In the movie, this is played as a McCarthyite scare, as if everyone was overwrought. But there is good evidence suggesting that Oppenheimer probably should not have had a security clearance in the aftermath of the war because he had been given it simply as an emergency measure. Every woman he ever slept with was a communist. All of his friends were communists. He gave money to communist causes.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The biggest problem with the movie is the time in which the movie has been made. Here’s why: The entire premise of the movie is that Oppenheimer has created the means for the world to destroy itself, and he can’t deal with it. That’s the entire plotline of the movie. All of the counterarguments to him — mutually assured destruction, we have to bomb Japan because a million men will die on the beaches of Japan if we don’t, we have to beat the Soviets — are treated as bad concerns. 
History proves all of Oppenheimer’s critics basically correct. The reality is that nuclear power has been one of the greatest achievements in the history of science, maybe the greatest achievement in the history of science. Why? Not only because of the development of nuclear energy, which is essentially endless and clean, but also because the development of the nuclear bomb itself has made wartime death extraordinarily less of a mathematical issue.
The number of American soldiers who were killed in World War II was 405,000; 116,000 Americans died in World War I.
Then the nuclear bomb was developed.
There were 36,000 American deaths in the Korean War, which is less than one-third the total of World War I and less than one-tenth the total of World War II; 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War. These are bloody, long wars. The Persian Gulf War totaled 382 deaths; the Iraq operation, 4,600; and the Afghanistan operation, 2,400.
The number of wartime deaths on planet Earth went down dramatically in the aftermath of the development of the bomb. Why? Because if you’re going to fight a proxy war, it better not escalate into anything that approaches a nuclear exchange.
There’s a scene in the movie where Oppenheimer visits President Truman. In it, he tells Truman he doesn’t want to help create the hydrogen bomb and he’s very concerned about the casualties. He says that he is disturbed because he’s the person who created the bomb. Truman looks at him and says, “You didn’t drop it. I dropped it. Nobody’s gonna remember you for dropping it. They’re gonna remember you for the science and remember me for dropping the bomb.” Then he says, “Get this crybaby out of my office.” Truman was right. Nobody remembers Oppenheimer for being the guy who dropped the bomb because he didn’t drop the bomb.
The movie seems to suggest the scientists had some sort of special viewpoint into humanity because they developed the science while the politicians were venal and corrupt and had worldly concerns — but the scientists operate on a spiritual plane.
The cult of scientific expertise probably went out of fashion with Oppenheimer. It’s a good thing it did, because the reality is that just because a scientist is great at science does not mean they know anything about politics or about human nature. Take Anthony Fauci, for example, who does not know about human nature. Fauci does not know what decisions should be made to balance all the interests of human beings. This is why we elect politicians. This is why we don’t have scientific god-kings.
There are a couple messages from the film that conflict. One message: It’s bad scientists don’t get to run things because politicians are venal. Second message: Scientists can be screwed up because they’re just like all other human beings. They’re not a class apart. They are not wiser or more brilliant, except in the fields in which they’re wiser and more brilliant, which includes nuclear physics but does not include politics.
But the fact that the movie takes on all of these issues — politics, science, the interplay of the two, communism versus freedom of speech — in a three-hour blockbuster that will make hundreds of millions of dollars?
All of this is a testament to what Christopher Nolan is capable of.
It’s so good I will watch it twice. That’s saying a lot because it’s three hours long.
And it’s worth every minute.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Menu