There are many good reasons to forward deploy. However I would seriously doubt whether it is cheaper if objectively based on cost data. I have been posted to many locations in my lifetime and I can confidently say expats are very expensive once you factor in international schooling, home leave, housing, tax equalization and relocation expenses.Because it’s cheaper to house them there than California.
Seriously. Two weeks back I heard an interview with the Japanese foreign minister who said just that.
Sorry but deploying an IRBM requires a large storage facility and manpower whether it be stationary or mobile.Japanese politician are master in deception and denial, on issue whether any Japan-based US facilities stores or transit nuclear weapons, their stance is we will not ask and we will not know and hence does not violate the constitution. Same case, They could possible just deny this violates the constitution. The general population are just passive enough and US gets what they want. LOL.
and it takes at least 5-10 years to approve budget, design. prototype, testing and testing ..... if not much more and at that time the new government (not Trump) will emerge and cancel the programThus far the US has yet to announce any new IRBM, the closest program known is the MLRS launched Precision Strike Missile. But that’s at the lower end of the game more of a Cruise Missile.
Yet reality is the Japanese government refuses to ask if any Japan-based US facilities stores or transit nuclear weapons because it violates the constitution. That is the nuclear weapon and not the asking part. Do you see the irony?Agree with Samurai here, you can't just park a bunch of IRBMs and its supporting facilities in another nation and not expect the local populance to be oblivious about it. And we are going to cut out the whole "Japanese politicians are deceptive/conniving" argument not just because it is ridiculous but also
1) It is a very blatant racist/nationalistic ad homenim that the forum rules are strictly against.
2) It is a very vague and requires such a huge amount of presupposition that it renders the entire argument moot
Japan stockpile is high burn up commercial grade Pu, with lot of 240/242, HEU more usable for bomb, and commercial grade it is useless for hydrogen bomb.I don't trust these plutonium stockpile figures for China at all. It's claimed that China has only 3 tons of Pu - for comparison, "pacifist" Japan has 46 tons. This is outlandish and if it's true then the Chinese government has been monstrously negligent. The most dangerous thing about China's nuclear doctrine is that it's morphed into a quasi-religion in the minds of Chinese strategists, rather than a policy that was suitable for its time and place. Now is no longer the time or place.
Which facility are you referring to? There's the plant at Jiuquan and the one at Guangyuan.
Plutonium enrichment by centrifugation is generally considered infeasible because of the mass difference between isotopes - 1 for Pu 240/239 vs. 3 for U 238/235 - but there's an interesting laser enrichment technology that utilizes the difference in magnetic properties of the nuclei, not the mass difference, to preferentially ionize one isotope which can then be captured by an electric field. All the work I've seen on it uses uranium enrichment as an example, but it might be feasible to use it to enrich an existing commercial grade Pu stockpile.Japan stockpile is high burn up commercial grade Pu, with lot of 240/242, HEU more usable for bomb, and commercial grade it is useless for hydrogen bomb.
40°13'27.32" N 97°21'37.75" E
32°29'41.73" N 105°35'28.89" E