Current Nuclear Weapons Development

www.heritage.org

U.S. Nuclear Weapons

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Michaela Dodge, PhD To assess U.S. nuclear weapons properly, one must understand three things: their essential national security function, the growing nuclear threat posed by adversaries, and the current state of U.S. nuclear forces and their supporting infrastructure. Such...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
that article is insane. we are fueling a proxy war ON RUSSIAS BORDER AND WONDER WHY RUSSIA IS GETTING ITS HACKLES UP threatening tactical nukes and more...

and now THEY are returning the favor in the mideast and all we got is sanctimony, propaganda, and escalation. I am shocked that people like author of article above are those guiding policy! wtf???
 
To be fair, I do not think Russia has anything to do with the current Mideast turmoil. That seems to largely be an Iran sponsored problem that came to a head possibly because one of its proxies did something that Iran would not have condoned, and politics has trapped all sides into their various reactions.

As for Russian nuclear weapons usage, if it has not been a problem yet after Kharkiv and Kherson I can not imagine it will be in the future either now that the line of control has stabilized and there is little possibility of Ukraine (or Russia) significantly altering it.

Were Russia and the US to get into a tactical nuclear exchange, I find it extremely doubtful that it would remain strictly "tactical" for long. Having more tactical nuclear weapons strikes me as the equivalent of bringing a thousand rounds of pistol ammo to a rifle range - sure, go ahead, but I think after you fire the first couple dozen it is going to be pointless.
 
Josh_TN said:
To be fair, I do not think Russia has anything to do with the current Mideast turmoil. That seems to largely be an Iran sponsored problem that came to a head possibly because one of its proxies did something that Iran would not have condoned, and politics has trapped all sides into their various reactions.

As for Russian nuclear weapons usage, if it has not been a problem yet after Kharkiv and Kherson I can not imagine it will be in the future either now that the line of control has stabilized and there is little possibility of Ukraine (or Russia) significantly altering it.

Were Russia and the US to get into a tactical nuclear exchange, I find it extremely doubtful that it would remain strictly "tactical" for long. Having more tactical nuclear weapons strikes me as the equivalent of bringing a thousand rounds of pistol ammo to a rifle range - sure, go ahead, but I think after you fire the first couple dozen it is going to be pointless.
Click to expand...
Russia using tactical nukes on any NATO member is going to immediately "preheat Moscow to 4500degF" per the old jokes.
 
TMA1 said:
that article is insane. we are fueling a proxy war ON RUSSIAS BORDER AND WONDER WHY RUSSIA IS GETTING ITS HACKLES UP threatening tactical nukes and more...

and now THEY are returning the favor in the mideast and all we got is sanctimony, propaganda, and escalation. I am shocked that people like author of article above are those guiding policy! wtf???
Click to expand...
Russia started the Ukraine War by invading it in 2014, Hamas's puppet masters started the war in Gaza.

This video is worth considering when contemplating the use of nuclear weapons and why even China and India have told Putin not to use them.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xthzy1PxTA
 
Scott Kenny said:
Russia using tactical nukes on any NATO member is going to immediately "preheat Moscow to 4500degF" per the old jokes.
Click to expand...

As a romanian i'm 99% sure the americans will do nothing of the sort. They will not have Washington "preheated" for the sake of Bucharest, Warsaw, Paris or London. For them european "allies" are nothing but satellites hence easily discardable. They will huff and puff and wail and whatnot, but nothing more. It's our fault as europeans that we meekly let ourselves used this way. IF the americans are mental enough (the 1%) to do it not only Washington DC but pretty much every inch of the US will be "preheated to 4500 degrees".
 
lancer21 said:
As a romanian i'm 99% sure the americans will do nothing of the sort. They will not have Washington "preheated" for the sake of Bucharest, Warsaw, Paris or London. For them european "allies" are nothing but satellites hence easily discardable. They will huff and puff and wail and whatnot, but nothing more. It's our fault as europeans that we meekly let ourselves used this way. IF the americans are mental enough (the 1%) to do it not only Washington DC but pretty much every inch of the US will be "preheated to 4500 degrees".
Click to expand...
A nuclear strike of any kind on any NATO member would result in a like-for-like response.
paralay said:
Under no circumstances will Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, because it is Russian territory. The same applies to the Baltic countries.
Click to expand...
I think this says an awful lot more about current Russian goals than it was supposed to. You should know that in the case of the latter, any attempt to realise it will result in point 4 immediately.
 
Forest Green said:
A nuclear strike of any kind on any NATO member would result in a like-for-like response.

I think this says an awful lot more about current Russian goals than it was supposed to. You should know that in the case of the latter, any attempt to realise it will result in point 4 immediately.
Click to expand...

Like i said i'm 99% sure it wont. That's just propaganda. As far as i'm concerned "Point 4" is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Perhaps the sanest thing to do is pray we never get to see who is right.
 
lancer21 said:
Like i said i'm 99% sure it wont. That's just propaganda. As far as i'm concerned "Point 4" is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Perhaps the sanest thing to do is pray we never get to see who is right.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't, then NATO is a farce. The whole point of the alliance is in article 5: an attack on one is an attack on all.

paralay said:
Under no circumstances will Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, because it is Russian territory. The same applies to the Baltic countries. Rzeszow or Ramstein, London or Washington are another matter. The slightest provocation and "gifts" in the air!
Click to expand...
Your point 3 seems to make it very obvious that nukes are in play:

3. The enemy is acting against Russian critically important state or military facilities, which can disrupt the response of Russian nuclear forces;
Click to expand...
Sevastopol was important enough to go to war to claim as Russian, and I refuse to believe that there aren't nuclear weapons there to arm Russian Navy ships and submarines. I'm pretty sure Sevastopol was one of the declared sites for nuclear weapons under the START etc treaties.
 
lancer21 said:
Like i said i'm 99% sure it wont. That's just propaganda.
Click to expand...
No, it definitely will, and it's dangerous to imagine otherwise. A nuclear attack of any kind on any NATO member will cause a nuclear strike of equal magnitude on Russia (or any other such aggressor).
lancer21 said:
As far as i'm concerned "Point 4" is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Perhaps the sanest thing to do is pray we never get to see who is right.
Click to expand...
Referring to the point 4 made by paralay here:
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sevastopol was important enough to go to war to claim as Russian, and I refuse to believe that there aren't nuclear weapons there to arm Russian Navy ships and submarines. I'm pretty sure Sevastopol was one of the declared sites for nuclear weapons under the START etc treaties.
Click to expand...
This refers to the impossibility of firing strategic nuclear forces. There are no strategic forces in Crimea
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Ukraine is an independent state, something which the Russian Federation itself accepted between 1991 and 2014.
Click to expand...
Based on this quote, they still think the Baltic countries belong to Russia also. Original post has since been deleted.


paralay said:
Under no circumstances will Russia use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, because it is Russian territory. The same applies to the Baltic countries.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
These are tactical nuclear weapons - anti-ship cruise missiles.
Although I am wrong, there are strategic ones now - MiG-31K with a missile, I believe they will be relocated to Akhtubinsk after the escalation subsides.
 
topcor.ru

Перехватчики МиГ-31И уже перебазированы на аэродром в Крыму

Командование ВКС России оперативно выполнило распоряжение главы государства о начале патрулирования акватории Черного моря перехватчиками МиГ-31И. Спутниковые снимки аэродрома Бельбек в Крыму, распространившиеся в Сети, показывают наличие четырех таких бортов на стоянке.Кроме того, на данном
topcor.ru topcor.ru
 
paralay said:
These are tactical nuclear weapons - anti-ship cruise missiles.
Although I am wrong, there are strategic ones now - MiG-31K with a missile, I believe they will be relocated to Akhtubinsk after the escalation subsides.
Click to expand...
So going after those Strategic MiG-31Ks is officially an escalation point.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot see how Kinzhal could be described as anything but tactical, even as a nuclear delivery system.
Click to expand...
If I'm reading @paralay correctly, the Russians consider them to be strategic, and that's what matters here.

Which makes going after them a direct threat to "strategic weapons" as per point 3 in that announcement:
3. The enemy is acting against Russian critically important state or military facilities, which can disrupt the response of Russian nuclear forces;
Click to expand...
 
Context is key. I read that as meaning if you blow up a fighter with a tactical nuclear weapon, then nuclear options are on the table. But to do that, you would have to attack a place where Russia stored tactical nuclear weapons. Which is not the same thing as saying every MiG-31K is a strategic asset, IMO.
 
Josh_TN said:
Context is key. I read that as meaning if you blow up a fighter with a tactical nuclear weapon, then nuclear options are on the table. But to do that, you would have to attack a place where Russia stored tactical nuclear weapons. Which is not the same thing as saying every MiG-31K is a strategic asset, IMO.
Click to expand...
Aren't the MiG-31Ks modified to be only able to carry the Kinzhal?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Russia appears to, and they're the ones threatening the use of nukes if someone threatens their nuke bases.
Click to expand...

Well I think it’s a moot point anyway; an attack on an airbase inside Russia that was storing or sortieing any kind of nuclear weapon would probably be a red line.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well I think it’s a moot point anyway; an attack on an airbase inside Russia that was storing or sortieing any kind of nuclear weapon would probably be a red line.
Click to expand...
Yet those very airbases are actively launching strikes against Ukraine.

That's the catch-22 Russia has declared. They're trying to let the threat of nuclear weapons give a shield to current attacks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yet those very airbases are actively launching strikes against Ukraine.

That's the catch-22 Russia has declared. They're trying to let the threat of nuclear weapons give a shield to current attacks.
Click to expand...
I with the US would open the flood gates of military aide to Ukraine, but I am in no rush for any US direct action against any Russian position, let alone any airbase storing nuclear weapons.
 
paralay said:
Ukraine has already attacked the base of strategic forces in Engels, the nuclear war has not begun...
Click to expand...

And I believe at least one one other bomber base that was operating as a forward area for such. But that *Ukraine* did it with drones is a very different thing than the US doing it with...anything. Or even US weapons being used by Ukraine to do such. The US has put a hard red line on its weapons being used against Russia proper, vice the territories it does not recognize as Russia. Technically Crimea fits the bill of non recognized Russian territory, though I cannot imagine Russia stores any nuclear weapons there.
 
www.spacewar.com

Survey: Almost 73% of South Koreans want country to develop nukes

Washington DC (UPI) Feb 6, 2024 - Roughly three out of four South Koreans think their country should develop its own nuclear weapons amid concerns about the growing threat from neighboring North Korea, according to a new survey conducted by Gallup Korea.
www.spacewar.com
 
Forest Green said:
www.spacewar.com

Survey: Almost 73% of South Koreans want country to develop nukes

Washington DC (UPI) Feb 6, 2024 - Roughly three out of four South Koreans think their country should develop its own nuclear weapons amid concerns about the growing threat from neighboring North Korea, according to a new survey conducted by Gallup Korea.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
Not surprising.

Plus, Putin has demonstrated what happens to a country that doesn't have nukes when their belligerent neighbor does. Ukraine invasion is the single greatest incentive for nuclear proliferation since the 1950s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not surprising.

Plus, Putin has demonstrated what happens to a country that doesn't have nukes when their belligerent neighbor does. Ukraine invasion is the single greatest incentive for nuclear proliferation since the 1950s.
Click to expand...
Nuclear proliferation is already happening anyway, it's just happening in a negatively imbalanced manner at present. First DPRK, next Iran... May as well be ROK and Japan next instead.
 
sferrin said:
For sure not -12s. They haven't been around that long. Looks like the main difference between the -12 and the -4 (which has been around since the 70s) is the type of PAL. The yield options are the same.
Click to expand...
The -12 is a -4's physics packages with new PALs and guidance (INS) options. I suspect there have been B-61s of one flavor or another in Europe since they were invented. It's not like the USAF was shy about forward basing in the 60's.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom