Current Nuclear Weapons Development

The MM3 force isn’t the backbone of the US nuclear deterrent. Trident is. It is more accurate and can accommodate up to eight warheads, and currently averages about half that. I can’t recall a failure in US usage (the British I believe had some issues).
It's a common missile pool between the two, just the UK Tridents have UK made warheads onboard.

Failures happen, the missiles aren't perfect.

And a cracked solid rocket motor has a very impressive failure mode!
 
Oh, yes, indeed;):D:

My introduction to that was watching a video a couple of E7 Missile Techs made when they were at a rocket decommissioning out in the desert.

Safe distance of roughly one mile from the detonation, and the D5 first stage blew a crater some 100m across and 15+m deep into desert hardpan. It was very cool watching the shockwave roll across the desert for 5 seconds from seeing the boom to hearing it.
 
I would not have thought Russian test failure rates were dramatically better after all the problems with Bulva, though I am motivated to do some research on the issue for both sides. I would appreciate any documentation on the US test failures, as I’m unfamiliar with them. I’d also be fascinated with any documentation describing mobile ICBM deployment rates.
Erm. There is a difference between test failure rate for completely new weapon - which is expected to be high - and test failure rate for refurbished ancient weapon.
 
Erm. There is a difference between test failure rate for completely new weapon - which is expected to be high - and test failure rate for refurbished ancient weapon.
Very much so.

However, as a detonics engineer explained, "If you tell me that the ordnance must not ever detonate unintentionally, I can do that. If you tell me that the ordnance must always detonate when so commanded, I can do that. But if you tell me you want both, we need to have a talk."

And while it is almost certainly unfair of me, I strongly suspect that the Russians went for "Ordnance must always detonate" over "must never detonate unintentionally".
 
@Dilandu, that is definitely true. However, the entire MMIII fleet underwent a propulsion replacement (PRP) in the 00s. The oldest motors of that replacement effort are hitting 25 years which, although relatively old, is within the historical performance for that propellant type. The biggest issue is not in the missile itself, but in the embedded hardware in the ground systems.

Even Trident D5, which is slated to serve through the service life of the Columbia class, has a continual series of motor and avionics replacement/upgrades to maintain the utility of the system.
 
So will this report recommend, with the recognition that we now undoubtedly face two nuclear peers, call for an expansion of our arsenal?

I’ve messaged Matthew Koenig and he’s pretty hawkish so we’ll see I guess.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how the US doesn’t expand warheads in the short term. The last several MM3 tests have all used three inert RVs. Longer term, B-21s will be nuclearized and I suspect the SSBN buy gets expanded.
 
Years ago I posted an article from the Los Alamos lab’s quarterly publication about the size of the Chinese nuclear enterprise being 2-3x larger than the US employing IIRC, 5x the workers.

I was then reliably told, arguably mocked as a fear monger, this is no proof they had any intention of expanding their arsenal.
 
There are a lot of very wrong assumptions being made in this thread by quite a number of people. There is a lot that isn't public knowledge that would change the calculations. I trust the nuclear arsenal to work as intended if required, and yes it is sufficient to hold both Russia and China at risk.

The US has also developed an extensive capability to conduct non-nuclear testing to inform future nuclear weapon designs. The US is the primary beneficiary of a nuclear test ban treaty, we don't need nuclear testing, but other nations do.

Russian strategic weapon design philosophy is analogous to say a laptop, their weapons have a fixed life-span and must be replaced entirely at its end. The US design philosophy is analogous to a desktop, it has a much longer life-span as it can be constantly upgraded during its lifetime.
 
There are a lot of very wrong assumptions being made in this thread by quite a number of people. There is a lot that isn't public knowledge that would change the calculations. I trust the nuclear arsenal to work as intended if required, and yes it is sufficient to hold both Russia and China at risk.
We shouldn't just hold them 'at risk', they should be held at the brink of complete annihilation as per 1988.
 
Deterrence works, you don't need 10,000 nukes for deterrence as North Korea has clearly shown.
 
But 5000-6000 seems reasonable. In 1988 it was >15000.

An increase in reaction to China’s increase is warranted. The US has enough launch platforms and W76/78 in storage to almost double its warhead count in the medium term. Long term it seems likely to me that the SSBN force will have to increase in size if China continues to expand. Russian expansion seems less likely for financial reasons, though presumably they can also upload existing missiles.
 
Not enough currently deployed nukes to address all nuclear states. Not enough to MAD both China and Russia simultaneously, and it's theoretically possible we'd need to add Pakistan (rough parity with India) and North Korea to the simultaneous list.


An increase in reaction to China’s increase is warranted. The US has enough launch platforms and W76/78 in storage to almost double its warhead count in the medium term. Long term it seems likely to me that the SSBN force will have to increase in size if China continues to expand. Russian expansion seems less likely for financial reasons, though presumably they can also upload existing missiles.
Increasing the warhead count per bird will require abrogating one of the arms control treaties... New START?

With the Columbia class still in design stages it wouldn't be hard to either add another quadpack per boat or just arrange for more boats built. Or both, if things get really ugly.
 
The number of nukes required to deter a country do not correlate on a 1:1 ratio to that country's own nukes. There is a specific number and the US is more that able to deter both China and Russia simultaneously with the currently available nukes, even without uploading. There are also other ways to deter countries without moving into nukes.

As far as New START, it ends in 2026 and unfortunately looks like it wont be renewed. I wouldn't worry about Russia since they are having a serious money crunch at the moment, and China is merely catching up to were they should be.
 
Not enough currently deployed nukes to address all nuclear states. Not enough to MAD both China and Russia simultaneously, and it's theoretically possible we'd need to add Pakistan (rough parity with India) and North Korea to the simultaneous list.



Increasing the warhead count per bird will require abrogating one of the arms control treaties... New START?

With the Columbia class still in design stages it wouldn't be hard to either add another quadpack per boat or just arrange for more boats built. Or both, if things get really ugly.

I think there is sufficient deterrent for the moment given the additional arsenals of UK and France, which would definitely enter into any Russian calculations. China’s 500 count I believe is all weapons, not just strategic. The US has significant numbers of strategic cruise missiles, strategic free fall bombs, and in the future tactical guided bombs with a clear strategic capability that are outside its 1550 limitation (all bomber platforms count as one warhead regardless of load and nuclear capable tactical air does not count). I think we might see additional “tactical” weapons made available in the Pacific by end of decade, likely after Guam’s defenses are heavily updated.

New START expires in February 2026, although it is questionable if it even will last that long given Russian behavior. As far as known, neither side is uploading weapons but inspections have been suspended.

I think at this point any change to the Columbia class pushes back it’s introduction schedule, but I could see later boats being built to a modified standard and I doubt construction stops at 12 if China continues its build up.
 
Last edited:
As far as New START, it ends in 2026 and unfortunately looks like it wont be renewed. I wouldn't worry about Russia since they are having a serious money crunch at the moment, and China is merely catching up to were they should be.

I don’t think there is any mechanism to renew New START; I think it only had one renewal cycle written into it. It seems likely the US would not renew with China’s increases in any case.
 
An increase in reaction to China’s increase is warranted. The US has enough launch platforms and W76/78 in storage to almost double its warhead count in the medium term. Long term it seems likely to me that the SSBN force will have to increase in size if China continues to expand. Russian expansion seems less likely for financial reasons, though presumably they can also upload existing missiles.
They will need a lot more subs because the new ones only pack 16 missiles AFAIK, so that means 20 minimum, fully loaded, 8-10 warheads each per missile. For ICBMs, 600x4 or 800x3 minimum.

1697795965996.png

Deterrence works, you don't need 10,000 nukes for deterrence as North Korea has clearly shown.
Remains to be seen whether it's for deterrence. And let's face it, they were left alone for 60 years before they started developing nukes anyway. The DPRK nukes aren't really the deterrent there, it's China, not that the US is particularly interested in NK anyway, despite how much that little tubby dude craves the attention with his regular announcements.
 
Last edited:
Deterrence works, you don't need 10,000 nukes for deterrence as North Korea has clearly shown.

No, this is just representing the increased marginal utility of individual nuclear weapons in a world with fewer nukes.

This makes nuclear use more likely, as the required quantities for effective "deterrence" are lower, which means a credible nuclear capability is within reach of more countries. Obviously, more people having nuclear bombs means the inevitable second use of nuclear weapons in war will be accelerated.

If the superpowers each had 10,000 nukes, their expectations of credible nuclear weapon arsenals be higher, and North Korea would probably be priced out of the game just like South Africa was. As there are fewer nuclear weapons in the world, the more attractive it becomes to get nuclear weapons, which means non-proliferation ends up being a race to a point where nuclear weapons arsenals explode. This point is probably maximized at "zero" nuclear weapons in the world, or very close to it.

The last time this happened was the late 1940's and early 1950's, when countries as small as Sweden, Belgium, and Switzerland were actively pursuing nuclear and thermonuclear weapon programs.

Remains to be seen whether it's for deterrence. And let's face it, they were left alone for 60 years before they started developing nukes anyway. The DPRK nukes aren't really the deterrent there, it's China, not that the US is particularly interested in NK anyway, despite how much that little tubby dude craves the attention with his regular announcements.

The DPRK's biggest ally is Russia, not China. It only cares about China for trade and routinely ignores its political demands.

No one in Asia cares about America beyond it simply being there and making its presence known. It is not a primary factor in the pursuit of nuclear weapons, which is why it has not been a primary factor in preventing it. The purpose of the DPRK nuclear program is to replace the entire manpower intensive army (not only is it increasingly unsustainable, it is a political threat to the Kim dynasty) and to prevent South Korea from invading and conquering the country.

The purpose of the public announcements is to keep South Korea's population sufficiently concerned that if its leadership attempts a surprise attack to conquer the country, it will be destroyed by the nuclear weapons, whether or not it is true. It's a fairly normal method of deterrence when dealing with aggressive democracies.

If DPRK thinks anything of America, it might think America controls South Korea, and could command it to invade on a minute's notice.

The reverse is probably closer to reality.
 
Last edited:
The number of nukes required to deter a country do not correlate on a 1:1 ratio to that country's own nukes. There is a specific number and the US is more that able to deter both China and Russia simultaneously with the currently available nukes, even without uploading. There are also other ways to deter countries without moving into nukes.
You need a specific number of nukes to cover all the targets, yes. You also need enough targets to actively enforce the fact that a nuclear exchange will result in the utter annihilation of the country. I'm not currently convinced that the US is holding enough targets to do that. Not with the reported number of nukes and their blast strengths.


As far as New START, it ends in 2026 and unfortunately looks like it wont be renewed. I wouldn't worry about Russia since they are having a serious money crunch at the moment, and China is merely catching up to were they should be.
You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?
 
I think there is sufficient deterrent for the moment given the additional arsenals of UK and France, which would definitely enter into any Russian calculations. China’s 500 count I believe is all weapons, not just strategic. The US has significant numbers of strategic cruise missiles, strategic free fall bombs, and in the future tactical guided bombs with a clear strategic capability that are outside its 1550 limitation (all bomber platforms count as one warhead regardless of load and nuclear capable tactical air does not count). I think we might see additional “tactical” weapons made available in the Pacific by end of decade, likely after Guam’s defenses are heavily updated.
I don't think that China only has 500 strategic weapons, nevermind the "all types" total.


I think at this point any change to the Columbia class pushes back it’s introduction schedule, but I could see later boats being built to a modified standard and I doubt construction stops at 12 if China continues its build up.
The intro delay is possible. Adding another 1-2 quads of missiles would very likely require changing the size of the ballast tanks. Thing is, I'm too far from EB to have a clue how far along they are in production, or if we're still in the Long Lead Purchases area.
 
You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?

That does not translate directly to a warhead, and the US has a fair number of pits in storage on top of its nominal undeployed warhead count. It’s hard to imagine that Russia maintains its current strategic weapons inventory while rearming its conventional forces post war given its economic constraints. I think it’s non adjusted GDP is somewhere between the state of New York and the state of Texas.
 
The intro delay is possible. Adding another 1-2 quads of missiles would very likely require changing the size of the ballast tanks. Thing is, I'm too far from EB to have a clue how far along they are in production, or if we're still in the Long Lead Purchases area.

A delay of introduction is the worst possible answer. The Ohio class is spent, and USN investigations into extending them further I believe have not been very positive. I could see a block of 4-6 being built with 16 tubes and perhaps a block 2 with 20 taking over later.
 
A delay of introduction is the worst possible answer. The Ohio class is spent, and USN investigations into extending them further I believe have not been very positive. I could see a block of 4-6 being built with 16 tubes and perhaps a block 2 with 20 taking over later.
There's some stuff you can do when the reactors are about on their last legs to stretch things out a bit more, but that's really just kinda limping along till either you do a refueling or you replace the hulls.

40ish years was the Ohio design life, IIRC, so I'd be surprised if they could stretch more than another 4-5 years out of them.

And that's ignoring hull condition, which I was not impressed with the conditions of the East Coast boats that came around back in 2000s when the 726-729 were all going to be SSGNs. I can only hope that they were saved by an immense infusion of money and labor hours to get right. Seems to have been a very bad case of "Oh, that boat isn't going to be here, so there's no sense in fixing that now." Could not tell you how many times a West Coast boat got extended because one of the former East Coast boats needed more maintenance hours in their refit.
 
You need a specific number of nukes to cover all the targets, yes. You also need enough targets to actively enforce the fact that a nuclear exchange will result in the utter annihilation of the country. I'm not currently convinced that the US is holding enough targets to do that. Not with the reported number of nukes and their blast strengths.



You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?
It doesn't matter what you believe. Those in the know, both in the US and Russia/China believe otherwise.

It takes more than just a crapton of U/Pu to make a proper modern bomb.
 
It doesn't matter what you believe. Those in the know, both in the US and Russia/China believe otherwise.
Based on the recent Congressional Report recommending a massive increase in the number of weapons, I think that opinions are changing.



It takes more than just a crapton of U/Pu to make a proper modern bomb.
That's simply the most expensive and hardest to make part of the weapon. The rest of a bomb can be designed and tested sans fissionables if you care about not voiding the CNTB treaty, like the US test on 20OCT2023. And if you don't care about that treaty, or have already withdrawn from it like Russia just did, you can do full up testing. Or you just use older designs that you know work.
 
0 and 0 (strategic)
Do you really believe that?

Given that the technology has existed for 70 years, technolgy refinements available via internet - much less intelligence activities; given Pakistan/Khan's 'free distribution' of designs to Iraq, Libya & N.Korea; given zero inspections of two key known refining sites; given sincere ambition to remove Israel from the planet; given successful development of orbitable demonstrated rocket systems with IRBM paylod and range -and given a plethora of very smart scientists/engineers - why is that a rational assumption?

I realize I only asked for published asessments - but, what do you believe?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom