Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.

[bobbymike]

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/08/17/Lockheed-Martin-receives-contract-for-Trident-II-nuclear-missile/5771502982032/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=4

[marauder2048]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1281946/stratcom-commander-describes-challenges-of-21st-century-deterrence/#.WZYu6kzeKkk.facebook

"We can't [assume] that having 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons under the New START Treaty somehow deters all our adversaries. It doesn't," the general said.

Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.

Have you read the article?
In context it's very clear he is not advocating for larger numbers of warheads and delivery systems.
He's advocating for modernisation of the triad and for the need for complementary capabilities (like cyber attack/ defence etc.)

1500 warheads was typically regarded as the lower limit of the quantity required to provide extended deterrence; the US is
according to the latest treaty compliance reports far below that.

[Jemiba]

Ok, this thread is still open !
What was posted about NK can be found here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,29397.0.html,
just locked.

Before the NK discussion started, this thread ran relatively smoothly. So, just remember, what
soemone said : "The original intent of this thread was to discuss systems, their utility, and whether
or not they were technically feasible/useful. "

And the other idea is a good one, too, I think: "Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian.  Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions.  Second offense is a banning.  I could definitely get behind that."

[Triton]

The original intention of this topic may have been a non-political discussion of nuclear weapon systems, their utility, and technical feasibility/usefulness, but that has never happened in actual practice. The discussion of nuclear weapon systems is intertwined with politics, emotion, and ethics and the posts to this topic continually demonstrate that a non-political, non-emotional, and non-ethical discussion of this topic is impossible. The "rules" will continue to be broken because few topics are as emotionally charged as nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Members aren't willing to let comments and opinions go and even resort to ad hominem attacks to punish and retaliate. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the mea culpas and the promises to behave in the future to prevent the topic lock. We've heard it all before. I believe that the decision to keep this topic open is a mistake if the ultimate goal is to keep the peace on the forums.

[sferrin]

Nobody is FORCED to post in this thread.  Besides, if the mods follow what was mentioned a few posts up, those who can't resist posting politics here will end up gone tout suite. Win-win.  Instead of turning this thread into a thread about why posting without politics is impossible, how about we talk about nuclear weapons?

[Airplane]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1281946/stratcom-commander-describes-challenges-of-21st-century-deterrence/#.WZYu6kzeKkk.facebook

"We can't [assume] that having 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons under the New START Treaty somehow deters all our adversaries. It doesn't," the general said.

Why we should have decoupled our arsenal from that of the USSR/Russia after the Cold War and sized it for our and our allies security needs. Which IMHO was START I - 1200 launchers and 6000 warheads.

Have you read the article?
In context it's very clear he is not advocating for larger numbers of warheads and delivery systems.
He's advocating for modernisation of the triad and for the need for complementary capabilities (like cyber attack/ defence etc.)

1500 warheads was typically regarded as the lower limit of the quantity required to provide extended deterrence; the US is
according to the latest treaty compliance reports far below that.

What has happened to the core materials of the scrapped warheads? Storage or gone forever?

[Kadija_Man]

Nobody is FORCED to post in this thread.  Besides, if the mods follow what was mentioned a few posts up, those who can't resist posting politics here will end up gone tout suite. Win-win.  Instead of turning this thread into a thread about why posting without politics is impossible, how about we talk about nuclear weapons?

As has been mentioned, it is impossible to divorce politics from any dimension of nuclear weapons.   Politics is how decisions are made.  Politicians get elected or defeated on those decisions.   Some are sensible.  Some are not.  To try and divorce politics from the decision making process is impossible.

What can happen is that we can all take a step back and actually read what our opponents are saying, rather than simply reacting to what we believe they have said.  Stop taking entrenched positions and actually think about the issues being raised.   We can then discuss what we are talking about, without resorting to or invoking heated language.

[Airplane]

So glad China isn't increasing it's nuclear forces.  Surely our MMIII fleet, the newest of which rolled off the line in 1977, will last forever. /sarc

Our MMIII still do everything today they did when they came off the assembly line. The warheads still will hit whatever target we choose within range. Also, they have been upgraded over the years so they are not exactly 40+ years old. And they are extremely reliable and accurate. So we don't have cool looking trucks pulling ICBMs along... Big deal. They need that capability because we were fielding the B-2 which was going to hunt and kill mobile launchers. The B-2 was cancelled (essentially speaking). The US doesn't need mobile launchers on our roads... No one has a bomber that is going to fly over CONUS the way the B-2 was going to fly and persist over the USSR and China. Our mobile boomers do just fine and are more survivable than anything on land.

[sferrin]

So glad China isn't increasing it's nuclear forces.  Surely our MMIII fleet, the newest of which rolled off the line in 1977, will last forever. /sarc

Our MMIII still do everything today they did when they came off the assembly line. The warheads still will hit whatever target we choose within range. Also, they have been upgraded over the years so they are not exactly 40+ years old. And they are extremely reliable and accurate. So we don't have cool looking trucks pulling ICBMs along... Big deal. They need that capability because we were fielding the B-2 which was going to hunt and kill mobile launchers. The B-2 was cancelled (essentially speaking). The US doesn't need mobile launchers on our roads... No one has a bomber that is going to fly over CONUS the way the B-2 was going to fly and persist over the USSR and China. Our mobile boomers do just fine and are more survivable than anything on land.

Mobility is to give the option of riding out an attack by making them more difficult to hit.  If your missiles aren't at risk of being lost in a first strike, the incentive to "use them or lose them" is reduced.  The B-2s weren't going to be involved in a first strike or even going after enemy missiles used in a first strike.  Those would have been long gone hours before the B-2s arrived.  As for the MMIII they aren't as accurate as they could be.  Greater accuracy allows smaller warheads, or harder targets to be targeted.  Smaller warheads means smaller RVs and/or more RV and decoys.  The MMIII doesn't have the range to hold all targets at risk.  It doesn't have the throw weight to allow boost glide warheads (which is why a Peacekeeper Minotaur was used for the HTV-2 tests).  Lastly, not building ICBMs for 30 years has killed our industrial base.  Building an ICBM isn't like planting a tree.  You just wait and see all the delays, over runs, and problems GBSD will have because all the people with experience building ICBMs are retired or dead.  As for "mobile boomers" the entire deployed fleet could be taken out of action with 7 torpedoes.  And no, they aren't impossible to find, and won't remain difficult to find forever. SSBNs are particularly weak from a deterrent perspective but that would veer off into politics so I'll leave it at that.  If somebody wanted to start a nuclear politics thread they should do so.  I don't imagine it would stay open long.

[Airplane]

Use'em or lose'em is what kept the peace. If your enemy has only an all or nothing option with their nuclear arsenal, are you going to take the chance of having hundreds of ICBMs launched at you? If you want more mobile assets, build more boomers with longer ranged missiles.

The political climate is also much different here in the USA, and do you or anyone really believe that a sizable portion of the USA that is liberal and anti-anything-military is going to allow big rigs driving around the USA with nukes??? Russia and China have huge expansive areas where no one lives... Not so much in the USA. It will never, ever happen because of politics. Build more boomers with longer ranged missiles. There ain't no one at sea protesting submarines are in their backyard conducting missile drills.

The other needs mobile road missiles because the USA has maintained a bomber force (and in the 80s with cruise missiles) that could realistically penetrate their airspace and hit fixed assets.

The B-2 was conceived as a first strike weapon. The Soviets were petrified of an invisible bomber taking out their strategic assets with no warning as they would get with early warning sats.

[sferrin]

Use'em or lose'em is what kept the peace. If your enemy has only an all or nothing option with their nuclear arsenal, are you going to take the chance of having hundreds of ICBMs launched at you? If you want more mobile assets, build more boomers with longer ranged missiles.

The political climate is also much different here in the USA, and do you or anyone really believe that a sizable portion of the USA that is liberal and anti-anything-military is going to allow big rigs driving around the USA with nukes??? Russia and China have huge expansive areas where no one lives... Not so much in the USA. It will never, ever happen because of politics. Build more boomers with longer ranged missiles. There ain't no one at sea protesting submarines are in their backyard conducting missile drills.

The other needs mobile road missiles because the USA has maintained a bomber force (and in the 80s with cruise missiles) that could realistically penetrate their airspace and hit fixed assets.

The B-2 was a first strike weapon.

In case you haven't been paying attention, politics is a no-no here.  Stop it or watch the thread get locked.  Better yet, go start a thread to discuss the political side of nuclear weapons. Just leave it out of this thread.

[bobbymike]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/09/trump-reviews-mini-nuke-242513

[bobbymike]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/11/talk-little-nukes-cover-lacking-foreign-policy-strategy/#disqus_thread

[Brickmuppet]

From 38North: [quote]...the preliminary seismic magnitude estimates varied from 5.8, as published by both the CTBTO and NORSAR, to 6.3 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). More recently, both the CTBTO and NORSAR have officially revised their estimates upward to 6.1. This revision is significant because, rather than providing an equivalent yield of about 120 kilotons derived from the lower magnitude estimates, the application of standard formula with appropriate constants shows that the yield can now be estimated to have been roughly 250 kilotons (one quarter megaton)... [/quote]

Full article here: http://www.38north.org/2017/09/punggye091217/

The article goes on to mention that there appears to have been significant damage to the mountain, to the extent that its structural integrity at least with regards to mitigating radioactive venting in any future high yield nuke tests is in doubt. That seems to be based on tenuous data and in any event North Korea does not lack for mountains.

(Edited 9/13 22:17 EST)

[Triton]

"Defense Secretary Mattis says U.S. must keep all 3 parts of nuclear force"

Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-north-korea-nuclear-arsenal-20170913-story.html