Current Nuclear Weapons Development

www.defensenews.com

In the wake of Russia’s invasion, the US must refocus on nuclear deterrence

The United States must demonstrate resolve and recommit to a strengthened nuclear deterrence posture. It is essential for the protection of our homeland and forces, as well as our allies to whom we extend nuclear deterrence. The credibility of our nuclear deterrent rests on the capability of our...
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
news.yahoo.com

The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone

In destructive power, the behemoths of the Cold War dwarfed the U.S. atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Washington’s biggest test blast was 1,000 times as large. Moscow’s was 3,000 times. On both sides, the idea was to deter strikes with threats of vast retaliation — with mutual assured...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Half life of tritium is 12.32 years, and it decays into a neutron absorbing product. The opposite of why it's put into a nuclear weapon.......

Which means if you're bomb depends on that gas to make it work (which saves on Uranium), then unless you refresh the gas bottle regularly........
 
Grey Havoc said:
news.yahoo.com

The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone

In destructive power, the behemoths of the Cold War dwarfed the U.S. atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Washington’s biggest test blast was 1,000 times as large. Moscow’s was 3,000 times. On both sides, the idea was to deter strikes with threats of vast retaliation — with mutual assured...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we're as close to a nuclear war as 1962, but we may be closer than 1983.
www.yahoo.com

Putin ally warns of nuclear dystopia due to United States

One of President Vladimir Putin's closest allies warned the United States on Wednesday that the world could spiral towards a nuclear dystopia if Washington pressed on with what the Kremlin casts as a long-term plot to destroy Russia. Dmitry Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012 and is...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
www.bbc.com

North Korea tests banned intercontinental missile

It is the first time such a missile, which puts the US within reach, has been tested since 2017.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.reuters.com

North Korea says tested new ICBM, prepared for long confrontation with U.S.

North Korea said it tested a new, powerful type of intercontinental ballistic missile on Thursday, marking an end to a self-imposed moratorium on long-range testing in place since 2017 and drawing international condemnation.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

edition.cnn.com

North Korea fires first suspected ICBM since 2017 | CNN

North Korea has fired what is believed to be its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in more than four years as Western leaders gather in Brussels for a security summit.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com

www.nytimes.com

What We Know About North Korea’s Missile Launch

The test, held before a NATO meeting over the war in Ukraine, drew condemnation from the U.S., Japan and South Korea, and spurred tit-for-tat missile launches by the South.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
So long as the air launched program is going forward as well as the new ICBM, I don't see a big problem. Putting nukes on attack boats created a lot of headaches for the service back in the 80's for a capability that was generally only able to engage a target per 688. There are huge security and communication issues that suddenly become a big problem once special weapons are on board. Seems like a very limited niche capability that is a huge distraction for the crew - when is anyone going to want to phone in a strike to an SSN which has a very limited capability as opposed to sending fighters or bombers? If it's a tactical strike, use fighters, bombers, or air launched weapons where there is more positive control of the strike element; if its a strategic exchange why screw around with a handful of nukes that reach targets two hours after they were hit with a SLBM?
 
It would give a sneak attack capability to counter the threat posed by Russia's UUV nukes.
 
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
 
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
It means they have to expend resources dealing with it. Instead of giving them a pass, now they have to worry about every submarine in the fleet. You know, like WE do.
 
Forest Green said:
It would give a sneak attack capability to counter the threat posed by Russia's UUV nukes.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a sneak attack capability counters UUV nukes and if that is the case I would think that ALCMs and B-2s, along with their future replacements, already fill that need.
 
sferrin said:
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
It means they have to expend resources dealing with it. Instead of giving them a pass, now they have to worry about every submarine in the fleet. You know, like WE do.
Click to expand...
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down? The Russians don't have a blue water surface fleet to speak of. Do you think Russian SSNs are going to try to hunt USN boats? Not counting the SSGNs, I think there's something like a dozen of them, including 2-3 Victor IIIs left, so not really sure the Russians would or could commit anything of value.
 
zen said:
Josh_TN said:
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down?
Click to expand...
The same as land launched cruise. Targets are going to be part of the same plan(s).
Click to expand...
Then it seems redundant to me, given that it would have to be an entire new weapon and would be carried in tiny numbers unless SSGNs dedicated a lot of space to them.
 
You also have the problem of a conventional TLAM strike being mistaken for a nuclear strike and we know the US has made heavy usage of TLAMs. If you wanted nukes on USN non-SSBN assets, I believe using the Zumwalts with a nuclear LRHW would be a much better option. At least you could use them for messaging, you minimize security and communication issues, eliminate mistaken identity, and introduce a different strike profile for the enemy to defend against.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
It means they have to expend resources dealing with it. Instead of giving them a pass, now they have to worry about every submarine in the fleet. You know, like WE do.
Click to expand...
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down? The Russians don't have a blue water surface fleet to speak of. Do you think Russian SSNs are going to try to hunt USN boats? Not counting the SSGNs, I think there's something like a dozen of them, including 2-3 Victor IIIs left, so not really sure the Russians would or could commit anything of value.
Click to expand...
And China?
 
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how a sneak attack capability counters UUV nukes and if that is the case I would think that ALCMs and B-2s, along with their future replacements, already fill that need.
Click to expand...
'Counter' was perhaps a misleading word, I meant match. A submarine is likely more stealthy than a B-2.
 
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
That's not a bad argument actually, they're only really suitable or targeting places that aren't well defended whether ALCM or SLCM. It's fine saturating targets with conventional warheads, but doing that with nukes is very inefficient. Something like a nuclear-equipped sub-launched LRHW would be better.

Desertfox said:
You also have the problem of a conventional TLAM strike being mistaken for a nuclear strike and we know the US has made heavy usage of TLAMs. If you wanted nukes on USN non-SSBN assets, I believe using the Zumwalts with a nuclear LRHW would be a much better option. At least you could use them for messaging, you minimize security and communication issues, eliminate mistaken identity, and introduce a different strike profile for the enemy to defend against.
Click to expand...
Or subs with a nuclear LRHW.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
It means they have to expend resources dealing with it. Instead of giving them a pass, now they have to worry about every submarine in the fleet. You know, like WE do.
Click to expand...
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down? The Russians don't have a blue water surface fleet to speak of. Do you think Russian SSNs are going to try to hunt USN boats? Not counting the SSGNs, I think there's something like a dozen of them, including 2-3 Victor IIIs left, so not really sure the Russians would or could commit anything of value.
Click to expand...
And China?
Click to expand...
They probably will have the ability to make life hard on USN boats inside the first island chain fairly soon. But I'm pretty sure they would be doing that *anyway* whether there were nukes on board them or not, so I don't see the value. I'd invest the money in some other part of the triad.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how a sneak attack capability counters UUV nukes and if that is the case I would think that ALCMs and B-2s, along with their future replacements, already fill that need.
Click to expand...
'Counter' was perhaps a misleading word, I meant match. A submarine is likely more stealthy than a B-2.
Click to expand...
But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?
 
Last edited:
Taking a step back, the US has strategic parity with Russia now and while Russia has a significant advantage in tactical weapons, I think the US could easily make up for that with existing programs like the B-61-12 and the new nuclear cruise missile. W-80s have a variable yield option; you could use them tactically if you wanted to. There's also the W76 mod2 if you're in a rush. So I don't really see the need for a brand new sub launched weapon that would take up valuable tubes in attack boats.

More generally, I think Russia was already going to be challenged to maintain is nuclear posture financially even before current events. The damage from the sanctions I think will hurt them economically til the end of the decade even if they were rolled back this year. And when it comes to China, I think they still have a long way to go before they reach anything like strategic parity. I don't particular see the value in the nuclear tomahawks back in the day and I don't see a lot of value now; I'd rather invest the money in other more needed nuclear programs.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
zen said:
The only logic with subsonic cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads is one of saturation of defences or the increased complexity and diversion of resources for the defender...effectively another capacity issue.

Limited numbers of cruise only for nuclear strike is a fairly defeat-able attack.
Click to expand...
It means they have to expend resources dealing with it. Instead of giving them a pass, now they have to worry about every submarine in the fleet. You know, like WE do.
Click to expand...
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down? The Russians don't have a blue water surface fleet to speak of. Do you think Russian SSNs are going to try to hunt USN boats? Not counting the SSGNs, I think there's something like a dozen of them, including 2-3 Victor IIIs left, so not really sure the Russians would or could commit anything of value.
Click to expand...
And China?
Click to expand...
They probably will have the ability to make life hard on USN boats inside the first island chain fairly soon. But I'm pretty sure they would be doing that *anyway* whether there were nukes on board them or not, so I don't see the value. I'd invest the money in some other part of the triad.
Click to expand...
These were tactical weapons and never considered (or counted) as part of the triad. I find it difficult to believe that anybody could think a nation wouldn't care about potentially hundreds of submarine-launched, nuclear armed cruise missiles pointed at it.

Do you think life was easy with regiments of Backfires and Oscar SSGNs hunting the US "back in the day"? The Soviets had pretty much everything China says they do even back then. (Do you really think a Kh-22 with a 2200lb warhead is going to hurt less than an RV from one of China's so-called "carrier killer" ballistic missiles?)
 
Josh_TN said:
zen said:
Josh_TN said:
What resources specifically would a sea launched missile tie down?
Click to expand...
The same as land launched cruise. Targets are going to be part of the same plan(s).
Click to expand...
Then it seems redundant to me, given that it would have to be an entire new weapon and would be carried in tiny numbers unless SSGNs dedicated a lot of space to them.
Click to expand...
It's part of a spectrum of systems and a means to further complicate the defenders task.
The logic is not tiny numbers of cruise missiles.

Desertfox said:
You also have the problem of a conventional TLAM strike being mistaken for a nuclear strike
Click to expand...
This is a significant issue.
Sensors are not like that depicted in TV and Film.
Ambiguity of the attacking payload cannot allow for the assumption of a conventional warhead.
The defender must assume the worst.
Thus sensing an ICBM heading your way is assumed to be carrying only nuclear armed RV(s).

Consequently even a punishment cruise strike would have to be assumed as a prelude to a general exchange.
Conversely an attacker can mask the limited number of nuclear warheads amongst a larger swarm of conventional missiles. Forcing the defender to expend their interceptors.

The context of nuclear armed cruise missiles was raised in the UK as an alternative to ICBMs. The problems raised were obviously as I described but also included the realisation Government would never fund the swarms of such missiles necessary to guarantee sufficient destruction of the enemy.
Forest Green said:
Something like a nuclear-equipped sub-launched LRHW would be better.
Click to expand...
Only if you accept that to avoid ambiguity, LRHW would only be armed with nuclear warheads.
Which arguably they should since packaging large conventional warheads inside such is inefficient considering the likely numbers of such missiles and the limitations on their size for launch from aircraft, ship or submarine.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom