Current Nuclear Weapons Development

bobbymike said:
defconwarningsystem.com

Can a Nuclear War Be Won? America’s Adversaries May Think So - The DEFCON Warning System Shop

The DEFCON Warning System. Ongoing Geointel, OSInt, and Analysis in the theater of nuclear war. Established 1984
defconwarningsystem.com defconwarningsystem.com
We should have decoupled our arsenal at the end of the Cold War based not on the Russian arsenal but our unique global and treaty obligations we’d have stopped disarming at START I levels of warheads and launchers.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it can be won, but the less you invest in nuclear weapons the more your enemies begin to think it can be won and the more they push their luck.
 
Parity with Russia was a perfectly reasonable goal that made an assured destruction response pretty inevitable. The Chinese build up has screwed up that math and will likely prevent any future limitation treaty since all countries (or the US at least) will need to be able to deter a scenario against two opposing nuclear powers at once. A build up post New START expiration is inevitable IMO.
 
H.mmmm.....so now we have.....the Beijing Criterion?
;)
 
bobbymike said:
zen said:
H.mmmm.....so now we have.....the Beijing Criterion?
;)
Click to expand...
That a Ludlum book?
Click to expand...
Oblique reference to Moscow Criterion, the UK Deterrent is supposed to guarantee wiping out the Soviet Government in Moscow and with it the Soviet Elite.


So obviously if we also have Beijing to contend with, then we have Beijing Criterion.
 

NNSA won't reach called-for production levels of nuclear warhead components by 2030 goal | InsideDefense.com

The National Nuclear Security Administration will not be able to meet demands for plutonium pit production within the timeline called for by Congress, the Energy Department's Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Jill Hruby recently told Congress.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Like a broken record I repeat. At a time we had three other warheads in production and several at early stage R&D we built 3000 W76s in five years. Now “ramping up” to 30 plutonium pits takes over a decade.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ravinoff said:
zen said:
For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
Click to expand...
Nothing "really" big, not in the open sources at least. Biggest in the current acknowledged arsenal is the B83, with a max yield of about 1.2Mt, and those are set up as plain gravity bombs for use on the B-2 Spirit (and one presumes probably the B-21 Raider). What exactly they'd be useful for is...unclear to me, since the B61 is/was being developed into a bunker buster warhead.

Big is relative, of course, when I say the B83 is small I'm talking in comparison to the multi-megaton beasts of the Cold War era. The last of the B53/W53 (Titan II warhead) 9Mt hard site killers were disassembled in 2011 - with the interesting possibility that several physics packages ("canned sub-assemblies") are being retained for reasons unknown, the lead speculation being asteroid defense. And of course the biggest American nuke was the B41, with a three-stage design comparable to the Tsar Bomba and an estimated yield of 25Mt (retired in 1976).
Click to expand...
The US has explicitly stated in documents that it retains the physics packages/"CSAs" for "planetary defense", in addition to being a source of nuclear pits for future weapons, a hedge against aging out of assemblies in deployed assets, and as a stockpile of HEU material for future development.


It's been rumored that B-53 CSAs had been to be stored specifically for planetary defense mission but I've never found a document explicitly stating that, though it seems like perfectly reasonable explanation.
Click to expand...
Orion pulse units strung out Shoemaker-Levy machine gun style might be better.
 
bobbymike said:
Unfortunately all Russian and Chinese

sipri.org

Global nuclear arsenals are expected to grow as states continue to modernize–New SIPRI Yearbook out now

(Stockholm, 13 June 2022) SIPRI today launches the findings of SIPRI Yearbook 2022, which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security. A key finding is that despite a marginal decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2021, nuclear arsenals are expected to...
sipri.org sipri.org
Click to expand...
Unfortunate for the world in total.
 
www.llnl.gov

New target facility will help unlock plutonium’s secrets

Improving our understanding of the physical characteristics of plutonium as it ages is a vital aspect of maintaining the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent in the absence of underground testing. The recent installation of a new plutonium target fabrication facility at Lawrence Livermore...
www.llnl.gov www.llnl.gov
 
www.heritage.org

Russia’s Small Nukes are a Big Problem for European Security

With Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, now is a good time to take note of a little-spoken-of, but glaring, imbalance between America’s and Russia’s nuclear arsenals—and how it could affect stability in Europe and the interests of the United States and those of its European allies and partners. If...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
Still, how many tactical nukes could be expected in this sort of a conflict? the US may have enough low yield tactical nukes to go tit for tat for a long time.
According to FAS' annual us nuke inventory estimate, the US has the following options
530 ALCMs which are dial a yield weapons, with lowest yield being 5 kt.
230 B61 bombs with 10 kt yields being the lowest setting. (b61 is also a dial a yield design)
and 320 B61 bombs with less than 1 kt being the lowest setting.

(and some 25 trident based 8 kt warheads, though those would be the last option to use, due to escalation risks)
 
I think any nuclear exchange goes strategic long before the US runs out of tactical nukes. Realistically there would probably only be one or two tit for tat reactions before one side or the other decided deterrence had fundamentally failed and all that’s left is to try to “win”.
 
totoro said:
Still, how many tactical nukes could be expected in this sort of a conflict? the US may have enough low yield tactical nukes to go tit for tat for a long time.
According to FAS' annual us nuke inventory estimate, the US has the following options
530 ALCMs which are dial a yield weapons, with lowest yield being 5 kt.
230 B61 bombs with 10 kt yields being the lowest setting. (b61 is also a dial a yield design)
and 320 B61 bombs with less than 1 kt being the lowest setting.

(and some 25 trident based 8 kt warheads, though those would be the last option to use, due to escalation risks)
Click to expand...

1655735636288.png


What's sorely missed is the Pershing I and II. The INF Treaty just led to ways to make it redundant - HGVs, nuclear-powered cruise missiles and lying missiles like Iskander-M and K, plus a friendly power who didn't sign it anyway.
 
Last edited:
INF was a stabilizing force while it was in effect. I’d argue only the Iskander K violated the treaty, which was justification enough for leaving it, though it also was severely limiting in the Pacific and would have needed to be amended or updated in any case.
 
Josh_TN said:
INF was a stabilizing force while it was in effect. I’d argue only the Iskander K violated the treaty, which was justification enough for leaving it, though it also was severely limiting in the Pacific and would have needed to be amended or updated in any case.
Click to expand...
Iskander-K was an obvious 'in-your-face' violation, however given the size of the Iskander-M it also seems like a clear violation. Israel has one 2/3rds the diameter and 60% of the height that can reach 430km. And no point having a treaty that limits fast or stealthy strikes over short distances (500-5500km) if someone is just going to achieve the same thing via HGVs and nuclear-powered cruise missiles anyway.

us.yahoo.com

Russia's Medvedev suggests U.S. should beg for nuclear arms talks

Russia and the United States, by far the world's biggest nuclear powers, have negotiated a series of major strategic nuclear arms reduction treaties since Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981. But Rus...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com

That's a pretty clear signal, as far as Russia is concerned, all arms control treaties have ended.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think any nuclear exchange goes strategic long before the US runs out of tactical nukes. Realistically there would probably only be one or two tit for tat reactions before one side or the other decided deterrence had fundamentally failed and all that’s left is to try to “win”.
Click to expand...
What is this "win" garbage? Once nukes start getting lobbed around by the likes of Russia and the USA there would be no win if it escalated. It becomes a matter of survival only.
 
GTX said:
Josh_TN said:
I think any nuclear exchange goes strategic long before the US runs out of tactical nukes. Realistically there would probably only be one or two tit for tat reactions before one side or the other decided deterrence had fundamentally failed and all that’s left is to try to “win”.
Click to expand...
What is this "win" garbage? Once nukes start getting lobbed around by the likes of Russia and the USA there would be no win if it escalated. It becomes a matter of survival only.
Click to expand...
And he who survives wins. That's how war works.
 
sferrin said:
And he who survives wins. That's how war works.
Click to expand...
DonTexkXoAAi_we.jpg
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
INF was a stabilizing force while it was in effect. I’d argue only the Iskander K violated the treaty, which was justification enough for leaving it, though it also was severely limiting in the Pacific and would have needed to be amended or updated in any case.
Click to expand...
Iskander-K was an obvious 'in-your-face' violation, however given the size of the Iskander-M it also seems like a clear violation. Israel has one 2/3rds the diameter and 60% of the height that can reach 430km. And no point having a treaty that limits fast or stealthy strikes over short distances (500-5500km) if someone is just going to achieve the same thing via HGVs and nuclear-powered cruise missiles anyway.

us.yahoo.com

Russia's Medvedev suggests U.S. should beg for nuclear arms talks

Russia and the United States, by far the world's biggest nuclear powers, have negotiated a series of major strategic nuclear arms reduction treaties since Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981. But Rus...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com

That's a pretty clear signal, as far as Russia is concerned, all arms control treaties have ended.
Click to expand...
The nuclear powered cruise missile never worked and Russia is including Avagarde in its strategic totals since it used an ICBM booster.

As for clear signals, there’s no way the US will enter another strategic arms reducing treaty that doesn’t include China anyway, so it’s an empty threat. The Biden admin I think only allowed a New START extension because it realized the US wasn’t going to introduce new launch platforms out to 2026 anyway (Sentinel, B-21, Columbia).

China is going to seek a peer level nuclear deterrent so the US doesn’t have a total domination of the escalation cycle like it does now so there won’t be any future arms control agreements. Russia will struggle to keep up with the US and China when New START ends; it won’t be the US begging them for a deal. The US could double its ballistic missile warheads fairly quickly and the Russian launchers have less of an ability to be further uploaded. Russia also has a fraction of the GDP of China or the US. It will ultimately fail to keep up with the future arms race at the end of this decade.
 
GTX said:
No. It is meant to be a deterrent. If you use it it has failed.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree but nevertheless both sides will engage in a large scale nuclear exchange as soon as one or the other decides deterrence has failed. Worrying about how many tactical nukes you have is like worrying how many road flares you have to light a drum of gasoline…probably the first one you use will be enough for the purpose.
 
Josh_TN said:
Worrying about how many tactical nukes you have is like worrying how many road flares you have to light a drum of gasoline…probably the first one you use will be enough for the purpose.
Click to expand...
I agree and it isn't just tactical nukes. This is what makes the complaints by some about not having enough weapons or that they are being out numbered when they already have hundreds or thousands of nukes both perverse and moronic.
 
GTX said:
Josh_TN said:
Worrying about how many tactical nukes you have is like worrying how many road flares you have to light a drum of gasoline…probably the first one you use will be enough for the purpose.
Click to expand...
I agree and it isn't just tactical nukes. This is what makes the complaints by some about not having enough weapons or that they are being out numbered when they already have hundreds or thousands of nukes both perverse and moronic.
Click to expand...
Hypothetical - If China and Russia said tomorrow our strategic forces are now under joint command and we plan on building 10,000 new warheads with accompanying launchers.

Would you expand US nuclear forces?
 
GTX said:
Josh_TN said:
Worrying about how many tactical nukes you have is like worrying how many road flares you have to light a drum of gasoline…probably the first one you use will be enough for the purpose.
Click to expand...
I agree and it isn't just tactical nukes. This is what makes the complaints by some about not having enough weapons or that they are being out numbered when they already have hundreds or thousands of nukes both perverse and moronic.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you don't care if you have a credible deterrent. It's probably "moronic" to be concerned that your industrial base has withered away almost to non-existence too am I right?
 
More specifically, the US has a large number of strategic nukes that could be tactical that don’t get counted (AGM-86) and a tactical nuke that is sufficiently accurate it is strategic (B-61 mod12). If the current situation could be maintained it would be perfectly equitable and stable. China will be the huge destabilizing effect: the US will have to assume that it has to plan for nuclear war with Russia and China at the same time and so will have to keep expanding it forces, which will cause China to do the same and Russia to attempt to within its much more limited budget. This will pressure every other nuclear power as well, and likely create some new ones.

There will absolutely be a global nuclear arms race by 2030.
 
sferrin said:
GTX said:
No. It is meant to be a deterrent. If you use it it has failed.
Click to expand...
Force without the willingness to use it is not a deterrent.
Click to expand...
Deterrent = something that deters people from doing something. If they do it anyway then by definition it has failed.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom