“We are facing a crisis deterrence dynamic right now that we have only seen a few times in our nation’s history,” Adm. Charles Richard told the Senate’s strategic forces panel. “The war in Ukraine and China’s nuclear trajectory — their strategic breakout — demonstrates that we have a deterrence and assurance gap based on the threat of limited nuclear employment.”
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.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.Can a Nuclear War Be Won? America’s Adversaries May Think So - The DEFCON Warning System™
The DEFCON Warning System. Ongoing Geointel, OSInt, and Analysis in the theater of nuclear war. Established 1984defconwarningsystem.com
That a Ludlum book?H.mmmm.....so now we have.....the Beijing Criterion?
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.That a Ludlum book?H.mmmm.....so now we have.....the Beijing Criterion?
Orion pulse units strung out Shoemaker-Levy machine gun style might be better.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.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.For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
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).
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.
Unfortunate for the world in total.Unfortunately all Russian and Chinese
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
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)
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.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.
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.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”.
And he who survives wins. That's how war works.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.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”.
And he who survives wins. That's how war works.
If you don't plan to win you plan to fail. The mindset, "if we push the button we're all gonna die" is not a viable deterrent.And he who survives wins. That's how war works.
The nuclear powered cruise missile never worked and Russia is including Avagarde in its strategic totals since it used an ICBM booster.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.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.
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 Russia's invasion of Ukraine has triggered the most serious disruption in relations between Russia...us.yahoo.com
That's a pretty clear signal, as far as Russia is concerned, all arms control treaties have ended.
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.No. It is meant to be a deterrent. If you use it it has failed.
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.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.