Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Kiltonge said:
Completely tangential, but is the American reference to warhead pits equivalent to Anglo-English "a hole or cavity" or "a large seed or stone of a fruit"?

Have always wondered.
Click to expand...

The latter I think. Most pits are shaped as hollow spheres, which are then placed in a spherical array of explosive lenses, which is inside a tamper of dense material (often DU), and in thermo nukes with fusion fuel surrounding the primary fission explosive. So more seed of fruit, with the fruit being the whole physics package. But also technically speaking, there is a hole inside the center of every implosion pit (I do not think any U.S./UK weapon uses a “gun” design for many decades).
 
Josh_TN said:
Most pits are shaped as hollow spheres, which are then placed in a spherical array of explosive lenses, which is inside a tamper of dense material (often DU)
Click to expand...

Ah, no, not quite. The pit is the core/tamper assembly consisting of an inner core of delta-phase Pu-239 or Oralloy* surrounded by a tamper/reflector (In older weapons especially fission only bombs the tamper consisted of depleted-Uranium and TN warhead primaries Beryllium). The pit in turn nestled inside the HE assembly which in turn is inside a high-strength plastic container.

Josh_TN said:
and in thermo nukes with fusion fuel surrounding the primary fission explosive.
Click to expand...

This is the "Sloika" (Layer cake) design used by the Soviets in the 1950s before they perfected the two-stage thermonuclear warhead design (Known in the West as the Teller-Ulam device) this was deployed as the free-fall RDS-6s. All modern TN warhead use a seperate primary and secondary (The main fusion charge) with the secondary usually being spherical (Older multi-megaton designs were cylindrical), the primary and secondary are encased in a radiation-case made up of a high-Z material (Usually Lead in older retired designs but now typically Thorium or depleted-Uranium).

* Weapons-grade Uranium-235 (At least 93.5% U-235 concentration).
 
https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw_dfn
Congress is laying the groundwork to restore nuclear weapon capabilities on roughly 30 B-52H Stratofortress bombers that had been converted to drop only conventional munitions as part of the New START arms control treaty with Russia.
Click to expand...
Lawmakers are eager to beef up the U.S. nuclear arsenal given Russia’s suspension of the treaty and China’s rapidly expanding strategic warhead production. Opponents of the measure argue that the directives will make it more difficult to negotiate a new treaty while complicating efforts to significantly extend the lifespan of the B-52 bomber fleet first introduced during the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Won't be long before the SLBMs and ICBMs start having more warheads loaded, if they haven't already that is.
 
The nuclear threat of the week, somewhat more amusing coming from a non nuclear power.
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/01/belarus-threatens-nuclear-use/
Click to expand...

Lukashenko is going to go too far one of these days and get the shit kicked out of Belarus (Not to mention he's barely holding on to power).

Josh_TN said:
The nuclear threat of the week, somewhat more amusing coming from a non nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.
 
NMaude said:
Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.
Click to expand...
Makes one wonder what would happen if Belarus sets on off without Vlad's approval?
 
NMaude said:
Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.
Click to expand...
Realistically any nuclear weapons in Belarus are under Russian control. The entire military is organized to essentially slot into the Russian command structure anyway.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Makes one wonder what would happen if Belarus sets on off without Vlad's approval?
Click to expand...

Then Vlad The Defenestrator will show him the (rooftop) door.

The Russians have PALs; Belarus would not be able to use those weapons unless they tore them down and rebuilt them. And why would they possibly want to rock the boat? They have managed to stay out of the war thus far outside a couple ballistic missile attacks a couple years ago.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has this interesting video out about the US's current nuclear arsenal:


The United States maintains the second-largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, behind only Russia.
Click to expand...
Among this apocalyptic arsenal are a wide variety of warhead delivery methods and possible yields, meant to give the American Defense apparatus a broad range of nuclear response options in the event of war.
Click to expand...
Let's run through these different weapons, warheads, delivery methods, and yields.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the South Koreans will be able to persuade the US to let them develop their own nuclear weapons?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if the South Koreans will be able to persuade the US to let them develop their own nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

There would be little the US could do to stop them. The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action. Of course the alternative might be that this is somewhat of a bluff to push the US into re-deploying weapons to the ROK, but I suspect not - those would still be US weapons under US control, and I doubt that solution is satisfactory given the recent volatility of US politics.
 
Josh_TN said:
There would be little the US could do to stop them. The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action. Of course the alternative might be that this is somewhat of a bluff to push the US into re-deploying weapons to the ROK, but I suspect not - those would still be US weapons under US control, and I doubt that solution is satisfactory given the recent volatility of US politics.
Click to expand...
And frankly, the US has a bit of egg on it's face over nuclear weapons and territorial guarantees.

All South Korea has to say in response to being asked to not develop nukes is "24 February, 2022."
 
Josh_TN said:
The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action.
Click to expand...

Given their intransigent northern neighbour who has designs on South Korea and has thousands of artillery pieces just north of the Korean DMZ poised to unload hundreds of thousands of shells onto Seoul and northern South Korea along with having nukes I'd say there'd be very firm support for South Korea joining the Nuclear Club.
 
NMaude said:
Given their intransigent northern neighbour who has designs on South Korea and has thousands of artillery pieces just north of the Korean DMZ poised to unload hundreds of thousands of shells onto Seoul and northern South Korea along with having nukes I'd say there'd be very firm support for South Korea joining the Nuclear Club.
Click to expand...
North Korea has so many artillery pieces that you measure their total output in kilotons/second.
 
Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.
 
Desertfox said:
Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.
Click to expand...
They're too close to the enemy and the enemy has nukes mounted on missiles, the balance can therefore only be the same - nukes on missiles.
 
You don't need same-same for deterrence purposes. The US SLBM/ICBMs serve different roles than the Russian SLBM/ICBMs. The US second-strike capability is in Tridents while Russia's is in its road-mobiles.

The B61 exists, is in production, and fits a plane SK is buying. Unless SK is going to front the cost of the US developing a new missile/warhead, its the best option.
 
Desertfox said:
Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.
Click to expand...

I am sure that will be offered if the ROK seriously considers its own nuclear weapons program, but I doubt it would be seen as a viable alternative. Dual key weapons still need US authorization. That was always perhaps a little suspect, and US domestic politics have only made it more so.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am sure that will be offered if the ROK seriously considers its own nuclear weapons program, but I doubt it would be seen as a viable alternative. Dual key weapons still need US authorization. That was always perhaps a little suspect, and US domestic politics have only made it more so.
Click to expand...
Yep.

I do not believe that any one of the three (RoK, J, or Oz) would accept dual key nukes any more than the UK or France did.
 
Desertfox said:
You don't need same-same for deterrence purposes.
Click to expand...
Of course you do.
Desertfox said:
The US SLBM/ICBMs serve different roles than the Russian SLBM/ICBMs. The US second-strike capability is in Tridents while Russia's is in its road-mobiles.
Click to expand...
SLBMs and ICBMs are both intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles.
Desertfox said:
The B61 exists, is in production, and fits a plane SK is buying. Unless SK is going to front the cost of the US developing a new missile/warhead, its the best option.
Click to expand...
They could develop one of their own and mount it on a Hyunmoo-IIIC/IV/V.

B61s stored in a bunker could be wiped out in a first strike by BM-mounted nukes. Unless you have a policy of nuking first they're honestly useless IMHO.
 
Forest Green said:
SLBMs and ICBMs are both intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
But have different roles in the strategic calculus.

Land-based missiles are a first strike weapon. The enemy knows exactly where the silos are, so if you don't launch before enemy missiles impact you will lose your silo ICBMs. The most extreme version of this is "Launch on Warning," where the silo missiles are fired more or less as soon as your IR satellites watching for launch plumes start screaming. A more relaxed version can wait until the long range radars get a track on missiles. About the latest you can wait is ~1min from impact.

Submarine-based missiles are second strike weapons, guarantors of MAD. Because even if the enemy launches and takes out all your bomber bases and silos, there are still missiles with enough firepower to end whichever country launched first. Submarines are very hard to detect, but advancements in underwater detection capabilities makes the guaranteed MAD a little less likely.


Forest Green said:
B61s stored in a bunker could be wiped out in a first strike by BM-mounted nukes. Unless you have a policy of nuking first they're honestly useless IMHO.
Click to expand...
Bombers are a very effective external signal of alert levels to your neighbors. People see and hear them, they're tracked on radars from well beyond the horizon, etc. Especially when you have dedicated bombers. It's easier to miss the signals if you only use fighter-bombers.
 
Land-based missiles would be launched whilst the enemy first strike is still on its way, so first and second strike. Trying to get planes off the ground in that time is much harder, especially if you're next door.

Submarine-based missiles are both first and second strike also. They would arrive on target before ICBMs also.

ROK will be using only fighter bombers. B61s are useful only in responding to and therefore deterring an over-powering conventional land invasion, in almost every other scenario they're pointless and likely wouldn't survive a first strike unless you have them airborne 24/7 a la 1950s nuclear aerial bombs, which is impractical.

I would be a lot more deterred by by nukes on Hyunmoo-IIIC/IV/Vs than B61s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But have different roles in the strategic calculus.

Land-based missiles are a first strike weapon. The enemy knows exactly where the silos are, so if you don't launch before enemy missiles impact you will lose your silo ICBMs. The most extreme version of this is "Launch on Warning," where the silo missiles are fired more or less as soon as your IR satellites watching for launch plumes start screaming. A more relaxed version can wait until the long range radars get a track on missiles. About the latest you can wait is ~1min from impact.

Submarine-based missiles are second strike weapons, guarantors of MAD. Because even if the enemy launches and takes out all your bomber bases and silos, there are still missiles with enough firepower to end whichever country launched first. Submarines are very hard to detect, but advancements in underwater detection capabilities makes the guaranteed MAD a little less likely.



Bombers are a very effective external signal of alert levels to your neighbors. People see and hear them, they're tracked on radars from well beyond the horizon, etc. Especially when you have dedicated bombers. It's easier to miss the signals if you only use fighter-bombers.
Click to expand...
Would a B61 fit in the weapons bay of an F-35B?

South Korea was talking about CVN's for their Navy, if they do eventually build any they could be smaller ski jump or F-35B style lightning carriers due to cost and other factors. If the F-35B can deliver nuclear weapons that would give them a pretty good deployment option outside of bombers or land based aircraft that could be taken out in a first strike.

Obvious answer for their deterrence needs would be a nuclear tipped Hyunmoo sub launched missile.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom