Current Nuclear Weapons Development

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...3907.html?mc_cid=b79e93e856&mc_eid=307947a252
Yes, there is a nuclear arms race. But the U.S. is not in it and has not been since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. On the contrary, the U.S. has significantly reduced both its reliance on nuclear weapons and its inventory of nuclear forces by over 90%.

Two major countries engaged in an accelerating nuclear arms race are Russia and China. Trouble remains as while thankfully, the U.S. has now taken critical steps to modernize its strategic nuclear forces, replacing its aging forces on a one-for one basis—the U.S. remains from 2.5 to 6 times worse off in the nuclear production business as the United States is racing only to stay in place.
 
In the last few years, there has been an upsurge of reports indicating new Russian arms control violations. This is important because President Putin has just stated, “The aim [of the summit with President Trump] is to establish long-term conditions for peace not only between our countries but also in Europe and indeed globally – especially if we proceed to subsequent stages involving agreements on strategic offensive arms control.”https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...tml?mc_cid=10c289074b&mc_eid=307947a252#_edn1Noted journalist Michael Gordon observed, “Russia is using the lure of arms control to improve the atmosphere for the Alaska summit with President Trump—and set the stage for potential nuclear talks that might follow.”[ii] In reality, Putin has no interest in peace or arms control. What President Putin wants is the status quo – no new sanctions, continuation of the Ukraine war to achieve a Russian victory and American acceptance of a flawed, violated and unverifiable New START Treaty.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...4367.html?mc_cid=10c289074b&mc_eid=307947a252
 
Especially if they start running out of oil and no longer have the West buy that high sulphur crud(e) we've been mainlining.
 
bobbymike said:
https://interestingengineering.com/...le-tested?mc_cid=432cc6fec8&mc_eid=307947a252
Click to expand...

The missile carried an “unusual payload” or hypersonic glide vehicle and was launched deep inside the Atlantic Ocean.

However, neither the US Navy nor Britain’s Royal Navy, the only operators of the Trident II D5, has publicly confirmed the test.
Click to expand...

Now a HGV on an SLBM fired on a depressed trajectory really changes the game.

Wonder if it relates to this earlier HGV test from land?

Post #2602
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ic-weapons-projects-general.30673/post-824764 1758786979342.png
 
Last edited:
Anyone see the NOTAM? I am curious where the splashdown would be. Firing from within view of PR seems rather intentionally publicizing the test despite being no official explanation. They could easily have fired it in the Pacific far away from any civilian eyes; there are a number of US government owned islands and tracking stations.
 
It seems that the only source for this being a hypersonic test is Russian media. Though AFAIK D5 tests are typically announced.

It is possible this was saber rattling directed at Venezuela and that standard inert RVs were carried; I do not see any credible evidence for hypersonic in media sources yet.
 
Josh_TN said:
Anyone see the NOTAM? I am curious where the splashdown would be. Firing from within view of PR seems rather intentionally publicizing the test despite being no official explanation. They could easily have fired it in the Pacific far away from any civilian eyes; there are a number of US government owned islands and tracking stations.
Click to expand...
There was an earlier test of some HGV-type weapon from Kodiak island, which covered >6,000km - see link in post #5,015. These were the NOTAMs for that.

1758824484921.png
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/netanyahu-calls-un-prevent-irans-nuclear-resurgence-2025-09-26/(Subscription or registration may be required)

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 26 (Reuters) - United Nations sanctions on Iran are set to be reimposed on Saturday, Britain's U.N. envoy said on Friday after a Russian and Chinese Security Council resolution to delay them failed, prompting Tehran to warn that the West bore responsibility for any consequences.

The decision to restore sanctions by Western powers is likely to exacerbate tensions with Tehran, which has already warned that the action would be met with a harsh response and open the door to escalation.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crme84w3n23o
Sweeping UN economic and military sanctions have been reimposed on Iran - 10 years after they were lifted in a landmark international deal over its nuclear programme.

The new measures took effect as the three European partners to the deal - the UK, France and Germany - activated the so-called "snapback" mechanism, accusing Iran of "continued nuclear escalation" and lack of co-operation.

Iran suspended inspections of its nuclear facilities - a legal obligation under the terms of the 2015 deal - after Israel and the US bombed several of its nuclear sites and military bases in June.

Its President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted last week that the country had no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...3907.html?mc_cid=b79e93e856&mc_eid=307947a252
Yes, there is a nuclear arms race. But the U.S. is not in it and has not been since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. On the contrary, the U.S. has significantly reduced both its reliance on nuclear weapons and its inventory of nuclear forces by over 90%.

Two major countries engaged in an accelerating nuclear arms race are Russia and China. Trouble remains as while thankfully, the U.S. has now taken critical steps to modernize its strategic nuclear forces, replacing its aging forces on a one-for one basis—the U.S. remains from 2.5 to 6 times worse off in the nuclear production business as the United States is racing only to stay in place.
Click to expand...
As said by Charles de Gaulle about nuc deterence : "it is useless to have weapons to destroy ten times your ennemy".
The US actual stockpile, specially on subs, is far than enough to put bat China and Russia to middle age.
 
Sferrin said:
Wait. They're saying if you hit a target with three nukes it'll make a bigger crater than just one? No. Way.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure to have understood.
are they comparing 3 x 5 kt effects against a single 15kt warhead ?
 
BonPlan2 said:
I'm not sure to have understood.
are they comparing 3 x 5 kt effects against a single 15kt warhead ?
Click to expand...

The basic concept of hitting a targets multiple times with smaller yield was well established a long time ago. That is part of what drove MIRV development.
 
Not sure where to post this, hopefully this is the right thread.

I just learned that the FY2025 reconciliation act (aka "OBBBA") appropriated $62,000,000 "to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles, not to be obligated before March 1, 2026".

This is in section 20008 ("ENHANCEMENT OF RESOURCES FOR NUCLEAR FORCES"), subpart (a) (8). You can find it by searching "SEC. 20008" on https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text.

The timing of this is important, as New START is due to expire without replacement on Feb 5, 2026.

So starting on the first day of the month following New START's expiry, $62 million becomes available to start work on converting the Ohio class SSBNs "to accept additional missiles".

Based on the context (it being in the nuclear forces subsection and the funding being held until the month following New START's expiry), this can only mean one thing – that this funding is meant for reactivating some or all of the four Trident missile launch tubes per boat that were "permanently" deactivated in order to comply with New START treaty limitations.

Therefore it sounds like the Ohio class might be returning to its original specifications as a 24 missile boat in 2026.

This does not bode particularly well for the future of arms control in a post New START world.

It also seems to suggest that warhead loadings on both land and sea based launch platforms (ICBMs and SLBMs) might end up increasing once New START expires, as if the US isn't going to continue to unilaterally adhere to the former restrictions on numbers of launchers once the treaty expires, then why bother continuing to adhere to the former restrictions on numbers of warheads?

Also, if they make more missile tubes operational, then assuming said tubes are filled with Trident missiles, that implies an increase in total deployed warhead numbers all on its own (unless warhead loading is further decreased across the entire fleet to compensate for the warheads used on the missiles loaded into the new tubes).

It's a bit funny to see this happen right as the new Columbia class SSBN is being built as a 16 missile boat.

Yeah, I know it's because the new class physically lacks space to cram in more missiles, and that the increased uptime due to reduced service requirements will partially compensate for the reduced number of missiles, and that it's also at least somewhat likely that additional boats may eventually get ordered to ultimately end up with a overall fleet composition similar to the current 20 missile configuration Ohio SSBN fleet in terms of the total number of active tubes in service at sea at any given time... But if we go back to 24 missile configuration Ohio class SSBNs, then that causes some interesting new questions to arise regarding the composition of the future replacement Columbia class SSBN fleet.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom