Current Nuclear Weapons Development

NMaude said:
The only thing they're parading is their wilful ignorance.
Click to expand...
I think they are showing an order of priorities different from yours. Delving into Japanese history probably will not change your point of view, but could confront you with another.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
I think they are showing an order of priorities different from yours. Delving into Japanese history probably will not change your point of view, but could confront you with another.
Click to expand...
There are a LOT of Japanese very proud of Article 9.

And owning nukes would 100% violate Article 9 in most people's minds.
 
Arjen said:
I think they are showing an order of priorities different from yours.
Click to expand...

I was referring to that they don't appear to understand the difference between the two types of processing, in other words NOT doing their research.
 
Iran does not necessarily need to do a nuclear test if there is deeper cooperation between them and North Korea.

Also the whole project AMAD from 1988-2003 was relatively modern and competent nuclear weapons research program.
 
@NMaude Concern about weapons grade material being produced may have been a factor, earthquakes were another concern for some. The big 2011 earthquake affected the area too, even if the area around Rokkasho was not the worst affected, some damage/contamination was caused. I find it difficult to judge what exactly drove/drives the protests. I live on the other side of the world, my need to find out the details of the affair is most likely less urgent than what the locals feel.
NMaude said:
The only thing they're parading is their wilful ignorance.
Click to expand...
I feel this to be overly harsh.
 
Arjen said:
I feel this to be overly harsh.
Click to expand...

My observation has been is that most of the public at large are woefully ignorant when it comes to issues such as nuclear-power and nuclear radiation in general, groups such as Greenpeace with their mendacious opposition to nuclear-power doesn't help the issue either.
 
In current politics, when I read 'mendacious', Greenpeace is not the first name that jumps to my mind. Full disclosure: I am a lapsed biologist.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot imagine it is a concern of either party.
Click to expand...
It probably isn't a concern of either Russia or China, but it makes other countries see them in a less positive light.

Also, there's no point in having an agreement with Russia to limit nukes when China is very much producing a whole crapton of them, on track to have an arsenal equal to the US and Russia combined.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It probably isn't a concern of either Russia or China, but it makes other countries see them in a less positive light.

Also, there's no point in having an agreement with Russia to limit nukes when China is very much producing a whole crapton of them, on track to have an arsenal equal to the US and Russia combined.
Click to expand...
That's why space-based ABM systems are essentially. Competing merely on nuclear warhead count won't work and will encourage more nuclear proliferation, a space-based ABM system discourages nuclear proliferation before it even begins. Who will spend billions developing a small arsenal of say a dozen strategic nukes if they know they're all guaranteed to be shot down anyway?
 
Forest Green said:
That's why space-based ABM systems are essentially. Competing merely on nuclear warhead count won't work and will encourage more nuclear proliferation, a space-based ABM system discourages nuclear proliferation before it even begins. Who will spend billions developing a small arsenal of say a dozen strategic nukes if they know they're all guaranteed to be shot down anyway?
Click to expand...
It means that anyone developing a nuclear arsenal will avoid ballistic missiles and will instead go for bombs or cruise missiles.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It means that anyone developing a nuclear arsenal will avoid ballistic missiles and will instead go for bombs or cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier to stop and difficult to attack over large ranges with and easier to take out with a pre-emptive strike. Also, if the likes of a space-based laser can take out an ICBM in boost phase, what chance do aircraft have? You'd be a fool to go anywhere near one.
 
Forest Green said:
Aircraft and cruise missiles are much easier to stop and difficult to attack over large ranges with and easier to take out with a pre-emptive strike. Also, if the likes of a space-based laser can take out an ICBM in boost phase, what chance do aircraft have? You'd be a fool to go anywhere near one.
Click to expand...
US should have a total gloves are off R&D programs into everything and anything.
 
Forest Green said:
That's why space-based ABM systems are essentially. Competing merely on nuclear warhead count won't work and will encourage more nuclear proliferation, a space-based ABM system discourages nuclear proliferation before it even begins. Who will spend billions developing a small arsenal of say a dozen strategic nukes if they know they're all guaranteed to be shot down anyway?
Click to expand...
You want Russia and China to be in a "use them or lose them" situation?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Also, there's no point in having an agreement with Russia to limit nukes when China is very much producing a whole crapton of them, on track to have an arsenal equal to the US and Russia combined.
Click to expand...
It becomes pointless though when you already have enough o destroy all life on Earth many times over. In fact, one might argue it is wasted money...and only useful for chest beating bullshit.
 
Dilandu said:
Considering that US refused to discuss the limitation of European nuclear weapons?) Do not overestimate the American "openess")
Click to expand...

Are you talking about dual key U.S. tactical weapons or the UK and France?
 
Josh_TN said:
Are you talking about dual key U.S. tactical weapons or the UK and France?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about national strategic nuclear weapons of UK and France. Both are allies of USA, and both add about 1/3 to USA nuclear capabilities. While during Cold War the European nuclear stockpile was too insignificant to be worthy of special consideration, now the situation is different; the allies of US possess a significant nuclear arsenal that is not counted in any international treaty.
 
Dilandu said:
I'm talking about national strategic nuclear weapons of UK and France. Both are allies of USA, and both add about 1/3 to USA nuclear capabilities. While during Cold War the European nuclear stockpile was too insignificant to be worthy of special consideration, now the situation is different; the allies of US possess a significant nuclear arsenal that is not counted in any international treaty.
Click to expand...

Reductions by UK and France are something to be negotiated by the UK and France.
 
Arjen said:
In the current environment, the UK and France are probably slightly relieved to have SSBNs of their own. Chances of them reducing that force at this moment near zero.
Click to expand...

It is zero. Four submarines is pretty much the minimum requirement for ensuring that one is always at a patrol station (different from merely being at sea). They might accept a max limit on deployed warheads, like Russia and the U.S. did for New START, but warhead levels and deployed platforms cannot realistically go down without more or less denuclearization.
 
Dilandu said:
And US put zero efforts into pushing them toward reductions
Click to expand...

The UK and France have small nuclear stockpiles while the PRC is working overtime to rapidly expand its' nuclear stockpile massively not to mention it has been behaving with increasing aggression towards its neighbours since Xi took over.
 
NMaude said:
The UK and France have small nuclear stockpiles while the PRC is working overtime to rapidly expand its' nuclear stockpile massively not to mention it has been behaving with increasing aggression towards its neighbours since Xi took over.
Click to expand...
With all respect, Chinese "increased aggression" is still orders of magnitude less than US average level of aggression.
 
Dilandu said:
And US put zero efforts into pushing them toward reductions, while insisting that China must be involved in all future nuclear limitation talks between US and Russia.
Click to expand...

Perhaps China should worry about that if it is a concern of theirs? Oh wait, it isn’t. In fact I cannot think of them ever releasing a statement to the contrary, or one about arms reduction in general.
 
Dilandu said:
With all respect, Chinese "increased aggression" is still orders of magnitude less than US average level of aggression.
Click to expand...

Vietnam, India, the Philippines, and Taiwan feel differently. The U.S. would not have any diplomatic success if China was not busy going out of its way to be the biggest asshole in the region.
 
Dilandu said:
And US put zero efforts into pushing them toward reductions, while insisting that China must be involved in all future nuclear limitation talks between US and Russia.
Click to expand...
4 subs with a dozen or so birds each is the bare minimum deterrent.

There is no real possible reduction for UK or France, not without dropping below the minimum actual requirement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
4 subs with a dozen or so birds each is the bare minimum deterrent.

There is no real possible reduction for UK or France, not without dropping below the minimum actual requirement.
Click to expand...
Then probably USA should agree to reduce the number of American deployed warheads on the same number as Britain and France have deployed?
 
Dilandu said:
Then probably USA should agree to reduce the number of American deployed warheads on the same number as Britain and France have deployed?
Click to expand...
The US has a larger threat faced at present, since it's highly unlikely that China is going to launch at Britain and/or France.

The US minimum deterrence means having subs available to target Russia, China, North Korea (possibly shared with China), and probably India and Pakistan as well. Note that I said available to target, not targeting.

So that might theoretically be as low as 8 boats, but the USN has said 12 is their minimum. And that's with the Columbia-class never needing a midlife refit. The Ohios needed a midlife refueling, so that meant 14 boats under whichever START it was that forced the retirement of 4x SSBNs into SSGNs. When the Ohios were first designed in the 1970s, the requirement was 18 boats each with 24 birds.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom