Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Massive Social Unrest in Iran.....like the protests that have been ongoing since the water shortage started?
Were some even chanted "Reza Pahlavi God rest your soul"?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Josh_TN said:
I’d be surprised if the Iran deal was salvaged. I don’t think the US is willing to make any further concessions and I don’t think Iran is willing to go back to the original deal with its current government. I think it would take massive social unrest in Tehran for them to accept any deal the US would accept.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Biden and co. are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

I think they would like to salvage it, but they definitely won’t accept a worse deal than the original. If that means no deal, then I think there’s no deal.
 
zen said:
Massive Social Unrest in Iran.....like the protests that have been ongoing since the water shortage started?
Were some even chanted "Reza Pahlavi God rest your soul"?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t characterize it as massive, personally. I mean an open ended shutdown of the city/country.
 
IMHO, I think China is starting to believe that its minimum deterrent policy, with ~ 350 or so warheads, may no longer be viable in the face of rapidly increasing US missile defense capabilities and the fact that essentially every Trident D5 deployed now has greatly increased hard-target capability after receiving the new arming & fusing upgrade.

There's just no way that China will sit down to discuss nuclear limits if we (the US) refuse to put missile defense on the table, but given that US BMD is a sacrosanct topic in the minds of many in the US, I fear an impasse is simply inevitable.
 
batigol said:
IMHO, I think China is starting to believe that its minimum deterrent policy, with ~ 350 or so warheads, may no longer be viable in the face of rapidly increasing US missile defense capabilities and the fact that essentially every Trident D5 deployed now has greatly increased hard-target capability after receiving the new arming & fusing upgrade.

There's just no way that China will sit down to discuss nuclear limits if we (the US) refuse to put missile defense on the table, but given that US BMD is a sacrosanct topic in the minds of many in the US, I fear an impasse is simply inevitable.
Click to expand...

I think it also is likely that China wants offensive options and a defensive nuclear policy that leaves the escalation cycle up to the US doesn't make that viable with that small of a nuclear arsenal. PRC invades Taiwan, US cruise missiles destroy all the dry docks in Dalian, now what? I think that is what Xi is struggling with; the US shows up on day 1 ready to make any conflict a strategic conventional exchange that involves China's entire coastline. At any given moment there are probably 150+ cruise missiles within range of the PRC.
 
Josh_TN said:
batigol said:
IMHO, I think China is starting to believe that its minimum deterrent policy, with ~ 350 or so warheads, may no longer be viable in the face of rapidly increasing US missile defense capabilities and the fact that essentially every Trident D5 deployed now has greatly increased hard-target capability after receiving the new arming & fusing upgrade.

There's just no way that China will sit down to discuss nuclear limits if we (the US) refuse to put missile defense on the table, but given that US BMD is a sacrosanct topic in the minds of many in the US, I fear an impasse is simply inevitable.
Click to expand...

I think it also is likely that China wants offensive options and a defensive nuclear policy that leaves the escalation cycle up to the US doesn't make that viable with that small of a nuclear arsenal. PRC invades Taiwan, US cruise missiles destroy all the dry docks in Dalian, now what? I think that is what Xi is struggling with; the US shows up on day 1 ready to make any conflict a strategic conventional exchange that involves China's entire coastline. At any given moment there are probably 150+ cruise missiles within range of the PRC.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's 462 right there.

On 28 June 2010, Ohio was one of three Ohio-class submarines involved in a US response to Chinese missile testing in the contested East China Sea. Ohio, Michigan, and Florida all surfaced simultaneously in the waters of the Philippines, South Korea, and the British Indian Ocean Territory respectively.[6][7
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
batigol said:
IMHO, I think China is starting to believe that its minimum deterrent policy, with ~ 350 or so warheads, may no longer be viable in the face of rapidly increasing US missile defense capabilities and the fact that essentially every Trident D5 deployed now has greatly increased hard-target capability after receiving the new arming & fusing upgrade.

There's just no way that China will sit down to discuss nuclear limits if we (the US) refuse to put missile defense on the table, but given that US BMD is a sacrosanct topic in the minds of many in the US, I fear an impasse is simply inevitable.
Click to expand...

I think it also is likely that China wants offensive options and a defensive nuclear policy that leaves the escalation cycle up to the US doesn't make that viable with that small of a nuclear arsenal. PRC invades Taiwan, US cruise missiles destroy all the dry docks in Dalian, now what? I think that is what Xi is struggling with; the US shows up on day 1 ready to make any conflict a strategic conventional exchange that involves China's entire coastline. At any given moment there are probably 150+ cruise missiles within range of the PRC.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's 462 right there.

On 28 June 2010, Ohio was one of three Ohio-class submarines involved in a US response to Chinese missile testing in the contested East China Sea. Ohio, Michigan, and Florida all surfaced simultaneously in the waters of the Philippines, South Korea, and the British Indian Ocean Territory respectively.[6][7
Click to expand...
You can see how that would kinda irk the CCP. If a Yasen surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico, Western media would lose their shit.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
batigol said:
IMHO, I think China is starting to believe that its minimum deterrent policy, with ~ 350 or so warheads, may no longer be viable in the face of rapidly increasing US missile defense capabilities and the fact that essentially every Trident D5 deployed now has greatly increased hard-target capability after receiving the new arming & fusing upgrade.

There's just no way that China will sit down to discuss nuclear limits if we (the US) refuse to put missile defense on the table, but given that US BMD is a sacrosanct topic in the minds of many in the US, I fear an impasse is simply inevitable.
Click to expand...

I think it also is likely that China wants offensive options and a defensive nuclear policy that leaves the escalation cycle up to the US doesn't make that viable with that small of a nuclear arsenal. PRC invades Taiwan, US cruise missiles destroy all the dry docks in Dalian, now what? I think that is what Xi is struggling with; the US shows up on day 1 ready to make any conflict a strategic conventional exchange that involves China's entire coastline. At any given moment there are probably 150+ cruise missiles within range of the PRC.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's 462 right there.

On 28 June 2010, Ohio was one of three Ohio-class submarines involved in a US response to Chinese missile testing in the contested East China Sea. Ohio, Michigan, and Florida all surfaced simultaneously in the waters of the Philippines, South Korea, and the British Indian Ocean Territory respectively.[6][7
Click to expand...
You can see how that would kinda irk the CCP. If a Yasen surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico, Western media would lose their shit.
Click to expand...
Imagine a couple Oscars surfaced 15 miles off Virgina. Or a PLA carrier task force roaming the Gulf of Mexico. (I'm 100% certain we'll see the latter in the next 5 years.)
 
Nuclear watchdog sounds warning over restart of North Korean reactor (ft.com, subscription or registration may be required)
Nuclear watchdog sounds warning over restart of North Korean reactor | Financial Times
The UN’s nuclear watchdog has warned that North Korea appears to have restarted a critical reactor at its biggest nuclear materials complex, raising another security challenge for Joe Biden as the US president faces immense pressure over the crisis in Afghanistan.
Since early July, there have been “indications consistent with the operation” of the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report, calling signs that the reactor could have been restarted “deeply troubling”.
The report marked the first signal of operations at Yongbyon, about 90km north of Pyongyang, since December 2018, between the two summits held by Kim Jong Un and then US president Donald Trump.

The latest signs of activity included steam at a plant that serves the site’s radiochemical laboratory, which was in operation between February and July, the report said. That was followed by the discharge of cooling water.
“This period of operation is consistent with previous reprocessing campaigns announced by the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] of irradiated fuel discharged from the . . . reactor,” the IAEA said.
It added that in 2003, 2005 and 2009, North Korea announced reprocessing campaigns at the laboratory, each of which lasted approximately five months.
Click to expand...
 
www.realcleardefense.com

The Chinese Nuclear Breakout and the Biden Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review

On August 12, 2021, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Admiral Charles Richard stated, “We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China….The explosive growth in their nuclear and con
www.realcleardefense.com www.realcleardefense.com
www.reuters.com

China will soon surpass Russia as a nuclear threat –senior U.S. military official

China, in the midst of a rapid nuclear weapons buildup, will soon surpass Russia as the United States' top nuclear threat, a senior U.S. military official said on Friday, warning that the two countries have no mechanisms to avert miscommunication.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
omaha.com

Should StratCom worry about China's 'Bouncy Castles of Death'?

In the past month, civilian analysts studying satellite images have found two large fields of apparent nuclear missile silos — at least 230 of them — under construction in remote
omaha.com omaha.com
Click to expand...
No access here. 451: Error due to EU.
Click to expand...

For months, U.S. Strategic Command chief Adm. Charles Richard has been sounding the alarm about the growing nuclear threat from China.

Now we know why.

In the past month, civilian analysts studying satellite images have found two large fields of apparent nuclear missile silos — at least 230 of them — under construction in remote north-central China.

The number of new silos under construction is more than the total number of silo-based ICBMs fielded by Russia, and equal to more than half of the U.S. arsenal, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, the organization that discovered one of the silo fields a week ago.

“Any way you cut it, this is the most significant change in the Chinese nuclear posture, ever,” he said. “It’s definitely worrisome. Nuclear missiles are intended to hit something.”

The discovery raises vexing questions about whether China is abandoning its decades-old policy of “minimal deterrence” and its long-stated determination to keep its nuclear footprint small. China is thought by analysts to have an arsenal of about 300 weapons, one-fifth as many as either the U.S. or Russia has deployed.

“President Xi (Jinping) certainly seems to have determined that they need to expand their nuclear force significantly,” Kristensen said.

It is also likely to affect the Biden administration’s current Nuclear Posture Review, which is being developed with significant input from StratCom, based at Offutt Air Force Base. It’s expected to be completed early next year.

Kristensen and other analysts say it’s clear that Richard knew of these sites in April, when he issued stark warnings about China’s burgeoning nuclear program during testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. He specifically warned about silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“They are well ahead of the pace to double their stockpile by the end of the decade,” Richard said in his House testimony, calling it a “breathtaking expansion.”

The warning prompted Kristensen and Jeffrey Lewis, who heads the Middlebury Institute of International Studies’ East Asia Nonproliferation Program, to separately start scouring commercial satellite images of the vast Chinese countryside.

In late June, Decker Eveleth, a college intern in the Middlebury program, discovered a site with 120 silos near the ancient Silk Road city of Yumen, now a center of oil production.

The silos were laid out in a grid in the desert, each about 2 miles apart and connected by roads. Trenches ran toward building construction sites that appeared to be future launch-control facilities.

“There was no effort to camouflage them,” Lewis said. “It’s a weird pattern. There’s no question in our minds it was a silo field. It’s so distinct.”

Climate-controlled canopies resembling a child’s inflatable bounce house covered the construction sites, prompting Lewis to jokingly call them “Bouncy Castles of Death” on his website, ArmsControlWonk.com.

On July 23, Matt Korda, a researcher for Kristensen’s Nuclear Information Project, discovered the second field of silos near Hami, about 230 miles northwest of the Yumen site.

“I started from the Yumen site and worked my way outwards,” Korda said. “The grid pattern showed up very clearly.”

He found “bouncy castle” domes over 14 of the silo sites and clear evidence of soil removal at 19 others. But he calculated that 110 silos eventually will be built there, based on measurements of the fence surrounding the site.

The sites also closely resembled 16 additional silos Kristensen and Korda found in February at a known missile test site called Jilantai.

The analysts’ conclusions received a validation of sorts from StratCom this week, when the military command tweeted out a link to a New York Times story on Korda’s discovery, along with the comment: “This is the second time in two months the public has discovered what we have been saying all along about the growing threat the world faces and the veil of secrecy that surrounds it.”

“I view that tweet as a confirmation of our story,” Korda said.

Although alarm is widespread, U.S. analysts aren’t quite sure what China plans to do with the silos.

Lewis believes that the Chinese are playing a shell game, building a large number of silos while planning to put only a few missiles in them. That’s similar to a plan the Carter and Reagan administrations devised for the proposed MX missile, though the plan was abandoned after objections from rural residents of Utah and Arizona, where the MX missiles were set to be deployed.

Lewis said that would be a cheap way to create a “nuclear sponge,” a field of silos StratCom nuclear planners would have to target with a significant portion of U.S. forces to ensure that the missiles are destroyed. He notes that there’s little effort to hide the silos and believes that it would be poor planning to pack them so close together if every silo were going to hold a real missile.

“We’re not necessarily going to get them all,” he said. “I see this as a country ensuring the survivability of what is still a very small nuclear force.”

Christopher Yeaw of the University of Nebraska’s National Strategic Research Institute thinks it’s more likely that China plans to load up most or all of the silos with nukes, most likely the newer DF-41 model.

“It seems to become clearer by the day that China is seeking rough nuclear parity with the United States,” said Yeaw, research director for nuclear programs at the institute, which operates with StratCom’s sponsorship and funding. “These silos could house up to several hundred warheads in fairly short order.”

He said neither the U.S. nor Russia has ever actually used the shell-game model. He also believes that China’s development of other weapons — such as superfast hypersonics — and a possible boost in its ability to produce plutonium point toward a broader effort.

“They have very advanced theater nuclear forces,” Yeaw said. “The U.S. is entering a period when we are going to have to deter two nuclear-armed powers.”

Whether the Chinese ever put missiles in the silos, analysts agree that StratCom planners must plan as if they will.

“If I pull a gun on you, it doesn’t matter if it’s loaded or not,” Lewis said. “You have to assume that it is.”

Kristensen produces an annual report on the size and type of weapons in the arsenals of all the nuclear powers. He said China currently has about 100 ICBMs with about 150 warheads, mostly on road-mobile vehicles. Only about 20 are in fixed silos.

All are located in east-central China, within range of U.S. submarine-based Tomahawk missiles. The Hami and Yumen silo fields are deep in the country’s interior, vulnerable only to America’s longest-range weapons.

“They want to get (the missiles) away from systems that can hit them,” Kristensen said. “This may speak more to China’s sense of vulnerability than its sense of adventurism.”

The discovery may chill, at least for now, talk among some progressives to scrap the land-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, which they have argued is expensive and dangerous.

“About half of the Democrats want to get rid of our ICBMs,” said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “But Russia has a triad. Now we see China developing the same. You’ve got to consider both of them when we’re developing a nuclear plan.”

Kristensen said scrapping the ICBMs was unlikely to begin with.

“It’s a lot harder now to sell this idea,” he said.

No one is sure, either, whether another field of silos is still out there, not yet discovered by civilian analysts.

“We’re certainly going to keep looking,” Lewis said.
 
I'm a little surprised they wouldn't consider the US, given that we share the same pool of missiles anyway. A bit of a trip to the patrol station, but for a two month rotation probably not a big deal.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I'm a little surprised they wouldn't consider the US, given that we share the same pool of missiles anyway. A bit of a trip to the patrol station, but for a two month rotation probably not a big deal.
Click to expand...
Given the current politics in the US, I'm not.
Click to expand...

"The second option would be to move the UK's nuclear bases to an allied country such as the US. The paper reported that officials also examined moving the submarine base to Ile Longue in Brittany, France."
 

Pentagon Raises Concerns About NNSA Budget | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
I know nukes aren’t as prominent today but I estimated that the 80’s nuke weapons (not including delivery vehicles etc.) spending today - this is as a historic percentage of DOD and total federal spending - would be around $170 billion I think it’s around $15 billion
 
bobbymike said:

Pentagon Raises Concerns About NNSA Budget | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
I know nukes aren’t as prominent today but I estimated that the 80’s nuke weapons (not including delivery vehicles etc.) spending today - this is as a historic percentage of DOD and total federal spending - would be around $170 billion I think it’s around $15 billion
Click to expand...
There is that SMALL fact that then they were creating infrastructure and support for production and sustainment of some 40,000 devices as compared to a tenth of that now.
 
Bhurki said:
bobbymike said:

Pentagon Raises Concerns About NNSA Budget | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
I know nukes aren’t as prominent today but I estimated that the 80’s nuke weapons (not including delivery vehicles etc.) spending today - this is as a historic percentage of DOD and total federal spending - would be around $170 billion I think it’s around $15 billion
Click to expand...
There is that SMALL fact that then they were creating infrastructure and support for production and sustainment of some 40,000 devices as compared to a tenth of that now.
Click to expand...
Hence the acknowledgement of that fact in my first sentence.
 
Wyvern said:
It's not like they ever really disarmed anyways, I never understood why people actually believed it, especially after those talks broke down.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of Americans who do not follow this issue closely (including many in the US government as well) are still clinging on to the fantasy that North Korea is going to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for American assurances (assurances like the kind Qaddaffi got before Libya was utterly devastated and he ended up sodomized and murdered in a drain pipe).

They are unwilling or incapable of accepting the fait accompli: North Korea is a permanent nuclear power and there is nothing short of nuclear war that the US can do about it. Trump refused to accept the NK deal to shut down Yongbyong, stop testing and shut down associated facilities in exchange for sanctions relief because he wanted disarmament when the fact of the matter is that the US has essentially zero leverage over the North Koreans. They have the bomb and they have absolutely zero reason to give it up. DNI Clapper himself said as much in 2016.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom