Current Nuclear Weapons Development

And it will, anyone that is curious about what will be in it, just read the 2018 and 2010 NPRs, they are quite similar.
 
I think the only items the Biden administration is luke warm on is the continued maintenance of B-83s and the sub launched cruise missile.
 
The B-83s are obsolete, there is nothing they can do that the B61-12 can't do better, cheaper, and easier. The SLCM-N has a major issue in that the US uses alot of conventional SLCMs, if an enemy can't tell if its conventional or nuclear the chances of nuclear misunderstanding go up. I'd suggest a better option is to give the IR-CPS a nuclear warhead and stick only nuclear tipped ones on the Zumwalts. Then you can use the Zs as the Navy's version of the Air Force' bombers. Gives the Zs a clear role and keeps the rest of the Navy conventional.
 

Russia links US nuclear arms talks to security demands: Report​

The fate of nuclear arms controls talks between Russia and the US will to a large extent depend on how negotiations on Moscow’s security demands progress, a senior Russian diplomat has been quoted as saying.

Vladimir Yermakov, head of nuclear non-proliferation and controls at Russia’s foreign ministry, told RIA Novosti news agency that discussions over the Kremlin’s proposals have taken priority over strategic arms controls talks.

No meetings have been agreed on the latter, and their resumption now depends largely on resolving the immediate security issues raised by Moscow, he said.

34 mins ago (09:25 GMT)
Click to expand...
https://dnyuz.com/2022/02/07/macron-takes-leading-role-in-ukraine-russia-crisis-live-news/
 
Well they better get there quickly. Their population is about decline by leaps and bounds once the post Leap Forward boomers age out in the next decade or two.
 
That report has some major faulty logic. Half the adversary nuclear launchers on the graphic are non-strategic systems that do not have the capability to target the continental United States for example.
 
Desertfox said:
That report has some major faulty logic. Half the adversary nuclear launchers on the graphic are non-strategic systems that do not have the capability to target the continental United States for example.
Click to expand...
Are nuclear weapons a threat only if they target CONUS?
 
bobbymike said:
Are nuclear weapons a threat only if they target CONUS?
Click to expand...

Arguably so, since the authors of the graphic apparently believe US nuclear weapons likewise are only a threat to the adversary if they are strategic. Feel free to include tactical weapons of course, but then you have to do it on both sides. What does such an apples to oranges comparison otherwise even tell you? Quite dispassionately, its information content is worthless because any insights bear no relation to reality.
 
It's worth noting that the B-61 mod 12 when carried by a B-2 (or in the future B-21) is a first strike strategic asset that can defeat most any imaginable amount of hardening, even though nominally it is a 'tactical' bomb.

ETA:
But perhaps the greater problem with modern comparisons is that conventional weapons can achieve strategic effects. A hypersonic or cruise missile that destroys an early warning radar or command post need not have a nuclear weapon any more; there is sufficient precision that small point targets, even some hardened ones, can be engaged by conventional weapons such that nuclear weapons can be more available for harder/larger targets. We're entering a very gray area of strategic warfare now, particularly with the advent of hypersonics.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...pears-threaten-nuclear-strikes-west-launches/
Click to expand...
Sure, Tonto....sure...
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
[Within ten years,] we [shall] have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy-eMIXT4LM


"Go ahead, Vlad. Make my day."
 
Indeed @Archibald . One wonders what kind of cognitive dysfunction makes someone forget something as strategically fundamental as mutually assured destruction. I could say a great deal more but I'll refrain. Or will I?
 
"Go ahead, @Opportunistic Minnow. Make my day." :D

I know that French and British nuclear deterrents are... minor, compared to Russia. But we have the Americans on our side. Three against one. Plus we are talking about nuclear weapons, not firecrackers.

Oh well... time to re-read that Malevil novel, by the late Robert Merle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malevil
If you want to know, this is the closest a French writer ever came from "On the beach" or "Threads" or "The day after".

Bottom line: ugly, dark, and depressing reading.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom