Current Nuclear Weapons Development

It apparently was a bomb attack of some kind. If the cascade was running when the power was cut, a lot of centrifuges probably pulped themselves in an uncontrolled wind down.
 
On a likely related note, from today's Times:
Row over China-bound ship with nuclear cargo

Sri Lanka A ship found to be carrying uranium hexaflouride —
which can be enriched for use in nuclear weapons or power stations
— was ordered to leave Sri Lankan waters. The BBC Naples, registered
in Antigua, had arrived at Hambantota, a port on the south coast which
is run by China on a 99-year lease, from Rotterdam. It was bound for a
destination in China. (AFP)
 
Responding to a question from Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., Richard described the situation: “Both China and Russia have significant capability in their nuclear weapons complexes. … We have no capability right now to actually make a new weapon.”
————————-
“We have NO CAPABILITY........” let that sink in!
 
Meanwhile

This shouldn't come as a shock. Rapidly growing superpower, knows it has the economy to back it, wants to assert itself and control the world, will need a sizeable deterrent to help insulate themselves from foreign aggression.
 
Honestly costs too much for what is a second tier system for the US.
 
Honestly costs too much for what is a second tier system for the US.
You spelled "first tier" incorrectly.
 
Honestly costs too much for what is a second tier system for the US.
You spelled "first tier" incorrectly.
I'm all for a new ICBM, but it will always play second fiddle to US SLBMs in terms of deterrent value.
 
Honestly costs too much for what is a second tier system for the US.
You spelled "first tier" incorrectly.
I'm all for a new ICBM, but it will always play second fiddle to US SLBMs in terms of deterrent value.
Nah. ICBMs are far more of a deterrent.
 
Meanwhile

This shouldn't come as a shock. Rapidly growing superpower, knows it has the economy to back it, wants to assert itself and control the world, will need a sizeable deterrent to help insulate themselves from foreign aggression.
The Chinese stated nuclear deference policy used to be that they needed to pose a credible second strike capability to impose unacceptable damage on the "enemy" (similar to the French policy on the Force de Frappe). This lead to a need for a modest nuclear arsenal. When the US left the ABM treaty and declared the aim to establish a capability to stop the presumed N Korean and Iranian ICBMs the Chinese said they had to increase their nuclear deterrent size. If I remember correctly the US stated they understood this and were not concerned.
 
 
Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, painted a dire picture of the nuclear threats the United States faces from abroad, and claimed that they could only be met by renewing the U.S. commitment to nuclear dominance over the coming century
—————————
“Renewing the....commitment to nuclear dominance......”

Being two decades behind your adversaries, modernizing 30 and 40 year old weapons, having not produced a new warhead since 1991, as your production capacity disappears is renewing nuclear dominance!!! There’s not a big enough eye roll emoji for that statement.
 
 
 
Of course they are. Why would they talk at all? Because of all the modern nuclear weapons we are producing? Besides, they're busy working on project Peaceful Rise:

 
Last edited:
Our nearly $2 trillion nuclear weapons plan to replace every weapon in our Cold War arsenal is bloated and on autopilot
——————————
I sound like a broken record but when you start an article with “$2 trillion”, “Cold War arsenal” you’re telling a knowledgeable reader that you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are being intentionally deceptive (it’s usually the latter in most cases).

$1.4 trillion will be spent ($600 billion is the cost of full modernization OVER THE NEXT 30 years) if we do nothing but maintain the current arsenal. Also our nuclear arsenal has been cut by 90% since the Cold War, we haven’t produced a new warhead design in 30 years, the average age of our nuclear delivery platforms is even older. Describing this as a Cold War arsenal is extremely hyperbolic.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom