Current Nuclear Weapons Development

"Just last week, members of Congress’ progressive-leaning Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group urged Biden in a letter to make a number of changes to U.S. nuclear force posture, including reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons by one-third, changing existing U.S. nuclear declaratory posture, and resurrecting arguments that question the need to replace the antiquated Minuteman III intercontinental-range missile."

Sounds imaginary. Nothing to worry about.
 
sferrin said:
"Just last week, members of Congress’ progressive-leaning Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group urged Biden in a letter to make a number of changes to U.S. nuclear force posture, including reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons by one-third, changing existing U.S. nuclear declaratory posture, and resurrecting arguments that question the need to replace the antiquated Minuteman III intercontinental-range missile."

Sounds imaginary. Nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
Yup, this is where I break away from other lefties. Self-defense is an inalienable right, and tolerance of intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance.
 
sferrin said:
It was actually looked at by the US way back in the day using the 30mm Avenger. I (or someone else) posted a picture of it on this site somewhere. I'd read about it years ago and then a picture finally popped up a while back. Phalanx was shooting down 5" dia shells back in the 80s. Hitting a much larger RV doesn't seem impossible (they're not going Mach 20+ by the time they're near ground level).
Click to expand...

Also by the Soviets:

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-604.html
The idea is now being mooted again for future silos (probably Sarmat?).
 
It's pretty clear what's driving the China's nuclear buildup. The changing geopolitical situation. In the last half a decade alone there's been a huge shift in how the US perceives China. Long time ago, it used to perceive it as a partner and part of the global economic system that plays into the US hand. But since then, the US changed its opinion and for several years now has been attacking China via economic, monetary, technological, political and media means, using its own might in those areas, as well as urging/making its allies to do the same.

Years ago, when US and Chinese economies were pretty intertwined, a war between the two would have been quite damaging to both. But if there comes a day when China will somehow for the most part be decoupled not just from the US economy but also from a lot of Western countries' economies - then a war between the two might not be as damaging. And in such a situation, actually using its huge numerical superiority in nukes, might not be so completely far fetched for the US, no matter the losses in such an exchange. Of course, if China manages to at least partially catch up in nuke numbers by then, then a nuclear exchange would be far more costly to the US.

Hence the Chinese urgent drive to build up their nuke arsenal.
 
I think it has far more to do with China's aggressive and dogmatic stance as regards perceived ownership of territories and EEZ. Their claims are simply preposterous and that has changed the US position, augmented of course by genocide of Uyghurs.
 
Avatar1234 said:
It's pretty clear what's driving the China's nuclear buildup. The changing geopolitical situation. In the last half a decade alone there's been a huge shift in how the US perceives China. Long time ago, it used to perceive it as a partner and part of the global economic system that plays into the US hand. But since then, the US changed its opinion and for several years now has been attacking China via economic, monetary, technological, political and media means, using its own might in those areas, as well as urging/making its allies to do the same.

Years ago, when US and Chinese economies were pretty intertwined, a war between the two would have been quite damaging to both. But if there comes a day when China will somehow for the most part be decoupled not just from the US economy but also from a lot of Western countries' economies - then a war between the two might not be as damaging. And in such a situation, actually using its huge numerical superiority in nukes, might not be so completely far fetched for the US, no matter the losses in such an exchange. Of course, if China manages to at least partially catch up in nuke numbers by then, then a nuclear exchange would be far more costly to the US.

Hence the Chinese urgent drive to build up their nuke arsenal.
Click to expand...
That's 100% horse$--t. The US was giving them high tech as late as the 90s. China's belligerence, and complete disregard for international boundaries and claims, is what put nations against it.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
I think it has far more to do with China's aggressive and dogmatic stance as regards perceived ownership of territories and EEZ. Their claims are simply preposterous and that has changed the US position, augmented of course by genocide of Uyghurs.
Click to expand...
All these claims and use of force to achieve these claims has been going on for decades now.

So, the change in US relations to China are not stemming from any sudden change in China's HR violation rates. Infact, the very reason these topics are brought to fore are actually to strengthen a narrative, so atleast the US public wakes up to the 'competition' and 'challenge' that China poses due to its much larger economy than ever before.
 
Gentlemen I for one would love a good ripping debate about US/China relations and most here at SPF would probably know what I’d post, however, we just had a thread locked on China and I’d like to keep this thread open please.

Also, a general comment about those who would “report” comments solely based on the political opinions of the writer give me a break.

I’ve posted before if anyone wanted to add a radical opinion piece calling for total unilateral nuclear disarmament I would welcome it. It doesn’t change my opinion and illuminates for members the beliefs of others, invaluable IMHO.
 
Last edited:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...srXQ7PEhZl4_FTf8_0ui5MwpAHpWrCz_TKw8TKQbEpzBsWhile stripped of its nuclear payload for the launch, the ICBM contained conventional explosives aboard a Hi-Fidelity Joint Test Assembly re-entry vehicle, which successfully detonated above the water’s surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles from the launch site.
————
Interesting I’ve never read a test warhead having explosives? Anyone else? A stealth CPGS test?
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...srXQ7PEhZl4_FTf8_0ui5MwpAHpWrCz_TKw8TKQbEpzBsWhile stripped of its nuclear payload for the launch, the ICBM contained conventional explosives aboard a Hi-Fidelity Joint Test Assembly re-entry vehicle, which successfully detonated above the water’s surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles from the launch site.
————
Interesting I’ve never read a test warhead having explosives? Anyone else? A stealth CPGS test?
Click to expand...

I’ve never heard of active explosives in a test, but perhaps that is necessary to validate the HOB smart fuse?

EDIT: Bobby beat me to it.
 
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/12/china-engaged-breathtaking-nuclear-breakout-us-str/I said after the NST was signed that we had made the price of being a nuclear equal for China relatively cheap and that they would wait for an opportune time to declare their intent to match our and Russia’s arsenal. They will use “US’s rapid and dangerous modernization” program as their rationale knowing US media will be more than happy to repeat their claims to our domestic audience.
 
Considering a lot of the threads ranging from this one to USMC realignment and surface combatant and several others will turn to a comparison or discussion about China, is it too much to ask to unlock the SCS thread, moderators? So these threads don't go too off topic.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Not to mention quite a bit of their existing arsenal was already hidden in plain sight, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Nukes for everybody. Don't need ICBMs to reach most of their neighbors. Between the DF-16, 17, 21, and 26 they can hit everybody in the area including Australia without even using ICBMs.
 
Bhurki said:
Considering a lot of the threads ranging from this one to USMC realignment and surface combatant and several others will turn to a comparison or discussion about China, is it too much to ask to unlock the SCS thread, moderators? So these threads don't go too off topic.
Click to expand...
The description of this forum section says:

"Discussion about historic or current tanks, ships, and other non-aerospace military technologies"

Topics are expected to have a focus on technology, not politics. This isn't a geopolitical forum. Overly geopolitical topics may be closed or pruned at the discretion of the admins.
Click to expand...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/purpose-of-the-military-forum-section.37468/
 
Last edited:
ouroboros said:
I think there have been recent reports of Burma trying to develop an atomic weapon recently, citing a defector that names Singapore and Germany as enrichment equipment sources. The interesting point is that the military government is not considering the atomic weapon for traditional defense purposes, but rather as a card against internal underground democracy groups. I guess this is a a manifestation of the inherent "loose football" fears regarding nuclear weapons, but to use that as a means of subduing the populace of your own country is a new twist (Would put a kink into Jefferson's image of the US having a revolution every 50 years or so).
Click to expand...
I know I'm ten years late (and I do apologise if someone already mentioned this), but I wouldn't be surprised considering that they Burmese own ballistic missiles such as the SCUD. It wouldn't be hard to do so, they have the necessary funds and manpower to do so. Pulling it off is harder. It also depends how reliable the defector is.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom