Current Nuclear Weapons Development

...the posts in that twitter account are unsettling. Joking that their nukes probably dont work and we have nothing to worry about. So corrupt all their systems have failed.

We are playing nuclear chicken and a sizable minority here on both the left and right side of the political spectrum are cheering on the escalation. Wtf
 
TMA1 said:
...the posts in that twitter account are unsettling. Joking that their nukes probably dont work and we have nothing to worry about. So corrupt all their systems have failed.

We are playing nuclear chicken and a sizable minority here on both the left and right side of the political spectrum are cheering on the escalation. Wtf
Click to expand...
You can be certain that isn't an issue with China.
 
I know it's off-topic is there a thread open for the discussion of the US nuclear weapons tests specifically for the atmospheric testing pre-1963?
 
bobbymike said:
Tangential to the topic

www.defenseone.com

Inside the fight over alternative sub fuel

A handful of lawmakers want the Navy to research low-enriched uranium fuel to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation. But funding bans are on the horizon.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...
LEU is a terrible idea for submarine fuel in particular, because it increases how many times you need to refuel the sub.
 
NMaude said:
It also dramatically increases the size of the reactor as the critical mass is inversely proportional to the level of enrichment.
Click to expand...
And, the other fear about potential proliferation?

Who all is able to build a naval sized reactor that doesn't already have nukes? Japan? Maybe? Pretty sure SK already has some, and they don't even have a nuclear navy. Israel is in the same boat (pardon the pun).
 
NMaude said:
The spent fuel from a nuclear-reactor using LEU can be reprocessed to extract all of the plutonium created from the irradiation of the U-238 in it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there's already a cutout in the NPT to allow weapons grade uranium for naval nuclear propulsion.

HEU lets you use a physically smaller reactor, but more importantly means you can get 20-40 years of life out of the fuel in the reactor instead of 5-10 years before you must refuel. That allows at least one additional deployment cycle every decade, and saves the cost of the refueling(s) you skipped. Refueling overhauls are easily $500mil each...
 
bobbymike said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

Congress should fund the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile

The deployment of SLCM-Ns would send a clear message that the United States maintains the capabilities to respond to any foe’s nuclear use.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org
Along with an Antares sized super heavy ICBM :oops:;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
Can confirm that working with and around nuclear weapons is a pain in the ass. Personnel Reliability Program random interviews, security training, weekly required drills, massive required reading, extra security clearance work (people needing TS instead of S, makes for a much deeper background check)...
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
Yes I would trade for more SSBNs with W76-2s or maybe the W93 will be DaY capable?

I see why they could potentially fit 14+ of these on the D5.
 

Attachments

  • 69912365-146B-4ADD-BA5A-2F27BBF4E9A2.jpeg
    69912365-146B-4ADD-BA5A-2F27BBF4E9A2.jpeg
    82 KB · Views: 27
bobbymike said:
Yes I would trade for more SSBNs with W76-2s or maybe the W93 will be DaY capable?

I see why they could potentially fit 14+ of these on the D5.
Click to expand...
IMO, strategic nuclear weapons don't need to be DAY. I'm all for the W76-2 as a quick and dirty way to create a prompt strike tactical weapon, but tactical weapons shouldn't be the focus of the nuclear arsenal. You only need a few dozen before any conceivable situation is strategic anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
I should add that if the USN builds something like SUBROC again, with nuclear depth charges as the long range ASW weapon, then the Fast Attacks are going to be dealing with all the nuclear weapons program BS anyway. So giving them a couple of nuclear SLCMs is no additional overhead, other than the potentially reduced conventional strike per boat. Not sure if the 688 VLS boats kept their TLAM-Ns in the VLS or in the Torpedo Room with the SUBROCs.
 
I'm thinking that retiring the B57 in 1993 was maybe a little shortsighted as Russia still has a shitload of tactical nuclear weapons in its' arsenal.
 
NMaude said:
I'm thinking that retiring the B57 in 1993 was maybe a little shortsighted as Russia still has a shitload of tactical nuclear weapons in its' arsenal.
Click to expand...

Not sure what weapon you are referencing (guessing B-53? Several physics packages reserved in enduring stockpile for "planetary defense"), but I don't see how anything that was a free fall piece of ordnance was going to increase deterrence. The B-61mod 12 works somewhat because it is something that can be deployed from any fighter bomber with a lot of precision, so long as it has the right equipment. The W-76 mod 2 also works as something that is tactical and can very rapidly be delivered anywhere. I don't see how other types of free fall ordnance would bring anything to the table. If you want a 5-10 kt precision standoff weapon that isn't mounted on a Trident, use an AGM-86. Or an F-35 with 61-12. Or hopefully in the future LRSO.

In any case, tactical nuclear weapons don't need to exist in a lot of numbers because after the first couple uses, things likely get strategic. No one is going to spend a week going tit for tat and assuming the other side just needs a few more tactical nukes to learn its place. There likely is one, at most two, attempts at resetting deterrence with tactical nukes, and after that it just goes full counter force because deterrence obviously has failed.
 
Josh_TN said:
Not sure what weapon you are referencing (guessing B-53? Several physics packages reserved in enduring stockpile for "planetary defense"), but I don't see how anything that was a free fall piece of ordnance was going to increase deterrence. The B-61mod 12 works somewhat because it is something that can be deployed from any fighter bomber with a lot of precision, so long as it has the right equipment. The W-76 mod 2 also works as something that is tactical and can very rapidly be delivered anywhere. I don't see how other types of free fall ordnance would bring anything to the table. If you want a 5-10 kt precision standoff weapon that isn't mounted on a Trident, use an AGM-86. Or an F-35 with 61-12. Or hopefully in the future LRSO.
Click to expand...
I have significant questions about the W76mod2, given that you're likely launching 4 of them at once (4 warheads per missile) and are revealing the location of a missile sub with roughly 1/8 of the submerged deterrent package on it. It would be worth throwing a heavy lift missile with many strategic warheads on it back at the location of the launch to take out that many remaining missiles. Yes, it may take more than one missile with a dozen plus warheads on it to put the entire traversable area under enough force to kill the sub, but it'd be worth it to take out 24 Tridents. Also, both Russia and China would flip out (assuming a Pacific launch), assuming that the US wasn't in a shooting war with both of them at the same time. It might lead to the other country misidentifying the target location and them sending return fire to take out the sub.

So I'm very much in favor of sticking some tactical scale warheads onto Minuteman, up to and including declaring that one of the Minuteman bases is tactical warheads only, for the sake of letting everyone else in the world know that a launch from that location is not immediately the end of the world, and is instead likely the last chance before things go MAD.

======

Given that the B61-12 is basically a B61 with the JDAM guidance package slapped on, I wonder if the JDAM-ER wing kit is equally adaptable? Trying to give some more standoff range here. Also, I'd want some stealth shaping on the casing while I'm at it.

Josh_TN said:
In any case, tactical nuclear weapons don't need to exist in a lot of numbers because after the first couple uses, things likely get strategic. No one is going to spend a week going tit for tat and assuming the other side just needs a few more tactical nukes to learn its place. There likely is one, at most two, attempts at resetting deterrence with tactical nukes, and after that it just goes full counter force because deterrence obviously has failed.
Click to expand...
Depending on just how long someone's command and control cycle takes, it may take a week. It will certainly take a couple of days at a minimum, even with a single tactical nuke in response from the US.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom