Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Indeed they do. I'll stop derailing the thread. I just wish to see topics like this through more than just establishment geopolitical lenses.
 
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject....t-americas-nuclear-modernization-program/amp/“Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), meanwhile, wrote a piece advocating that the U.S. “reduce the total number of land-based ICBMs” (intercontinental ballistic missiles) as a means to save money.”

“…….Put another way, our nuclear deterrent is less than 0.5 percent of the total federal budget……”
—————————
Ya cutting about 1/5th of the half penny a year we spend on nukes will certainly save the day.
 
NMaude said:
Personally I think that Putin is bluffing and I wonder just what the true condition of Russia tactical nukes are, how many of them actually are operational?
Click to expand...

Nuclear release doctrine is probably fluid. Everyone talks about doctrine but really it probably depends more on the psychology of the leadership and perhaps the command chain. I think we should avoid politicizing the thread, especially since it would have to be rooted in pure speculation.
 
Josh_TN said:
Everyone talks about doctrine but really it probably depends more on the psychology of the leadership and perhaps the command chain.
Click to expand...

From I under the command chain for the use of tactical nuclear-weapons by Russia is not simple or easy, the Russian President (Putin) has to issue the order to the Russian military high-command (Or whatever the Russian joint-chiefs are called, Which then has to prove it) and that approval has to be sent down the appropriate chain of command to the storage bunker where the special-store is held. The officer in charge has the device checked before being loaded onto a bomber (If it's a freecall bomb) or mated to a missile before being checked out. Once that has been done then the officer in charge sends confirmation request back up the chain of command to the high-command, only wants an confirmation has been sent down the chain and received can the weapon be released for combat use.
 
NMaude, have you ever heard of such a phenomenon as "combat duty"? Nuclear weapons are ready for use within a few minutes or seconds...
 
I suspect a proportion of strategic weapons are ready at all times. The tactical weapons probably need a little more prep time.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect a proportion of strategic weapons are ready at all times.
Click to expand...

That is logical and I've no doubt the command chain for using strategic nuclear weapons for obvious reasons is streamlined.

Josh_TN said:
The tactical weapons probably need a little more prep time.
Click to expand...

Definitely also from what I understand the majority of Russia's nuclear are strategic warheads not tactical.
 
paralay said:
NMaude, have you ever heard of such a phenomenon as "combat duty"? Nuclear weapons are ready for use within a few minutes or seconds...
Click to expand...
For strategics, I'd believe it. (Land based missiles within minutes, bombers may take longer to make ready, and submarines need to get to a firing position)

For tactical weapons, though, you need to be willing to either use them at the start of the conflict or delegate release authority down a long way to get the approval cycle short enough to be useful.

"I have an opposing division forming up, I want to nuke them" needs an answer a lot faster than the usual estimated time to send something up the chain of several hours and possibly taking that same amount of time to come back down. In 6 hours, that division is going to be driving over the opposing general's command post and using the nuke is no longer a good option. You need to get that attack off in minutes, which basically means the General in charge of that sector of the front or maybe the General in charge of the entire operation needs to hold release authority, not the politicians. Not unless your President and SecDef are spending all their time with each other, waiting for the alert that a target needs them to release a nuke.
 
bobbymike said:
As we mightily struggle with our “30 new pits a year plan”
Click to expand...
This is allegedly the breakdown. I struggle to believe it's only 500. DF-31s only listed with a single warhead, MIRV'd DF-5s carrying less than half load.

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-01/chinese-nuclear-weapons-2024/ 1718648457338.png

Russian - increased in Avangard and Yars numbers. Complete with maths error - 1,244+992+585 = 2,822 not 1,822.
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/ 1718648789468.png
 
Last edited:
Some commentators here have mentioned a plan to use tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for conventional inferiority. Of course China would try to match the US type-for-type with nuclear weapons.

Worse, given their economic and industrial superiority, there's no reason for China to not go for absolute superiority.
 
DrRansom said:
Worse, given their economic and industrial superiority, there's no reason for China to not go for absolute superiority.
Click to expand...

A bit off-topic but China's economy is not in a good shape due to a number of intractable issues including terminal demographic decline. However the Chinese nuclear-weapons programme as someone else pointed out upthread is opaque.
 
NMaude said:
A bit off-topic but China's economy is not in a good shape due to a number of intractable issues including terminal demographic decline. However the Chinese nuclear-weapons programme as someone else pointed out upthread is opaque.
Click to expand...

It does seem that a combination of near, medium, and long term issues will force China to accept rough economic parity with the US indefinitely. However the PRC does have superior manufacturing capacity in a number of industries, and that likely includes solid rocket motors and warhead production. That said, the US likely can likely maintain a lead in the medium term by simply refurbishing and deploying stored warheads to existing delivery systems as discussed previously in the thread.
 
Josh_TN said:
It does seem that a combination of near, medium, and long term issues will force China to accept rough economic parity with the US indefinitely.
Click to expand...

It won't last indefinitely and it's very likely the PRC is going to start to fall apart at the end of this decade.

Josh_TN said:
However the PRC does have superior manufacturing capacity in a number of industries, and that likely includes solid rocket motors and warhead production.
Click to expand...

They do for now but that is already changing, for one thing they ran out of their pool of cheap labour ~2012 as a consequence of China's One Child policy.

Josh_TN said:
That said, the US likely can likely maintain a lead in the medium term by simply refurbishing and deploying stored warheads to existing delivery systems as discussed previously in the thread.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the US has literally thousands of pits of various retired and dismantled primaries stored at the Panted facility in Amarillo, Texas along with thousands of stored secondaries from retired and dismantled TN warheads stored at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These can conceivably be used to manufacture new TN warheads.
 
Last edited:
Simplistically stated, during the early part of the Cold War arms race the US policy was overwhelming nuclear superiority to compensate for the USSRs massive conventional superiority.

We just weren’t going to match the number of tanks, APCs, artillery pieces, etc. in their arsenal. Nukes were cheap by comparison.

Well today we find ourselves with an inadequate industrial base at the same time constant recruiting shortfalls. On other threads some have commented to paraphrase “even if we build more we can’t man the platforms anyway”

We seem to be back at building [refurbishing] and redeploying nukes as the best option.
 
sferrin said:
They should add it back to the B-1Bs as well and make a nuclear variant of JASSM-ER.
Click to expand...

Why? Would not the money be better spent on building more B-21 and AGM-181? There is no need to reinvent the wheel or nuclearize a bomber that will be out of service just when the U.S. would need additional platforms.
 
bobbymike said:
As we mightily struggle with our “30 new pits a year plan”
Click to expand...

Completely tangential, but is the American reference to warhead pits equivalent to Anglo-English "a hole or cavity" or "a large seed or stone of a fruit"?

Have always wondered.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom