And a cracked solid rocket motor has a very impressive failure mode!
Oh, yes, indeed:
And a cracked solid rocket motor has a very impressive failure mode!
My introduction to that was watching a video a couple of E7 Missile Techs made when they were at a rocket decommissioning out in the desert.Oh, yes, indeed:
Erm. There is a difference between test failure rate for completely new weapon - which is expected to be high - and test failure rate for refurbished ancient weapon.I would not have thought Russian test failure rates were dramatically better after all the problems with Bulva, though I am motivated to do some research on the issue for both sides. I would appreciate any documentation on the US test failures, as I’m unfamiliar with them. I’d also be fascinated with any documentation describing mobile ICBM deployment rates.
Very much so.Erm. There is a difference between test failure rate for completely new weapon - which is expected to be high - and test failure rate for refurbished ancient weapon.
We shouldn't just hold them 'at risk', they should be held at the brink of complete annihilation as per 1988.There are a lot of very wrong assumptions being made in this thread by quite a number of people. There is a lot that isn't public knowledge that would change the calculations. I trust the nuclear arsenal to work as intended if required, and yes it is sufficient to hold both Russia and China at risk.
MAD worked, nobody used nukes.Yeah... no. That is not how deterrence works and no one wants to go back to the Cold War.
MAD worked, nobody used nukes.
I'm not so sure that MAD is still possible with the US arsenal.
But 5000-6000 seems reasonable. In 1988 it was >15000.
Not enough currently deployed nukes to address all nuclear states. Not enough to MAD both China and Russia simultaneously, and it's theoretically possible we'd need to add Pakistan (rough parity with India) and North Korea to the simultaneous list.Why?
Increasing the warhead count per bird will require abrogating one of the arms control treaties... New START?An increase in reaction to China’s increase is warranted. The US has enough launch platforms and W76/78 in storage to almost double its warhead count in the medium term. Long term it seems likely to me that the SSBN force will have to increase in size if China continues to expand. Russian expansion seems less likely for financial reasons, though presumably they can also upload existing missiles.
Not enough currently deployed nukes to address all nuclear states. Not enough to MAD both China and Russia simultaneously, and it's theoretically possible we'd need to add Pakistan (rough parity with India) and North Korea to the simultaneous list.
Increasing the warhead count per bird will require abrogating one of the arms control treaties... New START?
With the Columbia class still in design stages it wouldn't be hard to either add another quadpack per boat or just arrange for more boats built. Or both, if things get really ugly.
As far as New START, it ends in 2026 and unfortunately looks like it wont be renewed. I wouldn't worry about Russia since they are having a serious money crunch at the moment, and China is merely catching up to were they should be.
They will need a lot more subs because the new ones only pack 16 missiles AFAIK, so that means 20 minimum, fully loaded, 8-10 warheads each per missile. For ICBMs, 600x4 or 800x3 minimum.An increase in reaction to China’s increase is warranted. The US has enough launch platforms and W76/78 in storage to almost double its warhead count in the medium term. Long term it seems likely to me that the SSBN force will have to increase in size if China continues to expand. Russian expansion seems less likely for financial reasons, though presumably they can also upload existing missiles.
Remains to be seen whether it's for deterrence. And let's face it, they were left alone for 60 years before they started developing nukes anyway. The DPRK nukes aren't really the deterrent there, it's China, not that the US is particularly interested in NK anyway, despite how much that little tubby dude craves the attention with his regular announcements.Deterrence works, you don't need 10,000 nukes for deterrence as North Korea has clearly shown.
Post #3852China more than doubled its nuclear arsenal since 2020, Pentagon says
The stockpile is growing faster than expected, said a senior defense officialwww.defensenews.com
Deterrence works, you don't need 10,000 nukes for deterrence as North Korea has clearly shown.
Remains to be seen whether it's for deterrence. And let's face it, they were left alone for 60 years before they started developing nukes anyway. The DPRK nukes aren't really the deterrent there, it's China, not that the US is particularly interested in NK anyway, despite how much that little tubby dude craves the attention with his regular announcements.
You need a specific number of nukes to cover all the targets, yes. You also need enough targets to actively enforce the fact that a nuclear exchange will result in the utter annihilation of the country. I'm not currently convinced that the US is holding enough targets to do that. Not with the reported number of nukes and their blast strengths.The number of nukes required to deter a country do not correlate on a 1:1 ratio to that country's own nukes. There is a specific number and the US is more that able to deter both China and Russia simultaneously with the currently available nukes, even without uploading. There are also other ways to deter countries without moving into nukes.
You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?As far as New START, it ends in 2026 and unfortunately looks like it wont be renewed. I wouldn't worry about Russia since they are having a serious money crunch at the moment, and China is merely catching up to were they should be.
I don't think that China only has 500 strategic weapons, nevermind the "all types" total.I think there is sufficient deterrent for the moment given the additional arsenals of UK and France, which would definitely enter into any Russian calculations. China’s 500 count I believe is all weapons, not just strategic. The US has significant numbers of strategic cruise missiles, strategic free fall bombs, and in the future tactical guided bombs with a clear strategic capability that are outside its 1550 limitation (all bomber platforms count as one warhead regardless of load and nuclear capable tactical air does not count). I think we might see additional “tactical” weapons made available in the Pacific by end of decade, likely after Guam’s defenses are heavily updated.
The intro delay is possible. Adding another 1-2 quads of missiles would very likely require changing the size of the ballast tanks. Thing is, I'm too far from EB to have a clue how far along they are in production, or if we're still in the Long Lead Purchases area.I think at this point any change to the Columbia class pushes back it’s introduction schedule, but I could see later boats being built to a modified standard and I doubt construction stops at 12 if China continues its build up.
You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?
I don't think that China only has 500 strategic weapons, nevermind the "all types" total.
The intro delay is possible. Adding another 1-2 quads of missiles would very likely require changing the size of the ballast tanks. Thing is, I'm too far from EB to have a clue how far along they are in production, or if we're still in the Long Lead Purchases area.
There's some stuff you can do when the reactors are about on their last legs to stretch things out a bit more, but that's really just kinda limping along till either you do a refueling or you replace the hulls.A delay of introduction is the worst possible answer. The Ohio class is spent, and USN investigations into extending them further I believe have not been very positive. I could see a block of 4-6 being built with 16 tubes and perhaps a block 2 with 20 taking over later.
It doesn't matter what you believe. Those in the know, both in the US and Russia/China believe otherwise.You need a specific number of nukes to cover all the targets, yes. You also need enough targets to actively enforce the fact that a nuclear exchange will result in the utter annihilation of the country. I'm not currently convinced that the US is holding enough targets to do that. Not with the reported number of nukes and their blast strengths.
You do know that Russia has a crapton of leftover U and Pu from the USSR, right?
0 and 0 (strategic)Have reports surfaced that estimate the number of Iranian nucs and delivery systems?
Highly irresponsible and inflammatory headline. The US DID NOT conduct a nuclear test, and it was most certainly not in response to Russia. Those tests don't just "happen", they have to be planned far in advance.View: https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1715355711134384386?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1715355711134384386%7Ctwgr%5E13136f0e1a78ed527cacfbcb337dcec50b68a1a5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fdavid-strom%2F2023%2F10%2F20%2Fnuclear-test-ban-treaty-on-the-chopping-block-n586370
Obviously a previously scheduled subcritical test.
Based on the recent Congressional Report recommending a massive increase in the number of weapons, I think that opinions are changing.It doesn't matter what you believe. Those in the know, both in the US and Russia/China believe otherwise.
That's simply the most expensive and hardest to make part of the weapon. The rest of a bomb can be designed and tested sans fissionables if you care about not voiding the CNTB treaty, like the US test on 20OCT2023. And if you don't care about that treaty, or have already withdrawn from it like Russia just did, you can do full up testing. Or you just use older designs that you know work.It takes more than just a crapton of U/Pu to make a proper modern bomb.
Do you really believe that?0 and 0 (strategic)
Note that Pakistan's primary nuclear threat/deterrent is India, not Israel.Do you really believe that?
Given that the technology has existed for 70 years, technolgy refinements available via internet - much less intelligence activities; given Pakistan/Khan's 'free distribution' of designs to Iraq, Libya & N.Korea; given zero inspections of two key known refining sites; given sincere ambition to remove Israel from the planet; given successful development of orbitable demonstrated rocket systems with IRBM paylod and range -and given a plethora of very smart scientists/engineers - why is that a rational assumption?
I realize I only asked for published asessments - but, what do you believe?