Current Nuclear Weapons Development

sferrin said:
Except you wouldn't see a container ship with missile silos. You'd see a container ship with containers. Thousands of standard ones and maybe one or two "imposters". The shipping line might not even be aware the containers are on their ship. Make it so your container can receive satellite communications, and ensure it gets loaded on the top level. As soon as GPS tells the container it's reached launch range, away they go. Maybe one doesn't launch and just nukes the container ship to destroy evidence and witnesses.
Click to expand...

No need for the rocket, wire the GPS directly to the nuke. Real easy to do, totally unexpected, extremely difficult to detect, no real defence against it, indeed so practical not even Tom Clancy would give it the time of day.

A bit more Tom Clancy (or James Bond) would be to pre disposition the nukes in storage lockers or similar and just command detonate when upset. If you get this just right it could be a proper decapitation attack, due to the shear surprise;- Scary, so best not to think about it.
 
Wyvern said:
Grey Havoc said:
TR1 said:
Why would Russia or China possible want to do that?
Click to expand...
Decapitation strikes come to mind. Surprise (and, if necessary, deniable) EMP attacks are another possibility.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but a nuclear sub would have the same effect, but also be more stealthy. It would be rather suspicious to see a container ship with missile silos on it, whereas you can't even see the submarine, because it's submerged.
Click to expand...
we can still detect them we have a ring of anti submarine countermeasures along our exposed coast line we would know they were there before they knew we knew
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
sferrin said:
Except you wouldn't see a container ship with missile silos. You'd see a container ship with containers. Thousands of standard ones and maybe one or two "imposters". The shipping line might not even be aware the containers are on their ship. Make it so your container can receive satellite communications, and ensure it gets loaded on the top level. As soon as GPS tells the container it's reached launch range, away they go. Maybe one doesn't launch and just nukes the container ship to destroy evidence and witnesses.
Click to expand...

No need for the rocket, wire the GPS directly to the nuke. Real easy to do, totally unexpected, extremely difficult to detect, no real defence against it, indeed so practical not even Tom Clancy would give it the time of day.

A bit more Tom Clancy (or James Bond) would be to pre disposition the nukes in storage lockers or similar and just command detonate when upset. If you get this just right it could be a proper decapitation attack, due to the shear surprise;- Scary, so best not to think about it.
Click to expand...
Sure if you want to blow it up in port. Limits your options.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:

B-83 86’ed? Not if GOP can help it.

www.politico.com
Click to expand...
That it's even a possibility is depressing as hell. We have some damn stupid people in Washington.
Click to expand...
even if we never use them on Kosvinsky mountain or Yamataw they need to be retained for planetary asteroid defense....hopefully if we see it in time. On another note would be great if the forum ever attracted anyone who would want to share the secrets of those 2 locations....
 
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
Click to expand...
Anything you could do to a B-61 you could do to a B83. Hell take the warhead off it and drop it into a MOP if you need to. Just because you can't conceive of a need doesn't mean there could never be one. Having them gives you options. It's why the Russians are building an SS-18 replacement. It's why the Chinese are building missile silos. It's why we should build a small nuclear warhead.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
Click to expand...
Anything you could do to a B-61 you could do to a B83. Hell take the warhead off it and drop it into a MOP if you need to. Just because you can't conceive of a need doesn't mean there could never be one. Having them gives you options. It's why the Russians are building an SS-18 replacement. It's why the Chinese are building missile silos. It's why we should build a small nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
 

Attachments

  • 405px-40821335_YAmantau.jpg
    405px-40821335_YAmantau.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 17
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
Click to expand...
Anything you could do to a B-61 you could do to a B83. Hell take the warhead off it and drop it into a MOP if you need to. Just because you can't conceive of a need doesn't mean there could never be one. Having them gives you options. It's why the Russians are building an SS-18 replacement. It's why the Chinese are building missile silos. It's why we should build a small nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

What you are implying is that B-83 components would be reused. In which case you could take them out of service and place them in storage in the enduring stockpile for future use without completely dismantling/destroying them. In fact that would be almost certainly their fate if they were removed from deployment status; they’d be shelved whole or in pieces and the USAF would stop training for their storage, loading, and use to save money.

AFAIK the US has 5-6000 nuclear warheads in various states of assembly and maintenance, roughly half of which are either deployed weapons under New START or else in service warheads in storage that could quickly be refurbished (predominately W76/78/80). The rest I believe are disassembled warheads or types completely out of service that would be far more difficult to reconstitute as weapons, including a dozen or so B-53 physics packages that were explicitly reserved for ‘planetary defense’.
 
Last edited:
brownt62 said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
Click to expand...
Anything you could do to a B-61 you could do to a B83. Hell take the warhead off it and drop it into a MOP if you need to. Just because you can't conceive of a need doesn't mean there could never be one. Having them gives you options. It's why the Russians are building an SS-18 replacement. It's why the Chinese are building missile silos. It's why we should build a small nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
Click to expand...

If a B-61-12 won’t do the job then neither will an unguided B-83 with no ground penetration. It would miss its target by hundreds or thousands of meters and could only explode on contact/lay down. A B-61-12 will hit with a CEP of 30 meters and dig into the top surface a couple meters, greatly enhancing the amount of energy that actually couples to the ground (around 4-5 x). Combine the ground penetration with inverse square law of distance and energy and the B-83 is a lot of fireworks above ground at the wrong place. B/W-53 was ten megatons but Titan II had a CEP of a thousand meters.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.

I struggle to contemplate a target set which an unguided free fall bomb would be the weapon of choice. The B-61 mod 12 is superior for hardened and deeply buried targets, assuming the W88 wasn’t up to it. The only thing I can think a megaton free fall bomb would be better at is wasting large areas of land suspected of harboring mobile ICBM launchers, but that’s an inefficient way of going about that.
Click to expand...
Anything you could do to a B-61 you could do to a B83. Hell take the warhead off it and drop it into a MOP if you need to. Just because you can't conceive of a need doesn't mean there could never be one. Having them gives you options. It's why the Russians are building an SS-18 replacement. It's why the Chinese are building missile silos. It's why we should build a small nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

What you are implying is that B-83 components would be reused. In which case you could take them out of service and place them in storage in the enduring stockpile for future use without completely dismantling/destroying them. In fact that would be almost certainly their fate if they were removed from deployment status; they’d be shelved whole or in pieces and the USAF would stop training for their storage, loading, and use to save money.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about a large amount of money in the great scheme of things to keep them on active deployment? I don't feel like the money we are saving is going to buy us security in the long term having them ready to go. In fact if a penetrator kit with a precision guidance package was developed to make B-83-2 that would be nice. Take out the Command and control and be certain. I'm certain the Russians and Chinese have absolutely no qualms in keeping megaton warheads at the ready. In face they are probably laughing at the ridiculous proposals to get rid of B-83 and hoping the left leaning parts of our government will be successful in decommissioning them...in fact they will probably insert language into the bill to have the Russians and Chinese do onsite verification of the dismantling and destruction of components.
 
I’ve no idea, but no one has offered a valid target set or use for the weapon as it exists now that couldn’t be handled by something else more accurate. The rationale I’m seeing so far is “it’s bigger; let’s keep it”. Make case why a penny should be spent keeping it deployed. What platform is going to deliver it on what target? A B-52? One of the dozen combat codes B-2s that has nothing better to do with its time?

Edit: no one is going to make a guidance package for it; the B-61 already took that spot and it was hideously expensive for what a simple upgrade it should have been. If you want more of the Mod 12s I will agree, but no one is spending the money to make an INS guided version of B83 now.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’ve no idea, but no one has offered a valid target set or use for the weapon as it exists now that couldn’t be handled by something else more accurate. The rationale I’m seeing so far is “it’s bigger; let’s keep it”. Make case why a penny should be spent keeping it deployed. What platform is going to deliver it on what target? A B-52? One of the dozen combat codes B-2s that has nothing better to do with its time?

Edit: no one is going to make a guidance package for it; the B-61 already took that spot and it was hideously expensive for what a simple upgrade it should have been. If you want more of the Mod 12s I will agree, but no one is spending the money to make an INS guided version of B83 now.
Click to expand...
Yamantaw and Kosvinsky are valid target sets. They are COG sites for Russia and their military....would you rather have them available and not need them or not have them available and need them badly? Believe me they are not digging into those mountains to preserve irreplaceable objects of art. They are rumored to have "Dead Hand" fail-deadly system in place at these locations. b-2 can deliver it.
 
Last edited:
I’ve stated the unguided B-83 in a lay down will not do any better than a B-62 mod 12. If you don’t agree with that, we’ll agree to disagree. Honestly I think a W88 would have much more hard target capacity than an unguided B-83, except it would be there in fifteen minutes or less or else your pizza is free.
 
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
[/QUOTE]
mount yamantaw..... fcin soviet doomsday bunker. you will need some high penetration explosives concetrated into one spot one after another. in the weakest spot. kind of like blast mining. its risky. but its bold.
 
Conspirator said:
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
Click to expand...
mount yamantaw..... fcin soviet doomsday bunker. you will need some high penetration explosives concetrated into one spot one after another. in the weakest spot. kind of like blast mining. its risky. but its bold.
[/QUOTE]
this thing has to have a door.....perhaps a guided attack on the door....
 
brownt62 said:
Conspirator said:
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
Click to expand...
mount yamantaw..... fcin soviet doomsday bunker. you will need some high penetration explosives concetrated into one spot one after another. in the weakest spot. kind of like blast mining. its risky. but its bold.
Click to expand...
this thing has to have a door.....perhaps a guided attack on the door....
[/QUOTE]
if it has a door then slam a tomohawk through it. doesnt matter how thick it is. then put a small nuclear warhead through the hole in whats left of the door
 
Conspirator said:
brownt62 said:
Conspirator said:
Have you seen Mount Yamantaw? We are talking about a Quartz Granite mountain this target is super hardened and would shrug B-61's off like bee stings.....it was a target for Titan 2 with W53 (8Megaton) warheads back in the 80's
Click to expand...
mount yamantaw..... fcin soviet doomsday bunker. you will need some high penetration explosives concetrated into one spot one after another. in the weakest spot. kind of like blast mining. its risky. but its bold.
Click to expand...
this thing has to have a door.....perhaps a guided attack on the door....
Click to expand...
if it has a door then slam a tomohawk through it. doesnt matter how thick it is. then put a small nuclear warhead through the hole in whats left of the door
[/QUOTE]

God help us.
 

Late-time small-body disruptions can protect the Earth

If an asteroid is determined to be on an Earth-impacting trajectory, scientists typically want to stage a deflection, where the asteroid is gently nudged by a relatively small change in velocity, while keeping the bulk of the asteroid together.
www.llnl.gov
Don’t know why the labs don’t push for full scale multi-Mt warheads for planetary defense (that also fit in the GBSD)
 
sferrin said:
W80 on JASSM-ER in the MK41 VLS. Boom, done.
Click to expand...
Integration is the hardest part. Now every single MK 41 VLS cell on that ship has to be considered as potentially holding a nuclear tipped variant, slowing down everything as you double check to make sure you're not launching a nuke.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-53 components are already explicitly reserved for that role.
Click to expand...
its mass is just about 9 times more than NASA's New Horizons, B53-based kill vehicle will not reach at allowable speed
B83 is four times lighter than B53, but time to target will be such critical factor of mission, so even lighter B61 or W80 ones may be required
 
Last edited:
Yamentau is where you'd use shaped nuclear charges....and a lot of ground burst.
 

On Nukes, China Aims for Parity With U.S.—or Maybe More

After a summer of extraordinarily bad news on the exponential growth of China’s strategic nuclear forces, recent public statements by U.S. government officials indicate Beijing isn’t only building out its nuclear forces, but also diversifying it, by considering new, nontraditional weapons, as...
www.heritage.org
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom