Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Forest Green said:
I agree. At the moment a nameless protagonist may choose to use tactical nukes under the thinking that the opposition wouldn't resort to strategic nuclear arms over a few tactical nukes. That idea needs stamping on hard.
Click to expand...

If the USN does decide to restore the use of tactical nuclear weapons from its CVNs then they're going to be spending some serious money ensuring the the F-35B and F-35C can carry special-stores.
 
Forest Green said:
I agree. At the moment a nameless protagonist may choose to use tactical nukes under the thinking that the opposition wouldn't resort to strategic nuclear arms over a few tactical nukes. That idea needs stamping on hard.
Click to expand...

The actual outcome is more likely both sides agree to limit the use to tactical weapons rather than needlessly "escalate deterrence". III MEF is already talking about what happens after three years of sustained tactical nuclear combat in a regional war with the PLA and how to win.

(...)

But if one were to write the novel that more precisely illustrates the long, global grind that a war between the United States and China would entail, it might appear something like this:

The opening pages showcase the trends of modern war games and novels, where naval combatants, fifth-generation aircraft, missile forces, and non-kinetic effects wreak havoc in the war’s opening days, crippling the air and naval power of the belligerents. Thousands upon thousands are killed in this first stage of the conflict. But the war expands horizontally, with China, Russia, and North Korea aligned against the United States, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, and others. Fighting occurs in multiple theaters within United States Indo-Pacific Command and beyond, including a massive conflagration on the Korean peninsula. Soon, the ability to hurl precision munitions back and forth culminates as expenditure rapidly outpaces production capacity and as US fuel stocks in the Pacific dwindle. With pressure increasing and options decreasing, tactical nuclear weapons are employed on the battlefield . . . and yet the war drives on.

Thus would end the first chapter. The reader turns the page, which says: “Three years later.”

And with some skillfully placed exposition, the author reveals the massive changes that have occurred across society as belligerents commit to a long, bloody war. Nations have fully mobilized their economies to support what is now an existential war. Drafts and conscription are made mandatory to fill and maintain the ranks of multiple field armies, amphibious corps, fleets, and air forces. The war is not limited to the first island chain, but has multiple theaters that span the globe and escalates horizontally, with simultaneous conflicts drawing in additional belligerents. Emergency powers are universally invoked by executive branches, curtailing liberties in even the historically freest societies. The threat of nuclear holocaust is ever-present, and continuous fighting through tactical nuclear exchanges shatters previous conceptions of escalation management.

(...)
Click to expand...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

There will be no ‘short, sharp’ war. A fight between the US and China would likely go on for years.

US policymakers and military leaders must rigorously study and plan for a broad range of implications from a years-long war against China.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

Tactical nukes become incredibly appealing once you expend your 15 day stock of JASSMs and YJ-83s on whatever.

Blah blah "does not represent" you know LTC Kerg is talking about this at lunch and bouncing ideas off the rest of III MEF's G5.

NMaude said:
If the USN does decide to restore the use of tactical nuclear weapons from its CVNs then they're going to be spending some serious money ensuring the the F-35B and F-35C can carry special-stores.
Click to expand...

This won't happen for much the same reasons the B-1s aren't getting their nuclear certs back.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Why?
Click to expand...

No one is going to nuclear re-certify the B-1 when the B-21 is entering service. Just like no one is going to nuclear re-certify the carriers when the submarine launched missile is entering service. I'm not sure if the Fords or later Nimitzes even still have nuclear storage areas aboard the ship tbh since they were ordered after Bush's withdraw of surface nuclear weapons.

Since -A is already nuclear certified the -C will work. It's highly debatable whether -B can because it has smaller bomb bays, but I think they're "only" as small as Raptor's so...maybe? But that requires putting nukes back on carriers which won't happen. It's too much effort.

Realistically you're getting a Burke with a SLCM-N or Sandia SWERVE bursting out of his grave to arm the Zumwalt hypersonic missile.
 
There are no additional weapons being discussed outside SLCM-M. The is no point in nuclearizing B-1s;they are the way out. There is no point in nuclearizing carriers; their ability to deliver a nuclear attack over launch range is a little questionable. I personally do not see what SLCM-N can due that LRSO cannot, other than be based in theater from the outset. But it looks like it might be produced. I’m curious what platforms it would be based on.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The actual outcome is more likely both sides agree to limit the use to tactical weapons rather than needlessly "escalate deterrence". III MEF is already talking about what happens after three years of sustained tactical nuclear combat in a regional war with the PLA and how to win.



www.atlanticcouncil.org

There will be no ‘short, sharp’ war. A fight between the US and China would likely go on for years.

US policymakers and military leaders must rigorously study and plan for a broad range of implications from a years-long war against China.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

Tactical nukes become incredibly appealing once you expend your 15 day stock of JASSMs and YJ-83s on whatever.

Blah blah "does not represent" you know LTC Kerg is talking about this at lunch and bouncing ideas off the rest of III MEF's G5.
Click to expand...
That theory was widely regarded as being wrong during the Cold War. In ny scenario the use of tactical nukes was seen as escalating into a full-scale nuclear exchange.
 
Forest Green said:
That theory was widely regarded as being wrong during the Cold War. In ny scenario the use of tactical nukes was seen as escalating into a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...

Yeah but I'm probably gonna trust the guy who is doing this for a living in today's world. There's a reason people all over the world (USA, Russia, PRC) are investing in low yield, high accuracy nuclear bombs: They want to hit things like airbases and aircraft carriers and make sure they're actually dead and not just having some window panes broken.

Conventional weapons are unreliable in the face of modern air defense because by the time they penetrate the air defense they are often reduced to irrelevance. It's very different from the Cold War where PGMs could reliably defeat heavy armor forces with little issue. PGMs can barely hit targets now. Nuclear weapons are back in vogue, because even if a single bomb gets through, you have killed your target. The only hard part is that you need a bunch of them and everyone stopped doing that 30 years ago.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Yeah but I'm probably gonna trust the guy who is doing this for a living in today's world. There's a reason people all over the world (USA, Russia, PRC) are investing in low yield, high accuracy nuclear bombs: They want to hit things like airbases and aircraft carriers and make sure they're actually dead and not just having some window panes broken.

Conventional weapons are unreliable in the face of modern air defense because by the time they penetrate the air defense they are often reduced to irrelevance. It's very different from the Cold War where PGMs could reliably defeat heavy armor forces with little issue. PGMs can barely hit targets now. Nuclear weapons are back in vogue, because even if a single bomb gets through, you have killed your target. The only hard part is that you need a bunch of them and everyone stopped doing that 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
If the enemy has such weapons then you need them certainly because the threat of responding with low yield nukes seems more credible to an opponent than a fullscale nuclear holocaust. However, that does not retract from the fact that any use is highly likely to escalate into the latter. It's about deterrence after all. The same principles were at play during the Cold War.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Yeah but I'm probably gonna trust the guy who is doing this for a living in today's world. There's a reason people all over the world (USA, Russia, PRC) are investing in low yield, high accuracy nuclear bombs: They want to hit things like airbases and aircraft carriers and make sure they're actually dead and not just having some window panes broken.

Conventional weapons are unreliable in the face of modern air defense because by the time they penetrate the air defense they are often reduced to irrelevance. It's very different from the Cold War where PGMs could reliably defeat heavy armor forces with little issue. PGMs can barely hit targets now. Nuclear weapons are back in vogue, because even if a single bomb gets through, you have killed your target. The only hard part is that you need a bunch of them and everyone stopped doing that 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine destroying an airbase or carrier would not be interpreted as a limited strategic exchange by the other side.

As for conventional weapons, I would argue carrying a nuclear warhead imbues no specially invulnerability to being shot down and that any tactical use would have to be assisted by a hail of conventional decoys or actual missiles to absorb the brunt of the defenses. Additionally, conventional weapons can be much lighter and cheaper depending on the target set. Destroying an air base completely is very difficult; routinely destroying any aircraft out in the open might be quite achievable with either a cheap stand off solution or sufficiently survivable platform using stand in munitions.

All in all I think tactical first use is likely impractical for both sides - it is a threshold you would only want to cross if you were pretty convinced you were losing/going to lose anyway. That said, the US needs to adopt sufficient tactical nuclear capability and doctrine such that first use is always discouraged regardless of the realities of the conventional battlefield.
 
www.spacewar.com

N Korea's Kim 'sincere' in Trump talks: Seoul's ex-president Moon

Seoul (AFP) May 21, 2024 - North Korean leader Kim Jong Un offered to give up his nuclear arsenal if America guaranteed his regime would survive, former South Korean president Moon Jae-in said in a recently released memoir.
www.spacewar.com

www.spacewar.com

Russia starts tactical nuclear drills near Ukraine

Moscow (AFP) May 21, 2024 - Russia on Tuesday announced the start of tactical nuclear weapons drills close to Ukraine, in what it said was a response to Western threats.
www.spacewar.com
 
Who thinks this is more aimed at China keeping S. Korea and Japan non-nuclear than de-nuclearising N. Korea?

www.spacewar.com

South Korea, China, Japan vow to ramp up cooperation in rare summit

Seoul (AFP) May 27, 2024 - Leaders from South Korea, China and Japan reaffirmed their goal of a denuclearised Korean peninsula Monday, during a rare summit at which they also agreed to deepen trade ties.
www.spacewar.com
 
Forest Green said:
If we are going with this SSN deterrent idea, wouldn't a nuclear-tipped CPS make more sense... which would then be NPS I guess. ;)
Click to expand...
SSNs are a terrible place to put nuclear deterrence systems.

They'd need to be closer to their targets than SSBNs, which means operating in very restricted waters which make any sub vulnerable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
SSNs are a terrible place to put nuclear deterrence systems.

They'd need to be closer to their targets than SSBNs, which means operating in very restricted waters which make any sub vulnerable.
Click to expand...
The range of LRHW/CPS is said to be 3,000km with a 1,200lb warhead (taken from article on HCSW), so with a 500lb TBG similar to ARRW, it could potentially go 5,000+km.
 
Forest Green said:
Who thinks this is more aimed at China keeping S. Korea and Japan non-nuclear than de-nuclearising N. Korea?

www.spacewar.com

South Korea, China, Japan vow to ramp up cooperation in rare summit

Seoul (AFP) May 27, 2024 - Leaders from South Korea, China and Japan reaffirmed their goal of a denuclearised Korean peninsula Monday, during a rare summit at which they also agreed to deepen trade ties.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
Genuine response or pantomime play?

www.spacewar.com

NKorea warns denuclearization brings 'hastened war' in possible message to Beijing

Washington DC (UPI) May 28, 2024 - North Korea angrily responded to a trilateral summit by South Korea, Japan and China, calling it a grave political provocation that would speed up a military confrontation, in a message that Seoul speculated Tuesday is directed toward the North's closest...
www.spacewar.com
 
www.llnl.gov

LLNL leads successful execution of subcritical experiment in Nevada

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) recently led the successful execution of the first U.S. subcritical experiment (SCE) since 2021 at the Principal Underground Laboratory for Subcritical Experimentation (PULSE) facility, formerly known as the U1a Complex, at the Nevada National...
www.llnl.gov www.llnl.gov
 
2:40PM

Russia ‘should consider nuclear explosion to warn West’​

Russia should consider a “demonstrative” nuclear explosion to warn the West about allowing their weapons to be fired across the border from Ukraine, advisors to the Kremlin said.

Dmitry Suslov, a member of the Moscow-based Council for Foreign and Defence Policy think tank, said a test detonation could cow the West, which is in the process of relaxing rules about the weapons it gives to Ukraine.

The think tank is influential in Kremlin circles and its ideas sometimes become government policy for the Kremlin.

The proposal was issued a day after Vladimir Putin warned the West that Nato members in Europe were playing with fire by relaxing its weapons rules.

The Russian president said it could trigger a global conflict, with Russia, which possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, at the centre.

The US and Germany have so far refused to allow their weapons to be used inside Russia, while French President Emmanuel Macron followed the UK to shift his stance on Tuesday.

Nato leaders are due to meet later today to focus on efforts to hammer out a support package for Ukraine.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Nato chief pressures Biden to allow Ukraine to use US weapons in strikes inside Russia

The head of Nato piled pressure on Joe Biden to overturn his ban on Ukraine’s use of American weapons to strike targets inside Russia on Thursday.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Good, test one.
Prove it works.
And let everyone see what it looks like. Including your own in Russia.

Stare at the power and the horror and grasp that nuclear use spirals out of control very fast.
 
Scott Kenny said:
SSNs are a terrible place to put nuclear deterrence systems.

They'd need to be closer to their targets than SSBNs, which means operating in very restricted waters which make any sub vulnerable.
Click to expand...
Yes plus the need for SLCM-N is to deter the usage of tactical nukes, which means its a messaging weapon system. So while I would replace SLCM-N with CPS-N, I would only put CPS-N on the Zumwalts and treat them as B-52s, ie they would be for visible messaging. Russia starts threatning? Zumwalt goes to the North Sea, North Korea starts threatening? Zumwalt goes to Guam, etc...
 
A bit off-topic however is there a thread concerning the US's past atmospheric nuclear test-programmes?
 
This choice would not be taken lightly. Russian doctrine had developed the idea of a "sobering strike". Our leaders are crossing every red line. I have noticed even in the media that acts of moderation are almost taken as weakness. See all the vast comments on social media about this. If Russia feels compelled to test a bomb it should make US reflect on things just as much as it should for them. I am seeing common comments saying not to worry about Russia as they OBVIOUSLY wont use nukes and if they did it's alright as they wouldnt work...

And I have seen honest to God media pieces saying that the use of nukes would not be as bad as many might think, and other bits of madness. The geopolitics behind this war is deep and it is like nobody sees or cares and just thinks ruskies are da bad guys. To see why nations like Russia are upset and think we are being aggressive look at our "soft power" use in Georgia. Talks now of sanctions over this transparency law. A law that nearly all nations here in the west have. Some european politicians even showed up personally to the protests IN GEORGIA to stop this bill, funded by the NGOs which this law wants to expose financially.

If this stuff was going on here in America we would be behaving the same way.
 
Putin has been extremely reckless in his implicit threats of using tactical nuclear-weapons and a "Sobering strike" by the Russians would backfire (Don't forget that Xi Jinping has publicly warned Putin not to use tactical nuclear-weapons), and let's not forget the irresponsible comments concerning use of such weapons by that drunk, Medvedev.
 
Well we are directly meddling in their back yard. We would be even more abrasive and rightfully so. We are a superpower and the western hemisphere is ours essentially. If China (and Russia too) gets any more funny ideas about destabilizing or even directly manipulating South and Central American nations we will stop it quick and violently. Is this fair? Are our neighboring nations sovereign? No, no they are not.

Now how can we start talking about Russian decolonization and saving democracy when we have done and would do exactly what Russia is doing? See my point?

Not trying to be annoying, but when you say stuff like you are, it is clearly through the lens of neocon/neolib foreign policy and ideals. Not everyone likes these current year politicians and their slithery double speak and Wolfowitz tier plans to essentially contain and regime change all that oppose us. Russia first and finally China when they stand alone.
 
TMA1 said:
This choice would not be taken lightly. Russian doctrine had developed the idea of a "sobering strike". Our leaders are crossing every red line. I have noticed even in the media that acts of moderation are almost taken as weakness. See all the vast comments on social media about this. If Russia feels compelled to test a bomb it should make US reflect on things just as much as it should for them. I am seeing common comments saying not to worry about Russia as they OBVIOUSLY wont use nukes and if they did it's alright as they wouldnt work...

And I have seen honest to God media pieces saying that the use of nukes would not be as bad as many might think, and other bits of madness. The geopolitics behind this war is deep and it is like nobody sees or cares and just thinks ruskies are da bad guys. To see why nations like Russia are upset and think we are being aggressive look at our "soft power" use in Georgia. Talks now of sanctions over this transparency law. A law that nearly all nations here in the west have. Some european politicians even showed up personally to the protests IN GEORGIA to stop this bill, funded by the NGOs which this law wants to expose financially.

If this stuff was going on here in America we would be behaving the same way.
Click to expand...
Russia is currently doing what's known as basecamping in the game Battlefield. That is firing artillery from their base because they know that people aren't allowed to fire there. Besides, according to Putin, Crimea, Kherson, Zaporhzhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk are now Russia, so by his own definition, missiles have been fired into Russia already anyway.

Most people have already seen nuclear explosions on TV many times and most people would only see a test on TV today, so not much value in that really. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, the principle doesn't work if you're using them in an offensive capacity to secure the annexation of another country. If they were allowed to work that way, it would be the end of humanity anyway. If they don't want missiles going into Russia they should stop firing missiles out of Russia.

As regards Georgia's law, are Russian funded groups forced to register under it? There are also many differences:

Georgian Draft Law on the Transparency of Foreign Influence is not an analogue of a EU Directive – EDMO

edmo.eu edmo.eu
 
TMA1 said:
Well we are directly meddling in their back yard. We would be even more abrasive and rightfully so. We are a superpower and the western hemisphere is ours essentially. If China (and Russia too) gets any more funny ideas about destabilizing or even directly manipulating South and Central American nations we will stop it quick and violently. Is this fair? Are our neighboring nations sovereign? No, no they are not.
Click to expand...
How so? Do we control their TV, are they on the same currency, do they not hold separate elections. Is there not even a Russian spy base in Cuba? There was no meddling, in 2010 Yanukovych campaigned saying, "Our priorities are integration into the European Union..." He was elected on that basis, but 3 years later he u-turned and decided to join the EEU instead. People protested asking for new elections following this abrupt u-turn. Why didn't he just hold fresh elections instead of cracking heads if he still believed he had a legitimate democratic majority?

Everywhere is someone's back yard. Russia's back yard is also the EU's backyard and NATO's back yard.
TMA1 said:
Now how can we start talking about Russian decolonization and saving democracy when we have done and would do exactly what Russia is doing? See my point?
Click to expand...
Lots of things were done during the Cold War that probably shouldn't have been, but those actions were against a backdrop of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's genocides, i.e. terror and fear, plus the Communist invasion/attempted of Hungary, Czecholslovakia, and South Vietnam and South Korea. Russia knows that modern day NATO is not going to invade them, the idea of the 32 parliaments involved passing such a bill is frankly comical. This war isn't about Russia's security, it's about slowly re-establishing the Russian Empire/USSR. Putin, Solovyov and several other clowns have implicitly suggested as much.
TMA1 said:
Not trying to be annoying, but when you say stuff like you are, it is clearly through the lens of neocon/neolib foreign policy and ideals. Not everyone likes these current year politicians and their slithery double speak and Wolfowitz tier plans to essentially contain and regime change all that oppose us. Russia first and finally China when they stand alone.
Click to expand...
Nobody is trying to change the regime in Russia, they can have whatever regime they like, why would it bother us as long as they don't try imposing it elsewhere in Europe?
 

This stuff is frequently said. The Wolfowitz doctrine tier nonsense of these neocons and neolibs in power. And yes many politicians here in America and over in europe have said multiple times they are aiming to pressure Russia into regime change.

Russia was leasing the territory in Crimea to keep control of the former Soviet naval bases. After maidan whether you believe it or not Russia felt compelled to take it by force. I see Russia doing exactly what we would do. They want to keep their black sea naval presence. Our leaders want the black sea to become a nato lake.

And btw Forest Green I mean no offense even if it gets tense. I disagree with you, but I understand especially those living or lived near Russia that have bad history with Russian/soviet government. Also though i might sound it i am aware of Putins corrupt government. I just do not at all see this as black and white good/bad guy stuff. I think we are being manipulative and belligerent.

PS: I could no longer find the western news articles of Kaja saying what she said. I know they were there, but they seem to have disappeared from google news section.... I had to use an RT source. Interesting.

Edit: added thought.
 
Last edited:
TMA1 said:
After maidan whether you believe it or not Russia felt compelled to take it by force.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how Putin and the Russians felt they had no legal right to seize the Crimean peninsula that was an outright act of war (Ukraine was in a low-level war with Russia from 2014 to early 2022 before the current Russo-Ukrainian war). As for NATO leaders in regards to the Black Sea that is not true, significant parts of the Black Sea fall under NATO control because the countries in question (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) are NATO members and it is Russia's historic misbehaviour towards them that led to this situation, Putin has only himself to blame for this situation.
 
Last edited:
TMA1 said:
Click to expand...
Site is blocked here for lying about literally everything. Where are you accessing it from?
TMA1 said:
This stuff is frequently said. The Wolfowitz doctrine tier nonsense of these neocons and neolibs in power. And yes many politicians here in America and over in europe have said multiple times they are aiming to pressure Russia into regime change.
Click to expand...
Democracy is what they advocate rather than one guy deciding everything from who can stand, to the vote count and who is guilty of fraud etc. when actually everyone is guilty of it including him.
TMA1 said:
Russia was leasing the territory in Crimea to keep control of the former Soviet naval bases. After maidan whether you believe it or not Russia felt compelled to take it by force. I see Russia doing exactly what we would do. They want to keep their black sea naval presence. Our leaders want the black sea to become a nato lake.
Click to expand...
They still have a Black Sea presence with Novorossisyk.
TMA1 said:
And btw Forest Green I mean no offense even if it gets tense. I disagree with you, but I understand especially those living or lived near Russia that have bad history with Russian/soviet government. Also though i might sound it i am aware of Putins corrupt government. I just do not at all see this as black and white good/bad guy stuff. I think we are being manipulative and belligerent.
Click to expand...
I see it as about economic sphere. Russia is losing it's economic sphere, this is a natural development due to its own economic under-performance. As an example, Poland had a lower GDP/capita than Russia in the 1990s, now it is higher. Ukraine is next to Poland, Ukraine sees that, so Ukraine wants to the join EU, Russia doesn't want to 'lose' them, Putin invades. The other stuff is just window dressing.
TMA1 said:
PS: I could no longer find the western news articles of Kaja saying what she said. I know they were there, but they seem to have disappeared from google news section.... I had to use an RT source. Interesting.

Edit: added thought.
Click to expand...
RT probably made all the sources. Russia's regime put itself under pressure by starting this war and fooling themselves into believing that the annexation of an entire country in Europe would be ignored, and that's actually a direct result of the NATO NOT putting the regime under enough pressure for S. Ossetia and Crimea.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom