Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[Forest Green]

"When facing two peer nuclear adversaries, get rid of all your ICBMs."

-Sun Tzu - The Art of Stupid

 

[Kiltonge]

As we mightily struggle with our “30 new pits a year plan”

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

Yes.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

The latter I think. Most pits are shaped as hollow spheres, which are then placed in a spherical array of explosive lenses, which is inside a tamper of dense material (often DU), and in thermo nukes with fusion fuel surrounding the primary fission explosive. So more seed of fruit, with the fruit being the whole physics package. But also technically speaking, there is a hole inside the center of every implosion pit (I do not think any U.S./UK weapon uses a “gun” design for many decades).

 

[NMaude]

Most pits are shaped as hollow spheres, which are then placed in a spherical array of explosive lenses, which is inside a tamper of dense material (often DU)

Ah, no, not quite. The pit is the core/tamper assembly consisting of an inner core of delta-phase Pu-239 or Oralloy* surrounded by a tamper/reflector (In older weapons especially fission only bombs the tamper consisted of depleted-Uranium and TN warhead primaries Beryllium). The pit in turn nestled inside the HE assembly which in turn is inside a high-strength plastic container.

and in thermo nukes with fusion fuel surrounding the primary fission explosive.

This is the "Sloika" (Layer cake) design used by the Soviets in the 1950s before they perfected the two-stage thermonuclear warhead design (Known in the West as the Teller-Ulam device) this was deployed as the free-fall RDS-6s. All modern TN warhead use a seperate primary and secondary (The main fusion charge) with the secondary usually being spherical (Older multi-megaton designs were cylindrical), the primary and secondary are encased in a radiation-case made up of a high-Z material (Usually Lead in older retired designs but now typically Thorium or depleted-Uranium).

* Weapons-grade Uranium-235 (At least 93.5% U-235 concentration).

 

[bobbymike]

Can More Be Done to Respond to Russia's Space-Based Nuke?

House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) urged swift actions from the U.S. to address Russia's nuclear ASAT development in space.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Forest Green]

Congress wants to restore nukes on conventional B-52 bombers

With Russia suspending participation in New START and the arms control treaty's future in doubt, Congress wants to restore nuclear weapons to some B-52s.

www.defensenews.com

Congress is laying the groundwork to restore nuclear weapon capabilities on roughly 30 B-52H Stratofortress bombers that had been converted to drop only conventional munitions as part of the New START arms control treaty with Russia.

Lawmakers are eager to beef up the U.S. nuclear arsenal given Russia’s suspension of the treaty and China’s rapidly expanding strategic warhead production. Opponents of the measure argue that the directives will make it more difficult to negotiate a new treaty while complicating efforts to significantly extend the lifespan of the B-52 bomber fleet first introduced during the Cold War.

Won't be long before the SLBMs and ICBMs start having more warheads loaded, if they haven't already that is.

 

[Forest Green]

What It Will Take To Make The Entire B-52 Fleet Nuclear-Capable

Congress looks set to compel the Air Force to restore nuclear weapons capability on dozens of B-52s after the New START treaty with Russia expires. Congress looks set to compel the Air Force to restore nuclear capability on dozens of B-52s after a treaty with Russia expires.

www.twz.com

U.S. Ballistic Missile Submarine, 'Doomsday Plane' Take Part In Rare Show Of Force Off Norway

USS Tennessee and the E-6B Mercury were joined in the Norwegian Sea by a Ticonderoga class cruiser and P-8 patrol plane.

www.twz.com

 

[Forest Green]

Putin hints Russia to start making previously banned missiles

Moscow (AFP) June 28, 2024 - Russia should start producing previously banned midrange missiles, President Vladimir Putin said Friday, as Moscow warned the United States that drone reconnaissance flights over the Black Sea risked a direct military clash.

www.spacewar.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Belarus threatens nuclear use as Russia blamed for jamming GPS - Ukraine: The Latest, Podcast

Every weekday The Telegraph's top journalists analyse the Russian invasion of Ukraine from all angles and tell you what you need to know

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Josh_TN]

The nuclear threat of the week, somewhat more amusing coming from a non nuclear power.

 

[NMaude]

Belarus threatens nuclear use as Russia blamed for jamming GPS - Ukraine: The Latest, Podcast

Every weekday The Telegraph's top journalists analyse the Russian invasion of Ukraine from all angles and tell you what you need to know

www.telegraph.co.uk

Lukashenko is going to go too far one of these days and get the shit kicked out of Belarus (Not to mention he's barely holding on to power).

The nuclear threat of the week, somewhat more amusing coming from a non nuclear power.

Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.

Makes one wonder what would happen if Belarus sets on off without Vlad's approval?

 

[Josh_TN]

Belarus is a non-nuclear power however Putin has sent a number of tactical nuclear-weapons to Belarus which are nominally under their control.

Realistically any nuclear weapons in Belarus are under Russian control. The entire military is organized to essentially slot into the Russian command structure anyway.

 

[Josh_TN]

Makes one wonder what would happen if Belarus sets on off without Vlad's approval?

Then Vlad The Defenestrator will show him the (rooftop) door.

The Russians have PALs; Belarus would not be able to use those weapons unless they tore them down and rebuilt them. And why would they possibly want to rock the boat? They have managed to stay out of the war thus far outside a couple ballistic missile attacks a couple years ago.

 

[NMaude]

The entire military is organized to essentially slot into the Russian command structure anyway.

Yeah, Belarus is now the Byelorussian SSR in all but name with Putin in charge.

 

[Forest Green]

UT leads $25m nuclear technology consortium

Los Angeles CA (SPX) Jul 02, 2024 - The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is the lead institution for a $25 million cooperative agreement awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration Office of

www.spacewar.com

AW139 Nuclear Detection Helicopters Join Department Of Energy Fleet, Replace Bell 412s

The AW139s will replace Bell 412 helicopters equipped to map radiation levels from the air after nuclear attacks or accidents.

www.twz.com

 

[bobbymike]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDL_cDhHwmU

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Nuke Agency Buys Internet Backbone Data - Slashdot

A U.S. government agency tasked with supporting the nation's nuclear deterrence capability has bought access to a data tool that claims to cover more than 90 percent of the world's internet traffic, and can in some cases let users trace activity through virtual private networks, according to...

news.slashdot.org

 

[bobbymike]

Modernizing space-based nuclear command, control, and communications

While nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) is in the midst of a modernization overhaul, the space-based elements of NC3 face unique geopolitical, technical, and bureaucratic challenges. This paper focuses on space-based missions and elements of the existing NC3 system, analyzing...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

 

[NMaude]

Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has this interesting video out about the US's current nuclear arsenal:

The United States maintains the second-largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, behind only Russia.

Among this apocalyptic arsenal are a wide variety of warhead delivery methods and possible yields, meant to give the American Defense apparatus a broad range of nuclear response options in the event of war.

Let's run through these different weapons, warheads, delivery methods, and yields.

 

[Forest Green]

South Korea's Yoon says alliance with U.S. is now 'nuclear-based'

Washington DC (UPI) Jul 16, 2024 - South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said Tuesday that the alliance with the United States has been raised to a nuclear-based one capable of warding off threats from North Korea in the wake of new joint deterrence guidelines.

www.spacewar.com

 

[Josh_TN]

South Korea's Yoon says alliance with U.S. is now 'nuclear-based'

Washington DC (UPI) Jul 16, 2024 - South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said Tuesday that the alliance with the United States has been raised to a nuclear-based one capable of warding off threats from North Korea in the wake of new joint deterrence guidelines.

www.spacewar.com

I wonder if this will include creating the proper storage sites for B-61s should the policy of deployment on the peninsula change again.

 

[NMaude]

I wonder if the South Koreans will be able to persuade the US to let them develop their own nuclear weapons?

 

[Josh_TN]

I wonder if the South Koreans will be able to persuade the US to let them develop their own nuclear weapons?

There would be little the US could do to stop them. The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action. Of course the alternative might be that this is somewhat of a bluff to push the US into re-deploying weapons to the ROK, but I suspect not - those would still be US weapons under US control, and I doubt that solution is satisfactory given the recent volatility of US politics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There would be little the US could do to stop them. The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action. Of course the alternative might be that this is somewhat of a bluff to push the US into re-deploying weapons to the ROK, but I suspect not - those would still be US weapons under US control, and I doubt that solution is satisfactory given the recent volatility of US politics.

And frankly, the US has a bit of egg on it's face over nuclear weapons and territorial guarantees.

All South Korea has to say in response to being asked to not develop nukes is "24 February, 2022."

 

[NMaude]

The real question to my mind is if the popular opinion truly supports such an action.

Given their intransigent northern neighbour who has designs on South Korea and has thousands of artillery pieces just north of the Korean DMZ poised to unload hundreds of thousands of shells onto Seoul and northern South Korea along with having nukes I'd say there'd be very firm support for South Korea joining the Nuclear Club.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given their intransigent northern neighbour who has designs on South Korea and has thousands of artillery pieces just north of the Korean DMZ poised to unload hundreds of thousands of shells onto Seoul and northern South Korea along with having nukes I'd say there'd be very firm support for South Korea joining the Nuclear Club.

North Korea has so many artillery pieces that you measure their total output in kilotons/second.

 

[Forest Green]

I wonder if the South Koreans will be able to persuade the US to let them develop their own nuclear weapons?

It's now necessary for balance IMO.

 

[bobbymike]

It's now necessary for balance IMO.

France and UK in the west S. Korea and Japan (or Australia) in the Far East.

 

[Josh_TN]

France and UK in the west S. Korea and Japan (or Australia) in the Far East.

I cannot see Japan or Australia doing so for popular opinion reasons. The ROK might be cooking something though.

 

[Desertfox]

Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.

 

[Forest Green]

Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.

They're too close to the enemy and the enemy has nukes mounted on missiles, the balance can therefore only be the same - nukes on missiles.

 

[Desertfox]

You don't need same-same for deterrence purposes. The US SLBM/ICBMs serve different roles than the Russian SLBM/ICBMs. The US second-strike capability is in Tridents while Russia's is in its road-mobiles.

The B61 exists, is in production, and fits a plane SK is buying. Unless SK is going to front the cost of the US developing a new missile/warhead, its the best option.

 

[Josh_TN]

Just give them dual-key B61s, like we did in Europe. They are already planning to buy the F-35.

I am sure that will be offered if the ROK seriously considers its own nuclear weapons program, but I doubt it would be seen as a viable alternative. Dual key weapons still need US authorization. That was always perhaps a little suspect, and US domestic politics have only made it more so.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I am sure that will be offered if the ROK seriously considers its own nuclear weapons program, but I doubt it would be seen as a viable alternative. Dual key weapons still need US authorization. That was always perhaps a little suspect, and US domestic politics have only made it more so.

Yep.

I do not believe that any one of the three (RoK, J, or Oz) would accept dual key nukes any more than the UK or France did.

 

[Forest Green]

You don't need same-same for deterrence purposes.

Of course you do.

The US SLBM/ICBMs serve different roles than the Russian SLBM/ICBMs. The US second-strike capability is in Tridents while Russia's is in its road-mobiles.

SLBMs and ICBMs are both intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles.

The B61 exists, is in production, and fits a plane SK is buying. Unless SK is going to front the cost of the US developing a new missile/warhead, its the best option.

They could develop one of their own and mount it on a Hyunmoo-IIIC/IV/V.

B61s stored in a bunker could be wiped out in a first strike by BM-mounted nukes. Unless you have a policy of nuking first they're honestly useless IMHO.

 

[Scott Kenny]

SLBMs and ICBMs are both intercontinental-ranged ballistic missiles.

But have different roles in the strategic calculus.

Land-based missiles are a first strike weapon. The enemy knows exactly where the silos are, so if you don't launch before enemy missiles impact you will lose your silo ICBMs. The most extreme version of this is "Launch on Warning," where the silo missiles are fired more or less as soon as your IR satellites watching for launch plumes start screaming. A more relaxed version can wait until the long range radars get a track on missiles. About the latest you can wait is ~1min from impact.

Submarine-based missiles are second strike weapons, guarantors of MAD. Because even if the enemy launches and takes out all your bomber bases and silos, there are still missiles with enough firepower to end whichever country launched first. Submarines are very hard to detect, but advancements in underwater detection capabilities makes the guaranteed MAD a little less likely.

B61s stored in a bunker could be wiped out in a first strike by BM-mounted nukes. Unless you have a policy of nuking first they're honestly useless IMHO.

Bombers are a very effective external signal of alert levels to your neighbors. People see and hear them, they're tracked on radars from well beyond the horizon, etc. Especially when you have dedicated bombers. It's easier to miss the signals if you only use fighter-bombers.

 

[Forest Green]

Land-based missiles would be launched whilst the enemy first strike is still on its way, so first and second strike. Trying to get planes off the ground in that time is much harder, especially if you're next door.

Submarine-based missiles are both first and second strike also. They would arrive on target before ICBMs also.

ROK will be using only fighter bombers. B61s are useful only in responding to and therefore deterring an over-powering conventional land invasion, in almost every other scenario they're pointless and likely wouldn't survive a first strike unless you have them airborne 24/7 a la 1950s nuclear aerial bombs, which is impractical.

I would be a lot more deterred by by nukes on Hyunmoo-IIIC/IV/Vs than B61s.

 

[Forest Green]

Germany must to raise its nuclear-deterrence IQ

Opinion: There is little expertise in German society to weigh thorny questions surrounding nuclear deterrence vis-a-vis Russia, argues Karl-Heinz Kamp.

www.defensenews.com

China says halted nuclear arms talks with US over Taiwan weapons sales

Beijing (AFP) July 17, 2024 - China said Wednesday it had suspended negotiations with the United States on nuclear non-proliferation and arms control in response to Washington's weapons sales to Taiwan - a move the State Department called unfortunate.

www.spacewar.com