Current Nuclear Weapons Development

us.yahoo.com

US says secret nuclear strategy not a response to single country or threat

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A classified nuclear strategic plan approved by President Joe Biden this year is not a response to a single country or threat, the White House said on Tuesday, after the New York Times reported it reoriented the U.S. deterrence strategy to focus on China's expansion of its...
us.yahoo.com us.yahoo.com
 
bobbymike said:
Do you understand what “basically” zero means?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4510010-plutonium-pits-us-nuclear-ambitions-sentinel/amp/
Overseeing the production is the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is pushing to get Los Alamos whirring to life this year to start making plutonium pits, with the hopes of eventually producing 30 per year at the site. The agency also plans to open a brand-new plutonium pit production plant in South Carolina, known as the Savannah River site, to meet an ultimate target goal of 80 pits a year.


But the NNSA hasn’t done large-scale pit production since the early 1990s, creating unease about restarting the process after decades of inactivity. And the agency is plagued by schedule delays, workforce challenges and budget concerns.
———————-
, but for nearly three decades, the United States has not had the ability to produce them in the quantities required for the nuclear weapons stockpile.
—————————
Yes basically zero.
Click to expand...
We don't need 3,000 a year, we need 80 a year and we already produce a significant portion of those. The process is set, all that is needed is time to finish up the expansion of the production lines to expand the throughput. We have a working production line, we just need more (which are under construction).
 
Desertfox said:
We don't need 3,000 a year, we need 80 a year and we already produce a significant portion of those. The process is set, all that is needed is time to finish up the expansion of the production lines to expand the throughput. We have a working production line, we just need more (which are under construction).
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I say we need 3000/year my comment was simply to illustrate how far we’ve fallen. Also as the article I attached shows we are a decade away (if no delays) from getting to 30/year meanwhile latest estimates are China deployed warheads could go from 500-1500 in that same timeframe.

When you throw Russia into the mix our capacity to build new warheads is woefully inadequate.
 
We are a decade way from 80 a year, 30 a year will be far sooner. Note we already have ~1500 deployable warheads in storage (due to New START) and have plenty of pits we can and will recycle without needing new builds. We are just fine.
 
www.yahoo.com

US says secret nuclear strategy not a response to single country or threat

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A classified nuclear strategic plan approved by President Joe Biden this year is not a response to a single country or threat, the White House said on Tuesday, after the New York Times reported it reoriented the U.S. deterrence strategy to focus on China's expansion of its...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
www.spacewar.com

North Korea could create a 'nuclear domino' effect in Asia: Seoul

Washington DC (UPI) Aug 22, 2024 - Recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state threatens to create a domino effect that will cause an arms race around Northeast Asia, Seoul's top official on inter-Korean affairs warned Thursday, as he called on the United States to reaffirm support for...
www.spacewar.com
 
From Defense Updates, it would appear that the US has new plans in regards to its' nuclear arsenal and the PRC, North Korea and Russia:


A significant development has taken place when it comes to U.S. nuclear stance.In March, President Biden approved a highly classified nuclear strategic plan for the United States. This was first reported by the New York Times.The White House did not publicly announce that Biden had approved the updated strategy, known as the "Nuclear Employment Guidance." This revised plan aims to prepare the United States for potential coordinated nuclear threats from 3 specific countries.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why the U.S.'s new nuclear strategic plan focuses on China, Russia, and North Korea ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #israelhamaswar #israeliranhttps://www.youtube.com/hashtag/israeliran
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:35 CHANGES REQUIRED
03:02 RUSSIAN THREATS
04:36 STRENGTHEN OF NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
05:57 CHINA’s CAPACITY EXPANSION
07:44 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
How much of it is real, and how much is Carter-style bluffing (which never worked well) remains the question.
 
Defense Updates has recently uploaded a new video about INS Arighat, India's newest Arihant-class SSBN:


On 29 August, the Indian Navy commissioned into service INS Arighat, the second Arihant-class SSBN (Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear, ie, a nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarine)
Click to expand...
.INS Arighat was commissioned into the Indian Navy at the Ship Building Center (SBC) at Visakhapatnam in the southern coastal state of Andhra Pradesh.
Click to expand...
Speaking at the commissioning ceremony, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated that ‘Arighat’ would further strengthen India's three-tier retaliatory nuclear deterrent capability. As per the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the “technological advancements undertaken indigenously on Arighat make it significantly more advanced than its predecessor Arihant.”
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why INS Arighat SSBN is India’s trump card?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #insarighat #insarihant
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:51 BACKGROUND
03:36 INS ARIGHAT OVERVIEW
05:09 ARMAMENT
07:19 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Would I be correct in assuming that the Nork uranium enrichment facilities are in deep underground bunker complexes?
 
Sineva said:
Its very possible,tho the pilot enrichment plant at yongbyon was in a simple ground level building.
When it comes to the dprk its hard to assume much of anything with any certainty,for instance these photos might not be all that recent as those distinctive dprk officers hats were replaced by ones that more resemble the current russian style not all that long ago.
Click to expand...
And the most recent pictures of Littlest Kim have him weighing a good 80lbs more than in those pics.

Edit: maybe I should have used the Chinese euphemism "Three Fats" instead...
 
Last edited:
Desertfox said:
We are a decade way from 80 a year, 30 a year will be far sooner. Note we already have ~1500 deployable warheads in storage (due to New START) and have plenty of pits we can and will recycle without needing new builds. We are just fine.
Click to expand...
Neither you nor I nor anyone can claim "we are fine" with respect to the availability, reliability, and functionality of the US nuclear weapons stockpile. We are in totally uncharted territory - decades without manufacture, serious development, or testing of nuclear weapons. Hundreds of billions have been spent by DoE on ostensible "reliability" programs consisting largely of computer simulations that purport to demonstrate the continued functionality of the decades-old weapons in the stockpile. Virtually all the old men who were deeply involved in the nuclear weapons industry decades ago are unanimous in declaring that nuclear weapons are extremely complicated and behave in often unpredictable ways, making testing absolutely vital not only for new weapons development but for insuring the present arsenal is indeed functional. I'm not necessarily advocating for resumed testing - though I certainly wouldn't oppose it - but the fact is with the bureaucratic coup that closed Rocky Flats and the lack of focus and investment in the nuclear retaliatory capabilities of this nation going on over 30 years now, assessments declaring "we are just fine," etc., are pollyanish in the extreme.
 
If you are looking from the outside in, sure you may have some doubts. But those that have an inside look at the DoE know that there has been a lot of work far beyond computer simulations, that has been done to make sure the US nuclear arsenal is safe and reliable. That the general public might not know the true extend of the work is by design. We do NOT need to go back to nuclear testing and if we did so, it would help our rivals who don't have as developed a test program, far more than it would help us. And "decades without manufacture, serious development" is demonstrably false.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.bairdmaritime.com

OPINION | The implications of India’s newest ballistic missile submarine

India’s second Arihant-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), INS Arighaat, was commissioned into the Indian Navy on August 29. The new submarine bri
www.bairdmaritime.com www.bairdmaritime.com
Click to expand...
I think that's misunderstanding where and how you need to use other ships to give space for an SSBN to operate.

Yes, by the nature of the two target areas the sub may need to remain relatively close to the coast, especially if only armed with the short-range missiles.

But all you really need to do is send a couple of ASW ships out every time one of your SSBNs leaves port. Run an aggressive training exercise, blast all the active sonar you want, maybe even authorize some depth charges to be used. No subs but yours in the area. Then the SSBN leaves port a day or two later when you've cleared the area immediately around the port so there's little chance for an opposing sub to latch onto the SSBN and follow it to the patrol area.

Once the Indian navy gets at least 3 SSBNs, and ideally 4 or more, then they will have at least one sub at sea 24/7. And honestly, with the way that the two-crew system the US uses works, they'll have 2 or 3 boats at sea at all times.
 
Defense Updates has a video out concerning the latest test-failure of the SS-X-30 Satan II:


Russia has faced many reverses in its so-called “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine.The blowing up of Toropets Ammunition Depots in the last few days are some of the most significant disasters.
Click to expand...
But apart from its war effort in Ukraine, the Russian military has now encountered a non-combat but very serious failure. On September 21, Russia carried out a test of the RS-28 Sarmat, a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile. Although Moscow has not disclosed the test results, analysts and OpenSource INTEL indicate that the test was unsuccessful. The missile seems to have exploded while in the silo, resulting in a large crater and considerable damage to the test site.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates reports on the test failure of the most powerful nuke delivery system Sarmat ICBM.
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #SarmatICBM #ukrainerussiawar
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:51 ASSESSMENT
03:39 SARMAT ICBM
06:27 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
I think it is not remotely unheard of for there to be problems with an ICBM launch. I think the Brit’s have been having some trouble with Trident recently for some reason (same missiles as USN and I do not they have the same problem, so questions). But this particular issue seems to have blown up before or during launch, which is a bigger setback. It seems likely a lot of testing equipment has to be replaced.
 
NMaude said:
Given that it's the third SSBN would its' sea-trials take that long?
Click to expand...
Easily. Sea trials, shoot all the torpedo tubes, shoot the missile systems, shock trials, etc. Come back in to shipyard to fix everything, a second set of sea trials to make sure that all the worked systems are fixed, and then deployment.

If the sub is generally in good working order, you can do quick sea trials minus weapons stuff in a couple of days. It's the weapons stuff that adds a lot of time.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom