Retired silos, retired TELs, retired SSBNs all scheduled to be scrapped and new SSBNs stills working up. Russia has been replacing single warhead Topols with MIRVed Yars. So yes most of Russia's force is probably MIRVed.That's a rather large number of undeployed launchers for the Russians. I wonder what fills that category? SSBNs? Also the Russian force must be pretty heavily MIRV'd to still reach a similar level of warheads. The US has a pretty low level of this - 400 MMIIIs with single warheads and an average of just ~4 warheads per Trident.
Does anyone know if AGM-86s count as individual deployed strategic warheads or are they part of the 'one warhead per bomber' arrangement?
The committee had also planned to hold a paper hearing on the Energy Department’s nuclear budget Thursday. But late Wednesday it was postponed due, the panel said Thursday, to the decision to put the paper hearings in general on hold.
“The issues associated with production of nuclear warheads remains central to modernization of the nuclear triad, and as such, the committee expects to address these critical questions in the future,” Hernandez said.
You always have to consider the games that go on in the black world. We have no idea what kind of toys the US or China may use to poke and prod one another.If they did I wonder if its posturing to prevent in their minds a preemptive strike.
I would ask what type of preemptive strike, by whom, and on what basis. but that’s drifting way off topic - as was your comment.If they did I wonder if its posturing to prevent in their minds a preemptive strike.
Somehow I doubt his sincerity here...
They would be hard pressed to keep up with the US if it decides to heavily MIRV existing missiles. The US could pretty easily introduce an additional thousand W76 and nearly as many W78s without building a single new launch platform.
I wonder if Britain/US would have stayed in the Washington Naval Treaty if they had been fully aware of the cheating going on. Of course, for Britain/US, there would have been domestic supporters on both sides of the stay/leave divide right up to when the shooting started.
I thought it was the foam that holds the "physics package" in position inside the bomb casing?
I wonder if they would have been more inclined to stay in the treaty if they had no ability to produce any warships until 1941?
I wonder if they would have been more inclined to stay in the treaty if they had no ability to produce any warships until 1941?
Why? Does staying restrain the cheating or encourage the cheater? Are you going to threaten to leave if the cheating doesn't stop and then when it doesn't you still stay? Leaving at least forces you to be honest with reality.
unless I felt the treaty was counter to my interests from the beginning, I’d probably want some kind of evidence that it was being broken before I left it, particularly if I had no ability to effectively respond.