Current Nuclear Weapons Development

How close does a silo have to be to another to constitute a 'dense pack', roughly speaking? Presumably it has something to do with the size of the warheads being used, but given the inverse square law of energy dispersal I assume there's a single measurement of distance that can be used as a rule of thumb.
 
Josh_TN said:
How close does a silo have to be to another to constitute a 'dense pack', roughly speaking? Presumably it has something to do with the size of the warheads being used, but given the inverse square law of energy dispersal I assume there's a single measurement of distance that can be used as a rule of thumb.
Click to expand...
I will try and find the information I know I have it somewhere but you’re generally correct I do seem to recall reading that basically they were spaced far enough apart that a perfectly placed warhead “dead center” between silos couldn’t kill both. Although the overarching “defense” was the concept of warhead fratricide.
 
breakingdefense.com

China’s Nuclear Forces Swell: A Tri-Polar World? - Breaking Defense

The combination of a modern long-range bomber (the H-20), and an expanded seaborne ballistic missile force, as well as this massive inflation of the land-based ICBM component, makes China’s nuclear forces look far more like their “hegemonic” counterparts in Russia and the United States than the...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
www.heritage.org

Getting Nuclear Posture Review Right Is Critical for U.S. Defense

The Pentagon has finally kicked off its Nuclear Posture Review, a comprehensive assessment of U.S. nuclear capabilities and strategy, which will be conducted over several months. But already, President Joe Biden faces pressure—both from within the administration and from some in Congress—to...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
"Just last week, members of Congress’ progressive-leaning Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group urged Biden in a letter to make a number of changes to U.S. nuclear force posture, including reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons by one-third, changing existing U.S. nuclear declaratory posture, and resurrecting arguments that question the need to replace the antiquated Minuteman III intercontinental-range missile."

Sounds imaginary. Nothing to worry about.
 
sferrin said:
"Just last week, members of Congress’ progressive-leaning Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group urged Biden in a letter to make a number of changes to U.S. nuclear force posture, including reducing the overall number of nuclear weapons by one-third, changing existing U.S. nuclear declaratory posture, and resurrecting arguments that question the need to replace the antiquated Minuteman III intercontinental-range missile."

Sounds imaginary. Nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
Yup, this is where I break away from other lefties. Self-defense is an inalienable right, and tolerance of intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance.
 
sferrin said:
It was actually looked at by the US way back in the day using the 30mm Avenger. I (or someone else) posted a picture of it on this site somewhere. I'd read about it years ago and then a picture finally popped up a while back. Phalanx was shooting down 5" dia shells back in the 80s. Hitting a much larger RV doesn't seem impossible (they're not going Mach 20+ by the time they're near ground level).
Click to expand...

Also by the Soviets:

ОКР Мозырь / изделие 171 / Камчатская ПРО | MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.)

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум
militaryrussia.ru militaryrussia.ru

The idea is now being mooted again for future silos (probably Sarmat?).
 
It's pretty clear what's driving the China's nuclear buildup. The changing geopolitical situation. In the last half a decade alone there's been a huge shift in how the US perceives China. Long time ago, it used to perceive it as a partner and part of the global economic system that plays into the US hand. But since then, the US changed its opinion and for several years now has been attacking China via economic, monetary, technological, political and media means, using its own might in those areas, as well as urging/making its allies to do the same.

Years ago, when US and Chinese economies were pretty intertwined, a war between the two would have been quite damaging to both. But if there comes a day when China will somehow for the most part be decoupled not just from the US economy but also from a lot of Western countries' economies - then a war between the two might not be as damaging. And in such a situation, actually using its huge numerical superiority in nukes, might not be so completely far fetched for the US, no matter the losses in such an exchange. Of course, if China manages to at least partially catch up in nuke numbers by then, then a nuclear exchange would be far more costly to the US.

Hence the Chinese urgent drive to build up their nuke arsenal.
 
I think it has far more to do with China's aggressive and dogmatic stance as regards perceived ownership of territories and EEZ. Their claims are simply preposterous and that has changed the US position, augmented of course by genocide of Uyghurs.
 
Avatar1234 said:
It's pretty clear what's driving the China's nuclear buildup. The changing geopolitical situation. In the last half a decade alone there's been a huge shift in how the US perceives China. Long time ago, it used to perceive it as a partner and part of the global economic system that plays into the US hand. But since then, the US changed its opinion and for several years now has been attacking China via economic, monetary, technological, political and media means, using its own might in those areas, as well as urging/making its allies to do the same.

Years ago, when US and Chinese economies were pretty intertwined, a war between the two would have been quite damaging to both. But if there comes a day when China will somehow for the most part be decoupled not just from the US economy but also from a lot of Western countries' economies - then a war between the two might not be as damaging. And in such a situation, actually using its huge numerical superiority in nukes, might not be so completely far fetched for the US, no matter the losses in such an exchange. Of course, if China manages to at least partially catch up in nuke numbers by then, then a nuclear exchange would be far more costly to the US.

Hence the Chinese urgent drive to build up their nuke arsenal.
Click to expand...
That's 100% horse$--t. The US was giving them high tech as late as the 90s. China's belligerence, and complete disregard for international boundaries and claims, is what put nations against it.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
I think it has far more to do with China's aggressive and dogmatic stance as regards perceived ownership of territories and EEZ. Their claims are simply preposterous and that has changed the US position, augmented of course by genocide of Uyghurs.
Click to expand...
All these claims and use of force to achieve these claims has been going on for decades now.

So, the change in US relations to China are not stemming from any sudden change in China's HR violation rates. Infact, the very reason these topics are brought to fore are actually to strengthen a narrative, so atleast the US public wakes up to the 'competition' and 'challenge' that China poses due to its much larger economy than ever before.
 
Gentlemen I for one would love a good ripping debate about US/China relations and most here at SPF would probably know what I’d post, however, we just had a thread locked on China and I’d like to keep this thread open please.

Also, a general comment about those who would “report” comments solely based on the political opinions of the writer give me a break.

I’ve posted before if anyone wanted to add a radical opinion piece calling for total unilateral nuclear disarmament I would welcome it. It doesn’t change my opinion and illuminates for members the beliefs of others, invaluable IMHO.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.thedrive.com

Curious Mission Flown Over The Baltic Sea By U.S. Air Force Nuke Sniffing Plane

The Air Force only has one Constant Phoenix jet, which is used to collect air samples that could show evidence of nuclear testing or accidents.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Wasn't there also an AKula with issues in the North Sea? Though to the articles point, the deployment to the UK seems to have predated any of the listed incidents.

EDIT: nevermind, I think I just misread an article that dealt with the previously mentioned Oscar incident.
 
Last edited:
www.iiss.org

Russia, the US and the post-New START agenda

The relaunch of a bilateral US−Russia dialogue focused on reducing the risk of nuclear war might not necessarily produce a New START follow-up treaty, but, as William Alberque and Chelsey Wiley argue, it is nonetheless a significant contribution to risk reduction between the world’s two largest...
www.iiss.org www.iiss.org
 
www.airforcetimes.com

Another ICBM test successful, Air Force says

The ICBM contained conventional explosives and successfully detonated above the water's surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
While stripped of its nuclear payload for the launch, the ICBM contained conventional explosives aboard a Hi-Fidelity Joint Test Assembly re-entry vehicle, which successfully detonated above the water’s surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles from the launch site.
————
Interesting I’ve never read a test warhead having explosives? Anyone else? A stealth CPGS test?
 
bobbymike said:
www.airforcetimes.com

Another ICBM test successful, Air Force says

The ICBM contained conventional explosives and successfully detonated above the water's surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
While stripped of its nuclear payload for the launch, the ICBM contained conventional explosives aboard a Hi-Fidelity Joint Test Assembly re-entry vehicle, which successfully detonated above the water’s surface near Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles from the launch site.
————
Interesting I’ve never read a test warhead having explosives? Anyone else? A stealth CPGS test?
Click to expand...

I’ve never heard of active explosives in a test, but perhaps that is necessary to validate the HOB smart fuse?

EDIT: Bobby beat me to it.
 
m.washingtontimes.com

EXCLUSIVE: China building third missile field for hundreds of new ICBMs

China is building a third missile field that will hold more than 100 new DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Washington Times has learned.
m.washingtontimes.com m.washingtontimes.com
I said after the NST was signed that we had made the price of being a nuclear equal for China relatively cheap and that they would wait for an opportune time to declare their intent to match our and Russia’s arsenal. They will use “US’s rapid and dangerous modernization” program as their rationale knowing US media will be more than happy to repeat their claims to our domestic audience.
 
Considering a lot of the threads ranging from this one to USMC realignment and surface combatant and several others will turn to a comparison or discussion about China, is it too much to ask to unlock the SCS thread, moderators? So these threads don't go too off topic.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom