Current Nuclear Weapons Development
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,732
- Reaction score
- 7,617
Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nuclwww.realcleardefense.com
I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
How is Russia "expanding" its nuclear forces?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
Really? Zircon, Oniks, P-700, and Kinzhal are touted as nuclear capable. Then there is Status-6 and their new nuclear powered cruise missile. SARMAT will be more capable than the R-36M. They're building new Blackjack bombers, working on a new stealth bomber, etc. etc.I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
How is Russia "expanding" its nuclear forces?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,732
- Reaction score
- 7,617
A Nuclear Cruise Missile Could Be Vital For Arms Control And Nonproliferation Efforts - Breaking Defense
It may seem counterintuitive that America investing in a new nuclear weapon design could help lower the chances of a nuclear conflict. But in this new op-ed, Naval War College professor David A. Cooper argues just that, noting that the concept for a new sea-launched cruise missile could end up...
Really? Zircon, Oniks, P-700, and Kinzhal are touted as nuclear capable. Then there is Status-6 and their new nuclear powered cruise missile. SARMAT will be more capable than the R-36M. They're building new Blackjack bombers, working on a new stealth bomber, etc. etc.I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
How is Russia "expanding" its nuclear forces?
None of that is expansion. Russian and Soviet AShMs were nuclear capable before, and quite frankly there were a lot more of them 25 years ago.
Bombers? Seriously? The Russian fleet size has been flat for a while now after big decline post 1991. Tu-160 production is very limited in air-frames/year. B-21 will be produced faster than PAK-DA and Tu-160 combined probably, so this is a weird angle to take in terms of Russia increasing stockpile relative to the US.
Fleet might even shrink with attrition on Tu-22M3s and Tu-95 front, and modernization on those is slooowwww.
Burevestnik so far has blown up a few times and done little else.
Status-6 is indeed a new "approach", but I doubt it will effect total numbers deployed to any serious degree (I'd assume it will be counted as part of deployed strategic warheads allowed)...and not to mention it is a direct response to Russian concerns about US ABM activity over the years. Hint, increasing the US nuclear strategic arsenal won't change anything about Status deployment.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
Yeah, none of this changes the fact that they're adding new nuclear capable systems.Really? Zircon, Oniks, P-700, and Kinzhal are touted as nuclear capable. Then there is Status-6 and their new nuclear powered cruise missile. SARMAT will be more capable than the R-36M. They're building new Blackjack bombers, working on a new stealth bomber, etc. etc.I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
How is Russia "expanding" its nuclear forces?
None of that is expansion. Russian and Soviet AShMs were nuclear capable before, and quite frankly there were a lot more of them 25 years ago.
Bombers? Seriously? The Russian fleet size has been flat for a while now after big decline post 1991. Tu-160 production is very limited in air-frames/year. B-21 will be produced faster than PAK-DA and Tu-160 combined probably, so this is a weird angle to take in terms of Russia increasing stockpile relative to the US.
Fleet might even shrink with attrition on Tu-22M3s and Tu-95 front, and modernization on those is slooowwww.
Burevestnik so far has blown up a few times and done little else.
Status-6 is indeed a new "approach", but I doubt it will effect total numbers deployed to any serious degree (I'd assume it will be counted as part of deployed strategic warheads allowed)...and not to mention it is a direct response to Russian concerns about US ABM activity over the years. Hint, increasing the US nuclear strategic arsenal won't change anything about Status deployment.
Yeah, none of this changes the fact that they're adding new nuclear capable systems.Really? Zircon, Oniks, P-700, and Kinzhal are touted as nuclear capable. Then there is Status-6 and their new nuclear powered cruise missile. SARMAT will be more capable than the R-36M. They're building new Blackjack bombers, working on a new stealth bomber, etc. etc.I'm sure the Biden Administration will take into account Russia and China's vast modernization and and expansion of their nuclear forces. No, really.Anticipating the Biden Nuclear Posture Review
Introduction For several decades, each new President has seen fit to conduct a wide-ranging review of U.S. nuclear policies, posture, and programs early in his first term. Mr. Biden’s Nucl
How is Russia "expanding" its nuclear forces?
None of that is expansion. Russian and Soviet AShMs were nuclear capable before, and quite frankly there were a lot more of them 25 years ago.
Bombers? Seriously? The Russian fleet size has been flat for a while now after big decline post 1991. Tu-160 production is very limited in air-frames/year. B-21 will be produced faster than PAK-DA and Tu-160 combined probably, so this is a weird angle to take in terms of Russia increasing stockpile relative to the US.
Fleet might even shrink with attrition on Tu-22M3s and Tu-95 front, and modernization on those is slooowwww.
Burevestnik so far has blown up a few times and done little else.
Status-6 is indeed a new "approach", but I doubt it will effect total numbers deployed to any serious degree (I'd assume it will be counted as part of deployed strategic warheads allowed)...and not to mention it is a direct response to Russian concerns about US ABM activity over the years. Hint, increasing the US nuclear strategic arsenal won't change anything about Status deployment.
???? New ones to replace older ones, which were deployed in greater numbers, and especially in light of ABM developments.
Whatever to keep the narrative that little underarmed US is going to be outmuscled by big bad foreigner nukes I guess.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
Really? What's Kinzhal replaceing? What's Status-6 replacing? SARMAT will carry more warheads than R-36. What's the nuclear cruise missile replacing? Oniks is replacing P-700 allowing a greater number on the same platform. The US retired ALL tactical nuclear weapons aside from the B61. Not so Russia. Any of this registering?
"The United States now has, according to unclassified estimates, approximately 230 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, with around 100 deployed with aircraft in Europe and the remaining stored in the United States. Estimates vary, but experts believe Russia still has between 1,000 and 2,000 warheads for nonstrategic nuclear weapons in its arsenal."
Conspirator
CLEARANCE: L5
- Joined
- 14 January 2021
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 229
just think.... if we know where they are stored and we can get a shot on them with an arlegh burke just yeet a tomohawk into the top of the bunker and detonate all the nukes that are stored there
A couple dozen Kinzhal platforms.....vs much more numerous Kh-22/32, KSR, Granit, Moskit platforms that have been retired with (in many cases) no 1-1 for replacement. Talk about "vast expansion"!
Oniks, give me a break lol. There have been ZERO submarines modified to carry it yet (instead of Granit), there will only be a few ever, and combined 949AM/885M numbers right now (or in 10 years) won't be close to how many combined SSN/SSGN platforms the RuNavy had in 1991, or 2001 for that matter.
Sarmat can potentially carry more than R-36, but it is strategic, treaty limited, and there is no indication they are planing to increase deployed warhead count or want to either. Doesn't help your argument one bit.
Neither Poseidon nor Burevestnik is deployed yet, and they will add what, a dozen or two weapons? Made SPECIFICALLY because of US behaivior in regards to ABM? what a weird take to use that as examples of Russia building up its nuclear force vis-a-vis the US deployed force. Personally I think both bad ideas that have emerged because of flubs of diplomacy.
It is like you are purposefully trying to completely be blind to relative strategic situations, relative conventional armaments and respective strategic weapon fleet purposes.
Do I really need to explain why Russia needs tactical nukes more than the US? Are Russian tactical nukes a strategic threat to the US? Facepalm.
I remember 10 years ago there were claims Russia still had like 10,000 tactical nukes. Glad to see that has gone down to 1-2k "estimates" now.
Oniks, give me a break lol. There have been ZERO submarines modified to carry it yet (instead of Granit), there will only be a few ever, and combined 949AM/885M numbers right now (or in 10 years) won't be close to how many combined SSN/SSGN platforms the RuNavy had in 1991, or 2001 for that matter.
Sarmat can potentially carry more than R-36, but it is strategic, treaty limited, and there is no indication they are planing to increase deployed warhead count or want to either. Doesn't help your argument one bit.
Neither Poseidon nor Burevestnik is deployed yet, and they will add what, a dozen or two weapons? Made SPECIFICALLY because of US behaivior in regards to ABM? what a weird take to use that as examples of Russia building up its nuclear force vis-a-vis the US deployed force. Personally I think both bad ideas that have emerged because of flubs of diplomacy.
It is like you are purposefully trying to completely be blind to relative strategic situations, relative conventional armaments and respective strategic weapon fleet purposes.
Do I really need to explain why Russia needs tactical nukes more than the US? Are Russian tactical nukes a strategic threat to the US? Facepalm.
I remember 10 years ago there were claims Russia still had like 10,000 tactical nukes. Glad to see that has gone down to 1-2k "estimates" now.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,711
- Reaction score
- 5,716
A Nuclear Cruise Missile Could Be Vital For Arms Control And Nonproliferation Efforts - Breaking Defense
It may seem counterintuitive that America investing in a new nuclear weapon design could help lower the chances of a nuclear conflict. But in this new op-ed, Naval War College professor David A. Cooper argues just that, noting that the concept for a new sea-launched cruise missile could end up...
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,711
- Reaction score
- 5,716
Russia says construction of controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany is complete
Ukraine's president has described the new pipeline as a powerful geopolitical weapon for Russia.
www.defensenews.com
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
Forgot to post this the last day:
www.reuters.com
Further to that:
www.reuters.com
Unfortunately despite all the hype not very promising.
Iran invites IAEA chief for talks before showdown with West
U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi will fly to Tehran this weekend for talks that may ease a standoff between Iran and the West just as it threatens to escalate and scupper negotiations on reviving the Iran nuclear deal.
Further to that:
IAEA-Iran agreement raises hopes for fresh nuclear talks with U.S.
The U.N. atomic watchdog reached an agreement with Iran on Sunday to solve "the most urgent issue" between them, the overdue servicing of monitoring equipment to keep it running, raising hopes of fresh talks on a wider deal with the West.
Unfortunately despite all the hype not very promising.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
Hyten: China's 'Unprecedented Nuclear Modernization' Chief Concern - USNI News
The speed of China’s “unprecedented nuclear modernization” and its “build-out of a modernized triad” is the biggest concern for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as he nears the end of his tenure. In the last year, the Chinese have built two new ballistic missile silo fields for...
news.usni.org
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Not necessarily nuclear, but I believe it is still related to the topic:
www.thedrive.com
Everything We Know About North Korea’s New “Strategic” Cruise Missile Test
A nuclear-armed cruise missile could significantly enhance the credibility of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent.
www.thedrive.com
Conspirator
CLEARANCE: L5
- Joined
- 14 January 2021
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 229
aw shiz..... here we go again.....Not necessarily nuclear, but I believe it is still related to the topic:
Everything We Know About North Korea’s New “Strategic” Cruise Missile Test
A nuclear-armed cruise missile could significantly enhance the credibility of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
North and South Korea test ballistic missiles hours apart
The tests highlight an arms race on the peninsula, as nuclear talks with North Korea remain stalled.
www.bbc.com
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
North and South Korea test ballistic missiles hours apart
The tests highlight an arms race on the peninsula, as nuclear talks with North Korea remain stalled.
www.bbc.com
Conspirator
CLEARANCE: L5
- Joined
- 14 January 2021
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 229
its turned into an arms race for who can have the biggest and most intercontinental nukes
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
It would appear that it is going that way.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,732
- Reaction score
- 7,617
New NTI Paper Identifies Strengths and Weaknesses in the Global Nuclear Security Architecture
Countries should step up their efforts to close gaps and support, contribute to, and participate in efforts to bolster the global nuclear security architecture.
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
I doubt the South is trying develop nuclear weapons (if they are, they're doing a damn good job at hiding their development). I say this mainly because it would probably cause problems with their closest military allies, like the US and Japan, as well probably causing an escalation of the ongoing arms race on the Korean Peninsula and sparking international condemnation, and probably causing protests around the world, giving them a bad image, something that I doubt they'd wish for. It is theorised that their ballistic missiles are aimed for precision strike of high value targets, such as radar and missile sites, airfield and even individuals.
A few more articles about the North and South Korean tests:
North and south Korea test-fire ballistic missiles on the same day
Arms race hots up
timesofmalta.com
South Korea Tests Four New Missiles After North Korean Launches
A “high-power” ballistic missile and a supersonic cruise missile are among new developments revealed in the latest round of Korean saber-rattling.
www.thedrive.com
North Korea Is Now Launching Ballistic Missiles From Trains And That's A Big Deal (Updated)
Rail-mobile missiles offer North Korea a relatively low-cost way to rapidly disperse weapons while also making them very hard to target.
www.thedrive.com
Conspirator
CLEARANCE: L5
- Joined
- 14 January 2021
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 229
could it be possible for either russia north korea or china to disguise a civilian merchant/freight ship and have ballistic missiles close enough to washington DC without our knowledge??I doubt the South is trying develop nuclear weapons (if they are, they're doing a damn good job at hiding their development). I say this mainly because it would probably cause problems with their closest military allies, like the US and Japan, as well probably causing an escalation of the ongoing arms race on the Korean Peninsula and sparking international condemnation, and probably causing protests around the world, giving them a bad image, something that I doubt they'd wish for. It is theorised that their ballistic missiles are aimed for precision strike of high value targets, such as radar and missile sites, airfield and even individuals.
A few more articles about the North and South Korean tests:
North and south Korea test-fire ballistic missiles on the same day
Arms race hots up
South Korea Tests Four New Missiles After North Korean Launches
A “high-power” ballistic missile and a supersonic cruise missile are among new developments revealed in the latest round of Korean saber-rattling.
North Korea Is Now Launching Ballistic Missiles From Trains And That's A Big Deal (Updated)
Rail-mobile missiles offer North Korea a relatively low-cost way to rapidly disperse weapons while also making them very hard to target.
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
I guess, but that's both illegal, dangerous, and they have nuclear submarines which do the job already, in even more stealth.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
More like a legal grey area, even before arms control & other international treaties started going the way of the Dodo. And even way before that, various attempts to outlaw Q-Ships and the like over the years all pretty much ended in dismal failure. If done right, a disguised missile ship could in theory remain in an operational area unsuspected for far longer than a conventional powered missile sub. And economically free up nuclear subs for deployment in other areas.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Yeah, but it is politically risky, and I doubt that nations like the US, Russia or China, with large fleets of ballistic missile submarines, would be desperate enough to risk it.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,732
- Reaction score
- 7,617
Survey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrence
Survey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrence
could it be possible for either russia north korea or china to disguise a civilian merchant/freight ship and have ballistic missiles close enough to washington DC without our knowledge??I doubt the South is trying develop nuclear weapons (if they are, they're doing a damn good job at hiding their development). I say this mainly because it would probably cause problems with their closest military allies, like the US and Japan, as well probably causing an escalation of the ongoing arms race on the Korean Peninsula and sparking international condemnation, and probably causing protests around the world, giving them a bad image, something that I doubt they'd wish for. It is theorised that their ballistic missiles are aimed for precision strike of high value targets, such as radar and missile sites, airfield and even individuals.
A few more articles about the North and South Korean tests:
North and south Korea test-fire ballistic missiles on the same day
Arms race hots up
South Korea Tests Four New Missiles After North Korean Launches
A “high-power” ballistic missile and a supersonic cruise missile are among new developments revealed in the latest round of Korean saber-rattling.
North Korea Is Now Launching Ballistic Missiles From Trains And That's A Big Deal (Updated)
Rail-mobile missiles offer North Korea a relatively low-cost way to rapidly disperse weapons while also making them very hard to target.
Why would Russia or China possible want to do that?
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
That's some spicy newsColor me surprisedSurvey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrence
Survey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrencewww.nationaldefensemagazine.org
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,928
- Reaction score
- 13,552
- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,948
Yeah, but a nuclear sub would have the same effect, but also be more stealthy. It would be rather suspicious to see a container ship with missile silos on it, whereas you can't even see the submarine, because it's submerged.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,305
- Reaction score
- 12,130
Except you wouldn't see a container ship with missile silos. You'd see a container ship with containers. Thousands of standard ones and maybe one or two "imposters". The shipping line might not even be aware the containers are on their ship. Make it so your container can receive satellite communications, and ensure it gets loaded on the top level. As soon as GPS tells the container it's reached launch range, away they go. Maybe one doesn't launch and just nukes the container ship to destroy evidence and witnesses.
dannydale
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 May 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 410
I'm not surprised. Even peacenik hippies are buying shotguns nowadays. Idealism doesn't account for a nature red in tooth and claw, after all.Color me surprisedSurvey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrence
Survey Finds Overwhelming Public Support for Spending on Nuclear Deterrence
Conspirator
CLEARANCE: L5
- Joined
- 14 January 2021
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 229
sorry havent been on in a while.
thats my point. it would be a devastating blow and on top of that we look for submarines daily and nightly and we have anti-sub countermeasures. it would be better to do this. and its not sus af because its a container ship. its regular trade/commerce no one would expect it. im suprised other countries havent thought of it
Similar threads
-
-
-
New Plan for Sub Launched Conventional Ballistic Missile for PGS Mission?
- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 0
-
-
British alternative to NATO INF (Cruise and Polaris)
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 10