Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Josh_TN said:
Flyaway said:
As regards the alleged test last year do people think China is genuinely developing a FOBS system or was it more a proof of concept test?
Click to expand...
I think they are developing a global PGM capability that happens to be sub orbital for part of its flight path. The difference from the SS-18 based FOBS is that it likely will be a precision guided projectile that impacts the ground as opposed to a high altitude detonation and also that it wouldn’t necessarily be exclusively a nuclear delivery system - it would potentially put targets in the US at risk of conventional attack. As it stands now, the US could probably volley off a hundred cruise missiles from a half dozen bombers or alternatively a single SSGN at targets inside China and the PRC would be limited to engaging allied bases and units in theatre while the bulk of US forces and infrastructure was safely out of range.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1564988435802345478
View: https://twitter.com/luritie/status/1564988435802345478
 
thehill.com

50 bipartisan House members raise concerns about proposed nuclear agreement with Iran

A group of 50 House Democrats and Republicans is calling on President Biden to share with Congress text of a potential agreement with Iran to return to the 2015 nuclear deal before any papers are s…
thehill.com thehill.com

thehill.com

Biden assures Israeli prime minister US won’t allow a nuclear Iran

President Biden sought to assure Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid on Wednesday that the U.S. would not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, as talks about reviving the 2015 nuclear deal with Te…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
I consider it inevitable that the 200 W78 missiles get uploaded starting Feb 2026. The W87s apparently were so heavily modified (and I think the RV heavier) that it might be stuck at a single warhead until replacement with Sentinel. My understanding is that the USAF desired more range/payload with Sentinel, which ought to be easily accomplished with newer propellants, a larger second stage, or both.
 
The worrying thing here is that there is literally no point to North Korea having nuclear weapons unless they plan to invade South Korea. China to the north provides more of a deterrence against an invasion of North Korea than a few nukes ever will, so the only reason they would be useful is if they intended to use them to ward of intervention should they invade the South.
 
Forest Green said:
The worrying thing here is that there is literally no point to North Korea having nuclear weapons unless they plan to invade South Korea. China to the north provides more of a deterrence against an invasion of North Korea than a few nukes ever will, so the only reason they would be useful is if they intended to use them to ward of intervention should they invade the South.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think the Libyan Scenario is what they fear here. Basically having nuclear weapons is seen as both a bargaining chip and more to the point a guarantee that the likes of Sth Korea/USA etc won't attack for fear of them being used.
 
GTX said:
I disagree. I think the Libyan Scenario is what they fear here. Basically having nuclear weapons is seen as both a bargaining chip and more to the point a guarantee that the likes of Sth Korea/USA etc won't attack for fear of them being used.
Click to expand...
China next door prevents such a scenario anyway. It did even before it became nuclear itself.
 
No it doesn't - what if China decides not to sacrifice itself for Nth Korea? Also the Chinese capability can't be used as a bargaining chip.
 
Forest Green said:
The worrying thing here is that there is literally no point to North Korea having nuclear weapons unless they plan to invade South Korea. China to the north provides more of a deterrence against an invasion of North Korea than a few nukes ever will, so the only reason they would be useful is if they intended to use them to ward of intervention should they invade the South.
Click to expand...
From the Bestest Korea point of view, having a nuclear weapon is the ultimate deterrence that no other country will attempt regime change were some opportunity to do so arise. The Libya experience taught everyone that lesson, unfortunately.
 
The rationale for North Korea having nuclear weapons is similar to that for the PRC developing nuclear weapons.
In both instances they had/ have powerful nuclear armed neighbours that are (from the country considering to pursue nuclear weapons perspective, plus the other party) somewhat uneasy or problematic/ complicated allies.

While China doesn’t want North Korea to collapse it also doesn’t want to fight a war against the US (especially a nuclear war) for them, especially if triggered by some madness by North Korea’s “eccentric” leadership.

The nuclear weapons allow North Korea to keep China at arms-length both by avoiding military dependence on China and by giving them increased leverage (give us additional economic aid, links etc. or we’ll stir up more trouble) with China (as it also does with South Korea and the US). It also deters the US or South Korea from anything militarily in the direction of regime change.

The NK leadership may well see nuclear weapons as the third choice between collapse or only nominal independence re: complete dependence on the PRC (not to defend the NK leadership or their actions in the slightest).

A bit like how the USSR was happy to assist the PRC achieve nuclear capacity so they didn’t have to horribly sweat every Taiwan crisis or other “crazy” crisis triggered by the PRC (which undoubtedly played up to help lead to this scenario), now China also doesn’t want to be continually reacting to and facing potentially existential threats and choices every time NK does something provocative.
Ironically the souring of that relationship saw the PRC use these weapons deter the USSR; probable the NK leadership also keen to cover themselves if their relationship with the PRC was to get frostier.
(There is a difference - the USSR actively “gave” the bomb to China, China didn’t give NK the bomb but looked the other way and has clearly provided dual-use equipment and the like).

As such the point of nuclear weapons for NK is not some crazy notion/ belief that it gives a free swing at invading South Korea (if it did why haven’t they done it yet?).
 
Last edited:
North Korean conventional artillery and rocketry could inflict even more damage on S Korea than Russia has done with such weapons in Ukraine.
Paradoxically if the N Korean regime feels secure with its nuclear shield this makes it less rather than more likely to attack the South.
More complicated would be Iranian nuclear weapons. These may seem reasonable to Teheran as a counter to Israel's possible nuclear options. But Iranian weapons would prompt Saudi and the Gulf Cooperation Council States to acquire similar weapons.
Even here a cynic might argue that if Riyadh Teheran and Tel Aviv all knew they could vaporise the others it might reduce their willingness to generate crises in the region that could go nuclear
India and Pakistan have not embarked on repeats of the 1965 and 1971 wars since acquiring nuclear weapons.
Chillingly if the US and Russia had removed most of their nukes or even all of them in the post Cold Wat euphoria might B52s and Tu95s be bombing targets in Europe and Russia in Linebacker style raids.
 
GTX said:
No it doesn't - what if China decides not to sacrifice itself for Nth Korea? Also the Chinese capability can't be used as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...
But it likely would and it kind of doesn't matter because the US would avoid invading North Korea simply because the potential is there anyway. So it's only useful if North Korea intends to invade the South. I mean the US has avoided invading North Korea for far longer when it didn't have nukes than since it did. 50+ years vs ~15 years.

A bargaining chip in what regard, give an example. Are they going to threaten to nuke somewhere for aid?
 
Forest Green said:
But it likely would and it kind of doesn't matter because the US would avoid invading North Korea simply because the potential is there anyway. So it's only useful if North Korea intends to invade the South. I mean the US has avoided invading North Korea for far longer when it didn't have nukes than since it did. 50+ years vs ~15 years.
Click to expand...
As already pointed out, the Libyan scenario is what they fear here.
Forest Green said:
A bargaining chip in what regard, give an example. Are they going to threaten to nuke somewhere for aid?
Click to expand...
As kaiserd mentioned above - for economic aid. In fact they have already done so in 1994 when they committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. Basically despite all the bluster and internal cult worshipping, their leaders know that the country is really a basket case and if it were not for their potential to cause grief to Japan or Sth Korea, they would be ignored totally as a backwater. This is even more of an issue since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s since the US and others potentially would have no longer seen Korea as one of the front lines with the so-called "Communist block". Having the nuclear capability allowed Nth Korea to keep a degree of focus on them - "Look at me, I have nukes...or might have...I'm relevant!!!"

Funnily enough I have often thought their economic backwardness also provides a deference of sorts. That is, let's say they didn't have nuclear weapons and their conventional capability was deemed able to be overcome by the South (not really unrealistic - just look at how quickly/easily the West was able to beat Iraq, which on paper had an arguably better military than Nth Korea at the time), would the South really want to invade? I don't think so only because of the fact that even if they won they would then have inherited a basket case which would be a drain on the Korean economy. Remember the impact Germany had on their economy following re-unification. This would be much, much more painful. Add to this the benefit the south gets by having the "crazy cousin" to the north. Having this threat, arced up every once in a while with threats and bluster (and with the hint that maybe China would get involved), forces the likes of the US to keep forces there and to continue to supply the latest technologies to them...just in case. Thus IMHO, the Sth Koreans have no real desire to change the status quo.
 
GTX said:
As already pointed out, the Libyan scenario is what they fear here.

As kaiserd mentioned above - for economic aid. In fact they have already done so in 1994 when they committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. Basically despite all the bluster and internal cult worshipping, their leaders know that the country is really a basket case and if it were not for their potential to cause grief to Japan or Sth Korea, they would be ignored totally as a backwater. This is even more of an issue since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s since the US and others potentially would have no longer seen Korea as one of the front lines with the so-called "Communist block". Having the nuclear capability allowed Nth Korea to keep a degree of focus on them - "Look at me, I have nukes...or might have...I'm relevant!!!"

Funnily enough I have often thought their economic backwardness also provides a deference of sorts. That is, let's say they didn't have nuclear weapons and their conventional capability was deemed able to be overcome by the South (not really unrealistic - just look at how quickly/easily the West was able to beat Iraq, which on paper had an arguably better military than Nth Korea at the time), would the South really want to invade? I don't think so only because of the fact that even if they won they would then have inherited a basket case which would be a drain on the Korean economy. Remember the impact Germany had on their economy following re-unification. This would be much, much more painful. Add to this the benefit the south gets by having the "crazy cousin" to the north. Having this threat, arced up every once in a while with threats and bluster (and with the hint that maybe China would get involved), forces the likes of the US to keep forces there and to continue to supply the latest technologies to them...just in case. Thus IMHO, the Sth Koreans have no real desire to change the status quo.
Click to expand...
Libyan scenario simply isn't going to happen. Again the US isn't going to use airpower in a zone that has the potential to cause direct conflict with China over North Korea. The US is quite happy for North Korea to stand and serve as a bad example and make China and Russia look worse by mere association.

Maybe if they spent more on the economy and less on nuclear weapons and ICBMs they wouldn't need economic aid. Such programs can't be cheap. And the current environment is hardly likely to attract business, or anyone even remotely sane frankly.

So we're back to threatening South Korea.
 
GTX said:
You seem to be ignoring the facts and the analysis of many experts. I'm tired of this discussion which is going nowhere..except being off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...
Just because someone writes something on the internet it doesn't make them an expert, especially when 'experts' contradict each other. North Korea's nuclear ambitions started decades before the Libyan Civil War and culminated in nuclear weapons 5 years before the Libyan Civil War, so unless Tenet is messing with time this expert's analysis can only be invalid.
 
www.washingtontimes.com

Biden officials tried to restrict nuclear arms use

Biden administration officials involved in the recent Nuclear Posture Review of U.S. strategic weapons and forces sought to further restrict the use of nuclear arms during internal discussions on the nuclear review but ultimately backed off, according to Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, nominee...
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

news.usni.org

Not Funding Strategic Weapons Programs Biggest Threat to U.S. Nuclear Triad, Says Panel - USNI News

The biggest threat to modernizing the nuclear triad is to not keep up sustained modernization funding, a panel of national security experts told a key Senate panel on Tuesday. The Air Force and the Navy are in the midst of replacing major decades old era strategic weapons programs. The Air Force...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
sferrin said:
www.washingtontimes.com

Biden officials tried to restrict nuclear arms use

Biden administration officials involved in the recent Nuclear Posture Review of U.S. strategic weapons and forces sought to further restrict the use of nuclear arms during internal discussions on the nuclear review but ultimately backed off, according to Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, nominee...
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

news.usni.org

Not Funding Strategic Weapons Programs Biggest Threat to U.S. Nuclear Triad, Says Panel - USNI News

The biggest threat to modernizing the nuclear triad is to not keep up sustained modernization funding, a panel of national security experts told a key Senate panel on Tuesday. The Air Force and the Navy are in the midst of replacing major decades old era strategic weapons programs. The Air Force...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
We are arguably 30 years into a strategic weapons acquisition holiday, thanks GHWBush-SecDefCheney who started us down this road of neglect. Some credit to GWBush who had several modernization programs that got ultimately rejected in a bipartisan fashion in committee.

BTW we would have been at around 150 newly deployed Land Based Strategic Deterrent missiles (the cancelled pre-GBSD ICBM) as first units were set for a 2018 deployment.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
www.washingtontimes.com

Biden officials tried to restrict nuclear arms use

Biden administration officials involved in the recent Nuclear Posture Review of U.S. strategic weapons and forces sought to further restrict the use of nuclear arms during internal discussions on the nuclear review but ultimately backed off, according to Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, nominee...
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

news.usni.org

Not Funding Strategic Weapons Programs Biggest Threat to U.S. Nuclear Triad, Says Panel - USNI News

The biggest threat to modernizing the nuclear triad is to not keep up sustained modernization funding, a panel of national security experts told a key Senate panel on Tuesday. The Air Force and the Navy are in the midst of replacing major decades old era strategic weapons programs. The Air Force...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
We are arguably 30 years into a strategic weapons acquisition holiday, thanks GHWBush-SecDefCheney who started us down this road of neglect. Some credit to GWBush who had several modernization programs that got ultimately rejected in a bipartisan fashion in committee.

BTW we would have been at around 150 newly deployed Land Based Strategic Deterrent missiles (the cancelled pre-GBSD ICBM) as first units were set for a 2018 deployment.
Click to expand...

And yet somehow the world still turns. The US has replacement SSBNs, ICBMs, ALCMs, and a strategic bomber in the pipeline. The Russian threat has been sufficiently weak that they couldn't even keep up with US uploading of existing missiles. Now that China is expanding its nuclear force, a build up is called for. But I don't think the lack of investment over the last few decades was unwise; there wasn't a significant threat to respond to.
 
Josh_TN said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
www.washingtontimes.com

Biden officials tried to restrict nuclear arms use

Biden administration officials involved in the recent Nuclear Posture Review of U.S. strategic weapons and forces sought to further restrict the use of nuclear arms during internal discussions on the nuclear review but ultimately backed off, according to Air Force Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, nominee...
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

news.usni.org

Not Funding Strategic Weapons Programs Biggest Threat to U.S. Nuclear Triad, Says Panel - USNI News

The biggest threat to modernizing the nuclear triad is to not keep up sustained modernization funding, a panel of national security experts told a key Senate panel on Tuesday. The Air Force and the Navy are in the midst of replacing major decades old era strategic weapons programs. The Air Force...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
We are arguably 30 years into a strategic weapons acquisition holiday, thanks GHWBush-SecDefCheney who started us down this road of neglect. Some credit to GWBush who had several modernization programs that got ultimately rejected in a bipartisan fashion in committee.

BTW we would have been at around 150 newly deployed Land Based Strategic Deterrent missiles (the cancelled pre-GBSD ICBM) as first units were set for a 2018 deployment.
Click to expand...

And yet somehow the world still turns. The US has replacement SSBNs, ICBMs, ALCMs, and a strategic bomber in the pipeline. The Russian threat has been sufficiently weak that they couldn't even keep up with US uploading of existing missiles. Now that China is expanding its nuclear force, a build up is called for. But I don't think the lack of investment over the last few decades was unwise; there wasn't a significant threat to respond to.
Click to expand...
There’s an article up the thread concerning supply chain issues. We all witnessed the “fogbank” debacle (begs the question what aren’t we hearing about?)

Maintenance, upkeep, upgrade and modernization of the nuclear enterprise over decades is about far more than just the post Cold War threat environment

We’ve now been basically surprised and or shocked by the rapidity of the Chinese build up and only now realizing the tenuousness of our situation.

IMHO we will hear far more over the next few months/years of the problems of an old nuclear enterprise.
 
Probably so, but like fogbank, it is probably a collection of problems that can ultimately be solved. In the meantime the US can roughly double its deployed warheads using existing launchers and weapons in storage.
 
Josh_TN said:
Probably so, but like fogbank, it is probably a collection of problems that can ultimately be solved. In the meantime the US can roughly double its deployed warheads using existing launchers and weapons in storage.
Click to expand...
DGkHI6yW0AAq3F1.jpg
 
If I recall, the problem with fogbank was that they were making it too well. Whereas back in the day, they just happened to screw up in a beneficial way that made it work. Now they actually understand how they screwed up, what was accidentally added and why it worked, and can hence make fogbank better than before.
 
Last edited:
www.spacewar.com

Nuclear shift: North Korean nuke law reflects global trend

Seoul (AFP) Sept 22, 2022 - North Korea's Kim Jong Un declaring he will never give up his nukes and enshrining a first-strike doctrine into law are part of a worrying new escalatory dynamic in nuclear weapons policy around the world, analysts say.
www.spacewar.com
 
6:15pm

Blinken: No evidence suggesting Russia considering using nuclear weapons​

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said the United States has not yet seen Russia take any action that suggests it is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, despite what he decried as "loose talk" by Vladimir Putin about their possible use.
"We are looking very carefully to see if Russia is actually doing anything that suggests that they are contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. To date, we've not seen them take these actions," Mr Blinken told a press conference in Washington.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Red Square becomes concert arena as Putin annexes four Ukrainian regions

Thousands of people gathered in Moscow’s Red Square on Friday to celebrate the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, waving flags and singing along to patriotic songs in the shadow of the Kremlin’s walls.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Famous last words, one rather suspects...
 
Grey Havoc said:
6:15pm

Blinken: No evidence suggesting Russia considering using nuclear weapons​

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said the United States has not yet seen Russia take any action that suggests it is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, despite what he decried as "loose talk" by Vladimir Putin about their possible use.
"We are looking very carefully to see if Russia is actually doing anything that suggests that they are contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. To date, we've not seen them take these actions," Mr Blinken told a press conference in Washington.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

Red Square becomes concert arena as Putin annexes four Ukrainian regions

Thousands of people gathered in Moscow’s Red Square on Friday to celebrate the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, waving flags and singing along to patriotic songs in the shadow of the Kremlin’s walls.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Famous last words, one rather suspects...
Click to expand...
If we allow Russia to get away with using a nuclear threat to annex countries, where does that end?
 
If Putin uses nukes, he will lose the very last bit of leverage he has left. The threat f nukes is more useful that the actual use of nukes.
Russia has been threatening nukes since the war started, they aren't any closer to annexing anything.
 
Grey Havoc said:
news.sky.com

Japan issues warning to residents after North Korea fires missile over country for first time in five years

The US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said he had consulted with Japanese counterparts over possible responses to the missile launch, and reinforced the United States' "ironclad commitments to the defence of Japan".
news.sky.com news.sky.com


www.bbc.com

North Korea fires ballistic missile over Japan

Some Japanese woke to the sound of sirens and warnings to take cover as the missile flew above.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom