New US super fuze expands sub nuclear warhead attack power.

American's playing catch-up

China already has these technology.

>>33789717
Impressive

Chinese technology is so advanced everyone else is trying to copy them. That is why chinese and us tech is so similar

>>33789717
It's amazing what a country with actual intelligence can do. Perhaps one day America can hope to lick China's boots.

>>33789384
Interesting, but as usual the bulletin likes to fear monger a bit much.

>>33789717

Source that claim.

>>33789822
>>33789863

>actually believing it without a source

Also the article itself notes that this is only such a big deal because ONLY the US is doing it, and it changes the viability of Mutually Assured Destruction.

On a side note: take a look at the X-51 hypersonic ramjet missile program. If such a thing were successful, the US would effectively have the technology to build a SLAM (Supersonic Low Altitude Missile) which is comparatively hard to intercept by traditional means.

>>33789918
It's just standard bulletin fear mongering, and mad was never a thing

>>33789958

>fear mongering

increasing the chances of a hit is a big deal especially if Russia refuses START IV in 2021 (while unlikely, it is fully plausible if relations do not improve)

>and mad was never a thing

yes it was, it was the only thing that kept the cold war from going hot

>>33789982
>increasing the chances of a hit is a big deal especially if Russia refuses START IV in 2021 (while unlikely, it is fully plausible if relations do not improve)

Read the article thoroughly. They simply state that the W76 now has this capability, while simultaneously saying that the W88 already had the ability to destroy hardened targets. They then claim that by using this, the US can expend roughly 20% of the W76s, then it could perform a strategic decapitation of land based units - but at the same time they could have already done that with the W88 inventory. The balance does not change.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has been fear mongering forever as they're an openly political organization. You can simply look back in time at their many other proclamations that ended up being false or wildly beyond even the best predictions of those that actually implement nuclear strategy and planning, let alone design and manufacture.

>yes it was, it was the only thing that kept the cold war from going hot

Stop.

>>33789384
>*evil Russian laugh*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5RMECAMB0w

>>33789982
You're a moron. JFK started the MAD meme. The use of tactical nukes was acceptable and even expected prior. Current Russian doctrine calls for their use even in the event of regional conflict. They don't seem to buy your bullshit about the apocalypse

>>33790226
>truing to jamming a ground bursting warhead
It would take a special kind if retardation only found in russia to think that would work.
On a related note, is there any evidence whatsoever that it would wirk against anything non-slavshit?
It might be the bees knees when bullying Ukraine but it's not like russia has had M982s to take apart.
Smells like Shtora, useless against NATO, good versus obsolete soviet stuff.

>>33790281

MAD is outdated now but when the USSR was a thing, it made more sense as nearly all conflicts were either backed by the US or USSR (which means escalating a proxy war escalates global tensions).

>>33790126

more bombs with greater capability => deadlier weapons => greater ability to KO the enemy administration

>>33789958
>It's just standard bulletin fear mongering,
Normally I'd say yes. But not this time.

>and mad was never a thing
Yes it was.

>>33790126
>but at the same time they could have already done that with the W88 inventory. >The balance does not change.
The issue is that you are forgetting the reduction in warning time. Thats the main significance of this.


>>33790281
MAD did stop being a thing in the 1970s.
To say that it never existed is to display a stunning lack of knowledge about the development of nuclear strategy.

>>33790544
>The issue is that you are forgetting the reduction in warning time. Thats the main significance of this.

There is no reduction in warning time. The W88 was already exclusively used by the Trident.

>>33790126
I think this is very good capability expansion. With hard target kill on W76, W88 can be used for other purposes.

>>33790544
>To say that it never existed is to display a stunning lack of knowledge about the development of nuclear strategy.

It was never a strategy at all. The entire notion of MAD is based on the premise that there is no such thing as acceptable loses. The only time that MAD could've been considered a thing was when Mass Retaliation was considered a viable doctrine.

>>33790590
You missed my point.
Your target selection with SLBMs has expanded because you can hit hardened targets with the smaller W76.
You do not need to reserve those W88 for them.

This enables the use of the entire SLBM arsenal for hardened targets with limited warning. the US can now hold the entire Russian land based strategic deterrent under threat. Previously, to perform a counterforce strike you would have needed ICBMs which would have involved longer flight times and thus more warning.

>>33790606
>It was never a strategy at all.
Never said it was. But it played a significant role in its development.

>The entire notion of MAD is based on the premise that there is no such thing as acceptable loses.
This is incorrect.

>The only time that MAD could've been considered a thing was when Mass Retaliation was considered a viable doctrine.
Yes. So you agree that MAD was indeed a 'thing' and is no longer a cornerstone of deterrence and that your statement that MAD never existed was incorrect.

>>33789922
The main reason we stopped development of project Pluto is because of improvements in radar guided SPAAGs, the idea of a SLAM is great if all your enemy has is missile based AA defenses as a SLAM can mostly just outrun them, with a SPAAG even though you have a shorter effective coverage area per unit, all you have to be able to do is calculate the increased lead angle, the additional speed doesn't really help much as SPAAGs are specifically developed to intercept low altitude aircraft.

>>33790800
>The main reason we stopped development of project Pluto is
It can't be safely tested.

>>33790820
Sure, but a test likely would have been attempted if there wasn't a potential way to intercept it, had that been the case, the risks of development would have been less than the gains.

>>33789384
It's not going to free up that many warheads.

W76's were already looking at 3 to 4 warheads per silo due to their low yield and were better suited against soft targets. While the W88s were looking at 2 warheads per silo.

This just drops them down to 2 to 3.

File: 1 million trannies.jpg (64KB, 960x536px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 960x536px

>>33790800
This is some of the most hilarious and ignorant shit i've ever seen or it is some hilarious and impressive baiting.

>>33790925
>It's not going to free up that many warheads.
Yes it does.

>were better suited against soft targets.
And now they can be used against hard targets.

>2 to 3
Probably just 2.

To see this consider the following.

The Russians have about 218 silos. (We will just consider Silos for this exercise.)
The US deploys 500 W76 and 380 W88.

If we want to use the W88's we would be able to hit 190. This leaves 28 silos. So to hit these we use at least 84 W76.
We have 416 remaining W76s which translates to about 138 more hardened targets.

With the new fuze, we can now hit all and still have about 64 W76's left over, and 380 W88s. This translates into about 220 hardened targets that can still be hit.

With just the addition of this fuze, we can hit 84 more hardened targets in Russia than we could with the older W76, reserving the W88s for deeply buried command and control centers.

>>33790849
US deployed nuclear tipped Tomahawks even when ways to intercept them existed. Risks of intercepts were less than the gains.

>>33791138
>>33790925
If you accept the pk from the bulletin article, depending on probability of kill needed to satisfy a particular OPLAN, you may even devote less than 2 W76 per counterforce target.

>>33790629
>You missed my point.

>>33790544
>The issue is that you are forgetting the reduction in warning time.

Seriously?


>>33790629
>>It was never a strategy at all.
>Never said it was.

>To say that it never existed is to display a stunning lack of knowledge about the development of nuclear strategy.

This is just pathetic.

>>33793005
>Seriously?
Yes.

>This is just pathetic.
No. It simply your inability to read.

MAD played a part in the development of nuclear strategy. It was not in and of itself a strategy.
Your claim that MAD never existed is to deny the part it played in the development in nuclear strategy.

>>33793005
>Seriously?
To expound, because I am not sure if you are able to follow.
Your claim that the balance does not change falls flat when you examine the implications of the new fuze.

As I explained to you, the issue is warning time. The W88s alone can not hit all the Russian hardened targets. This would necessitate the use of land based ICBMs that provide longer warning time or (if you perform the SLBM strike first) a window in which the weapons that have survived the initial W88 barrage can be launched.

The new fuze removes the need for land based missiles to execute a counterforce strike, thus lowering the time available for warning.

So what does this mean for the land-based force? Is GBSD going to cancelled altogether and the Minutemen phased out without replacement in favor of an all-SLBM force?

>>33793297
>So what does this mean for the land-based force?
Not much but wait for the NPT.

>Is GBSD going to cancelled altogether and the Minutemen phased out without replacement in favor of an all-SLBM force?
Probably not. Ground based missiles still serve a role. If anything will be cut it will be LRSO.

>>33793297
I should hope not.

ICBMs have a valuable secondary role as a "force in being". This forces the enemy to assign a larger number of their own warheads to them, which could otherwise be used to threaten targets with higher collateral damage.

Enticing the enemy to nuke lightly-populated areas is a good thing.

File: tmp_11186-14920501014711459151349.gif (3MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x188px

>>33789982
Russian infantry manuals cover combat post nuke extensively and a lot of their long terms hypothetical strategies include war after a full nuclear exchange

>>33793844
Not much different from what the US called "The Long War". They started planning for that in the 1970's.

>>33789717
Then why did the Chinese have a spy steal the W88 plans in the first place?
One Yuan has been deposited into your account shill.

>>33793899
>Then why did the Chinese have a spy steal the W88 plans in the first place?
They didn't get anything useful. Relax.

>>33789717
>>33789822
>>33789863

<<<They>>> are posting in full force today, I see.

>>33793091
>say one thing
>be completely, utterly wrong
>NUH uh dats not what I said
>get it quoted back
>ur just too dum to know what I meant

Not even the guy you're arguing with, but Just kys already.

>>33793131
You are aware that once the MX was retired the D5 was the primary counter force missile, right? The entire point of the D5 was it took the counterforce role from land based systems.

How can you be this kind numbingly wrong about everything?

>>33794962
No. You are just illiterate.
>>33794987
>D5 was the primary counter force missile, right? The entire point of the D5 was it took the counterforce role from land based systems.
This is incorrect as well.
Due to option purity, different attack options had different weapons in different roles. The Minuteman was the only weapon service deployed in numbers sufficient to execute a counterforce strike.

>>33794987
So I looked it up, and just to illustrate how silly you are, in 2005, the US had 384 W88.

The Russians had 540 silo based weapons.

How do you think its possible that the US would decide that 384 warheads would be the 'primary' counterforce weapon?

>>33790820
except we didnt give a shit about pollution or safety.

That's what the atolls are for.

>>33789384
>http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

The graphics in that article have been fudged. The conventional fuse pic has three warheads falling short of the kill volume and two passing through it to detonate for a 'miss' on the far side.

The trajectories in the superfuse pic show no warheads falling short and all passing through the volume. The variable detonation feature makes all of them kill shots.

A more realistic pic would be the first set of trajectories, plus the variable height feature. Which would still make the three short shots ineffective (outside the volume) and only the two passing through the volume 'high' now effective by detonating at a greater altitude but within the volume.

The same range errors should be used in both analyses, or it's comparing apples and oranges.

More Bullshit of the Atomic Scientists

>>33789717
>China has this technology.

I highly doubt that. This was learned through decades of nuclear testing and hundreds of nuclear detonations.

>>33796945
>The graphics in that article have been fudged.
No, you just don't understand them.

>>33795115
Now they can use the subs W76 warheads and make sure the ICBMs are good and fried. The leftover can be used on the mobile launcher bases. What a targeting nightmare for a plan, but it can be done.
This also leaves more of the big 9MT warheads for wide area forest purging of deployed mobile launchers.
Then you have the remaining B1-B2-B52 to mop up secondary targets like army bases, comm center hubs, logistical hubs.
The only concern with China is those 3000 miles of tunnels which might be harboring a fuck ton of mobile launchers or undisclosed silos.

>>33793920
They may or may not have, if they were attempting to try to get the W88 plans, then that means they aren't a good as this other poster claims.

>>33798839
>9mt warheads

What 9mt warheads?

File: 9266.jpg (105KB, 735x490px)

105KB, 735x490px

>>33798839
>This also leaves more of the big 9MT warheads for wide area forest purging of deployed mobile launchers.
The Hard Mobile Launcher for the Midgetman mobile ICBM can withstand 30 psi, and say the MAZ launcher can withstand around 20 psi, about the point most buildings fail. From Nukemap an airburst can only kill the MAZ launcher at around 5.85 km from the ground zero at optimum airburst height of 3.79 km - an area of 107 sq. km. You can conceivably get a few launchers with an attack totally out of the blue and with a very minimal warning time in minutes, but miss a few more that are lagering in the middle of bumfuck nowhere hundreds or even thousands of kms away- there's a vehicle with a gigantic fuel tank in place of the missile as support for patrols. Russia already has the WarRig ready for post WW3!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m678KG7_u0c

>>33789384
ISTR this being tl;dr they replaced a simple radio altimeter with a combined radio altimeter/INS/computer triangulation solution to detonate a bit closer. Given the possibly extremely low angle of attack (close) of an SLBM its kind of strange this wasn't already done, although they may have had a short range dissipated high arc ballistic profile on SLBMs, but I can't imagine a reason why that was thought necessary, maybe to do with delayed arming or INS/GPS correction in initial and mid flight.

>>33789717
2 pounds of dog meat has been transferred to your account

>>33789717
One garlic clove has been deposited in your Glorious People's Pot.
Top tier bait, 10/10.

>>33798839
What?

File: tmp_26104-14917134432291058099560.jpg (32KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x960px

>>33800729
Oh shit waddup

>>33800729
Save the thread please

>>33794097
>muh 50c army

While the <<<they>>> you talk about are definitely real, Chinese propaganda really don't post outside China. They don't care about or believe that it's really possible to shape public opinion outside the internet that they control. They're not like the soviets where they're fighting for cultural dominance outside their borders.

China is already a big pond and the party is content to rule that pond, not try and rule the world (except economically I guess).

The 50c army post inside China, their intended audience are domestic Chinese and they rarely actually directly confront criticisms and accusations, because that keeps the debate alive. They're trained to instead, derail debate by posting irrelevant positive messages about something on a completely different topic.

They expect that negative articles about China will be blocked by the firewall and negative posts can just be deleted anyway since the government employs about a million people to police the internet inside China.

The guys you're quoting, are just trolling or being sarcastic. That's generally true of just about anyone that posts pro-China messages on /k/. Except for the ones that post pics of PLA qt3.141s, they're sincere.

>>33804952
It's not worth it, the thread started bad and got worse.

>>33797376
My business back in the day. I understand them pretty well.

>>33806796
No. You don't.
If you did, you wouldn't be making the error you are making.
Was your business being wrong about things? Because you are very good at it.

>>33798839
>The only concern with China is those 3000 miles of tunnels which might be harboring a fuck ton of mobile launchers or undisclosed silos.
you are now aware that China doesn't store their missiles assembled because they cannot trust their generals. The U.S. can see them assembling their missiles if they ever want to use them, and destroy the missiles before they are in firing condition. they are not really a threat.

File: 1440436474313.png (92KB, 504x254px)

92KB, 504x254px

>>33789384
>a higher degree of kill

>>33800729
I was going to say I miss Oppenheimer, and than Oppenheimer could save this thread of pre-baked malarkey. But this thread is terminal, better give it a mercy killing.

Good to see you still lurk Oppenheimer, I miss your wargame threads.

Serious question here: I there another global arms race going on right now?

>>33789384
Just in time for testing against North Korea. Excellent

>>33789717
No they doesn't.

>>33790281
MAD has nothing to do with tactical nukes. It's about strategic weapons and why they can never be used.

>>33789958
>and mad was never a thing
you're obviously not old enough to know what you're talking about

>>33789717
>>33789822
>>33789863
Not sure if shilling or attempting to meta troll.

Oppenheimer, post your thoughts on what you think the requirements for the GBSD and what are your thoughts on Trump putting forward a request to make brand new warheads. What would a warhead made this year look like? And what improvements do you think we'd see. Oppenheimer pls reply ._.

File: 958533-allenby5.jpg (9KB, 320x234px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 320x234px

>>33789822


Expert counter-shill

>>33807588
Any new warhead will be based on the W89. It was the last warhead to undergo full yield testing in 1992.

Advanced safety features.

GBSD will have longer lived components, and a MIRV capable bus with advanced penetration AIDS

>>33808889
Maybe as a new gravity bomb or cruise missile warhead, but I would expect new ICBM warheads to be based on the W87 and W88.

>>33809571
The next warhead will be a common design.
W89 is the only one that fits the bill.
Using its primary in the new common warhead is the only thing that makes sense.