US nuclear arsenal. Up the stairs leading down
Donald Trump loves to communicate with the nation and the world through Twitter. Capacious, short statements in this microblog, about which they often joke that it is very convenient for someone to “send” than to explain something to him, have become one of the characteristic features of the board of this bright, original, but highly overvalued politician ( he did not fulfill any of his promises). He also devoted more than one tweet to the topic of US nuclear power.
Among Mr. Trump's immortal statements on this topic, for example, one thing can be noted, from 9 last August, on Twitter, of course.
This means: "My first order as president was about updating and modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and now it is much stronger and more powerful than ever." Experts, analysts, and just people who are able to sort out this issue even as a first approximation, then laughed loudly at Trump's given statements. He wrote at the same time that he hoped that "the United States will never have to use this power," and assured that his country "will always be the most powerful country in the world." He did, of course, without any proof whatsoever of the truth of his words, and rightly so: why, can a gentleman lie?
It turns out, how else can he, if he is Anglo-Saxon, and maybe twice, if he is a populist politician, like Trump. And he can do it more than once and on the same topic, all the same, as people like to say in the domestic show business, "People Shavayet". And Trump ate a dog in show business, after all, he organized beauty contests and conducted reality shows, and he knows perfectly well that the American people are even more unpretentious than the target audience of any House-2 or something. equally "quality and high-grade." Especially, in military-political issues, where from the childhood four-inch nails have been hammered into the brain since the childhood that America is above all and stronger than all.
So the other day, after more than half a year, Donald broke out with another speech on the topic of the steady growth of the nuclear power of the US Armed Forces and their ascending road into the bright day after tomorrow. He stated that the United States had, “the most powerful nuclear forces in the world,” and again expressed the hope that they would never use them.
Trump then signed the US budget for 2018 year, on this occasion, he proclaimed it. So what did the great statesman and patriot of America do to increase nuclear power? And almost did nothing really.
Recently, another list of US Department of Energy documents was declassified, where, along with such “burning” information, such as the power of an explosion during sand stories tests 1957g. or 1958, or the B53 thermo-nuclear thermonuclear bomb (9Mt, the most powerful arsenal in the United States) was very old, and there was information on the number of nuclear munitions disposed of in recent years and on their total number in the arsenals.
Such information is published there regularly, in contrast to the Russian Federation, where the number of arsenals of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) in total (including unallocated charges and exchange and repair funds) is not disclosed, as is tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) - because there are no agreements between the superpowers that prescribe this. What is recorded in the agreements is regularly published by the parties, for example, data on the exchange of START-3 in the form of test warheads on carriers, the number of deployed and unplaced carriers, and so on. Moreover, by mutual agreement, the Americans do not publish the layout for our strategic nuclear forces - how many and what systems, only summary information. Although, of course, they have. And if such secrecy makes sense on TNW, as well as on the total number of SNF charges, then on carriers and placed charges - obviously not. For reference, there are no exact data on our arsenals, but estimated only for TNW begin, in serious specialists, from 4 thousands of charges and above (6-8). According to the SNF, they are at least not less, but rather more American. In terms of the placed charges on the SNF carriers, we had recently been ahead of the United States by almost five hundred charges, but by the beginning of 2018g. urgently completed the dismantling of a number of charges and fit into the limit of the START-3 Treaty - 1550 placed read charges. In reality, this is somewhat more, because the bomber taken into account as the 1 charge carrier actually carries 6, 8, 10, 12, and even 16-20 CR.
But back to our sheep, or rather, not to ours, but to the American. So, according to this document, for 2017g. (not for all, the information is given at the end of September, that is, by the beginning of the new fiscal year in the US, by October 1) American nuclear arsenals used nuclear weapons to 354, and made 3822 units of strategic and tactical charges, instead of 4018 a year earlier. There are about half a thousand tactical ones, and these are only B-61 tactical aerial power bombs that make up a number of modifications up to 170, and others up to 340ct - there is no other TNW in the US for a long time, so the last naval warheads of W80-0 to the sea-based KR (SLCM) TLAM-N ("Tomahawk") were disposed of before 31 in August. 2011. The remaining strategic B83 aerial bombs, up to 1.2Mt, can be considered conditionally tactical, but they are actively utilized, and according to plans, in a couple of years they will “finish” them completely (and by the way, this, along with B-61, is the only nuclear weapon of “toothless” flying wing, heavy bomber B-XNUMHA).
I must say that the 354 charge per year is, of course, not a record of recent years, and not a record with 1990. when, on 7, thousands per year were sometimes disposed of - but then in the USA the production capacities were not closed, and everything was fine with recycling and reloading. But it certainly surpasses the "achievements" of the United States in "strengthening" the nuclear arsenal for most of the "destroyer and weakling" presidency (according to Trump) of Obama - only in 2009-2010gg. In the first years of his reign, 352-356 charges were destroyed that is, as much as Trump’s “strong statist” in the first year, who “makes America great again” and, in general, they say, nuclear power raised the heights to previously unattainable heights. On Twitter. And in all other years, "Obamism" cut less than "sources of light and heat", approximately 100-300 per year. At this rate, if the Americans continue to "build up their nuclear power" in this way, in years the 10 will have nothing to build up. But, nevertheless, it’s not worth hoping for it, and at the state level, it’s even impossible to “pledge” these gifts from the enemy.
So, congratulations, Mr. Trump - you're lying. Although, maybe he, as a prominent "effective manager," meant something completely different, because in their terminology there are enough convenient euphemisms that can cover up failures. For example, "negative growth", or, say, "positive negative profit".
But, some will say, is it bad to cut the old charges? No, not bad, especially if it is not possible to re-equip them in time, this must be done. Nuclear weapons, if not serviced and re-equipped in time, not only become useless, but it also becomes dangerous. The authors of the tabloid fables and forum rumors from various underdeveloped countries and territories usually do not know this. They like to tell something like "we have 3-4 nuclear warheads stolen from the warehouses of the Soviet Army, hidden in secret cellars and caches, and if so, tremble, Russians. " If you do not take into account the fact that nuclear weapons can be stolen even from the warehouses of the USSR Armed Forces, even the Russian Federation, even the USA, and at least the DPRK is absolutely impossible, and the charge itself is useless.
The Americans have repeatedly eliminated their production of nuclear weapons (officially, the facilities were partially preserved, but in reality there is a lot to be re-created) and greatly reduced the capacity for reloading and servicing nuclear weapons, they encountered the fact that they had to rely on ammunition which did not disappear, but very necessary, but in time they didn’t succeed to re-equip them, because the lines had much more necessary charges, such as LEP (Life Extension Program) programs. and, we use the abbreviation PSE) SBShB W76 and W88 for the D5 "Trident-2" SLBMs and their minimal upgrades, talking about W76-1.
Trump loves to say that he, he says, does a lot for nuclear missile power, but, in fact, he does it more for military officials, corporate leaders and congressmen and senators who feed on it, allocating extra money for new programs. Moreover, if we compare again with the “peacemaker” Obama, his military expenses were again higher (especially considering the rise in prices in the US military-industrial complex and general inflation).
No, something is being done. Thus, a preliminary study of the GBSD new ICBM program has begun, the price of which is growing by leaps and bounds - in 2015. the total cost of the program from the 400 hosted monoblock ICBMs and 242 to the reserve and for testing was 61 billion. dollars, at the beginning of 2017. - in 140, but now it has grown. But at the same time, realizing that the program may not lead to success, the options are being worked out how to leave the MiniTen-3 ICBM in service with the 2030-2040. Exactly the same story with the bomber B-21 "Raider", which is, in fact, an attempt to resell the B-2A US Air Force in a new package. The price list of the program is already constantly growing, and there are fears that it will fail for this reason, therefore at the same time "straw is underlain at the place of the fall." It is about working out options, how to force at least some of the 36 currently used for the main purpose (some are somewhat larger, but the rest are used for testing or are used as a source of spare parts) of the old B-52H working men, the youngest of which are older than the Caribbean Crisis, fly to 2075g. A new Columbia-type SSBN is being developed, which will be commissioned in the 2030-x, and the missiles that will once be replaced with it are certainly very successful D5 (they will not be replaced immediately). But with her, not everything is smooth so far.
A new Nuclear Policy Review (Nuclear Post Review) was adopted - one of the key documents in the nuclear weapons field in the United States. Previous NPRs were accepted in 2010, 2002, 1994. Only this document raises serious doubts about the competence of its drafters, both in terms of considering the development of nuclear forces of potential adversaries (the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China or, say, the DPRK), and in part of the plans of the United States itself.
As applied to nuclear charges, the following can be noted in it. So, in our media and blogosphere strenuously relished news from this very NPR-2018 about “the beginning of the development of a new SBC for a new sea-based KR” (talking about the NGLAW program for replacing the “Tomahawk”, which, however, will last by itself until about 2040). By the way, talk of replacing the "Tomahawk" in the near-fleet circles of the United States intensified immediately after, to put it mildly, the ambiguous results of the strike on Shairat. And also about the ultra-low power BB for the Trident-2, which is planned to be developed, according to NPR. Why such a BB is needed for Americans is another question, but the fact is that the plans of the Department of Energy, also recently published, do not have either one or the other block. There are no new charges in the plans for the coming decade at all. Just because it is impossible to produce them, the production of a number of important components has been lost - the Americans are only planning to restore the production of nuclear weapons.
This is reflected in the same document of the Department of Energy (DoE_ and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). There are only all types of nuclear ammunition that are in the US now. These are BB ICBMs and SLBMs W78, W87, W76 (0 and 1 options) , W88, B61 bomb (options 3, 4, 7, 11, 10) and B83, special warhead W80-1 for the nuclear option KR air-launched AGM-86 bombers B-52H. appear and the tasks assigned to the nuclear weapons complex countries (well, what remains of it - there is no production, there is only possible reassembly, retransmission, partial retrofits, such as electronics, fuses and the charges themselves).
As for ammunition, this is: the completion of the alteration of W76-0 to W76-1 by next year, the alteration of the first working sample of the adjusted bomb B61-12 (400 bombs of the remaining modifications will be converted into it, the rest will be disposed of, its capacity is limited to 50ct), a number of works with W88, Creation of the first working model of SBP W-80-4 for the new CR LRSO (by reworking from W-80-1). There are no new naval warheads for sea-based missiles, and there are no new warheads for Trident-2 SLBMs either. And the pilots simply won’t give a single W80-4 warhead to the sailors - they probably won’t fit the new naval KP. And they themselves do not have enough of them, because the AGM-86B nuclear missiles are not enough even for a full salvo of the existing B-52H group used for their main purpose, including because there are not enough charges. Well, it’s worth recalling the traditionally “warm” relations between the types of US forces, especially the Air Force and Navy. What, in general, happens in any armed forces, the only question is the forms of this rivalry and the degree of its radicalism. Remembering General Curtiss LeMay, who said, "The Soviet Union is our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy" ("The USSR is only our rival, and our real enemy is the Fleet"). So do not see the sailors W80-4.
Why was it then necessary to enter into the nuclear doctrine clearly unrealizable elements? But there are plenty of other oddities, for example, such as completely fragmentary knowledge of the nuclear programs of the RF Armed Forces (much of what V. Putin’s sensational Message spoke about was not there, nor was it what he had forgotten about. tell), and not only that. It may, of course, in the closed part of the document, everything is different, but it is hard to believe in it.
But there are a number of activities that are likely to be able to return to America the possibility of creating nuclear ammunition from scratch, based on accumulated nuclear materials, but not earlier than the beginning of 2030-s, and most likely later. The fact is that similar plans were in previous NPR, but they were not implemented. In particular, to ensure the possibility of stuffing "plutonium cores" after 2030. order 50-80pcs. in year. These are elements of the plutonium "fuses" of thermonuclear charges. And even the numbers were similar. Do it now - time will tell.
If not, then the planned reduction of the nuclear weapons system to the "3 + 2" scheme may not take place. That is, two types of tactical charges - bombs V61-12 and SBCH W80-4 and three types of strategic BB (suitable SLBMs and ICBMs) - IW1, IW2 and IW3, which is planned to produce about mid-2030-x, and some with Xnumx's. So far, nothing irreparable has happened for America - well, they have lost a number of types of charges that they didn’t want to lose, they have greatly reduced their arsenals, but they still have charges for the SNF, this is the main thing to be disposed of - for the time being, too. But with TNW, everything is much worse and there is no chance of solving this problem in the foreseeable period. Another thing, if the "negative growth" and further continues at this rate, problems will appear.
But what will be next will be seen. The likelihood that the current plans for restoring the production of nuclear warheads in the same way "will leave to the right" on the timeline is quite high. In the meantime, Mr. Trump will continue to tell us fables about America’s steadily growing American nuclear power. Growing down on a couple of nuclear potentials Britain's a year. Or, if you want, on the potential of France (well, it’s not enough for Chinese). And then his successors will tell.
Among Mr. Trump's immortal statements on this topic, for example, one thing can be noted, from 9 last August, on Twitter, of course.
Our nuclear arsenal. It is now more stronger than ever before ...
This means: "My first order as president was about updating and modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and now it is much stronger and more powerful than ever." Experts, analysts, and just people who are able to sort out this issue even as a first approximation, then laughed loudly at Trump's given statements. He wrote at the same time that he hoped that "the United States will never have to use this power," and assured that his country "will always be the most powerful country in the world." He did, of course, without any proof whatsoever of the truth of his words, and rightly so: why, can a gentleman lie?
It turns out, how else can he, if he is Anglo-Saxon, and maybe twice, if he is a populist politician, like Trump. And he can do it more than once and on the same topic, all the same, as people like to say in the domestic show business, "People Shavayet". And Trump ate a dog in show business, after all, he organized beauty contests and conducted reality shows, and he knows perfectly well that the American people are even more unpretentious than the target audience of any House-2 or something. equally "quality and high-grade." Especially, in military-political issues, where from the childhood four-inch nails have been hammered into the brain since the childhood that America is above all and stronger than all.
So the other day, after more than half a year, Donald broke out with another speech on the topic of the steady growth of the nuclear power of the US Armed Forces and their ascending road into the bright day after tomorrow. He stated that the United States had, “the most powerful nuclear forces in the world,” and again expressed the hope that they would never use them.
We provide 654,6 billion dollars in defense. No one will say that our military will be forgotten, which they have been talking about for a long time. We spend a lot of money on nuclear systems to upgrade and in some cases create absolutely new ones, for example, nuclear submarines. So we will have the strongest nuclear forces on earth that will be in absolutely perfect form, and we hope we will never have to use them.
Trump then signed the US budget for 2018 year, on this occasion, he proclaimed it. So what did the great statesman and patriot of America do to increase nuclear power? And almost did nothing really.
Recently, another list of US Department of Energy documents was declassified, where, along with such “burning” information, such as the power of an explosion during sand stories tests 1957g. or 1958, or the B53 thermo-nuclear thermonuclear bomb (9Mt, the most powerful arsenal in the United States) was very old, and there was information on the number of nuclear munitions disposed of in recent years and on their total number in the arsenals.
Such information is published there regularly, in contrast to the Russian Federation, where the number of arsenals of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) in total (including unallocated charges and exchange and repair funds) is not disclosed, as is tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) - because there are no agreements between the superpowers that prescribe this. What is recorded in the agreements is regularly published by the parties, for example, data on the exchange of START-3 in the form of test warheads on carriers, the number of deployed and unplaced carriers, and so on. Moreover, by mutual agreement, the Americans do not publish the layout for our strategic nuclear forces - how many and what systems, only summary information. Although, of course, they have. And if such secrecy makes sense on TNW, as well as on the total number of SNF charges, then on carriers and placed charges - obviously not. For reference, there are no exact data on our arsenals, but estimated only for TNW begin, in serious specialists, from 4 thousands of charges and above (6-8). According to the SNF, they are at least not less, but rather more American. In terms of the placed charges on the SNF carriers, we had recently been ahead of the United States by almost five hundred charges, but by the beginning of 2018g. urgently completed the dismantling of a number of charges and fit into the limit of the START-3 Treaty - 1550 placed read charges. In reality, this is somewhat more, because the bomber taken into account as the 1 charge carrier actually carries 6, 8, 10, 12, and even 16-20 CR.
But back to our sheep, or rather, not to ours, but to the American. So, according to this document, for 2017g. (not for all, the information is given at the end of September, that is, by the beginning of the new fiscal year in the US, by October 1) American nuclear arsenals used nuclear weapons to 354, and made 3822 units of strategic and tactical charges, instead of 4018 a year earlier. There are about half a thousand tactical ones, and these are only B-61 tactical aerial power bombs that make up a number of modifications up to 170, and others up to 340ct - there is no other TNW in the US for a long time, so the last naval warheads of W80-0 to the sea-based KR (SLCM) TLAM-N ("Tomahawk") were disposed of before 31 in August. 2011. The remaining strategic B83 aerial bombs, up to 1.2Mt, can be considered conditionally tactical, but they are actively utilized, and according to plans, in a couple of years they will “finish” them completely (and by the way, this, along with B-61, is the only nuclear weapon of “toothless” flying wing, heavy bomber B-XNUMHA).
I must say that the 354 charge per year is, of course, not a record of recent years, and not a record with 1990. when, on 7, thousands per year were sometimes disposed of - but then in the USA the production capacities were not closed, and everything was fine with recycling and reloading. But it certainly surpasses the "achievements" of the United States in "strengthening" the nuclear arsenal for most of the "destroyer and weakling" presidency (according to Trump) of Obama - only in 2009-2010gg. In the first years of his reign, 352-356 charges were destroyed that is, as much as Trump’s “strong statist” in the first year, who “makes America great again” and, in general, they say, nuclear power raised the heights to previously unattainable heights. On Twitter. And in all other years, "Obamism" cut less than "sources of light and heat", approximately 100-300 per year. At this rate, if the Americans continue to "build up their nuclear power" in this way, in years the 10 will have nothing to build up. But, nevertheless, it’s not worth hoping for it, and at the state level, it’s even impossible to “pledge” these gifts from the enemy.
So, congratulations, Mr. Trump - you're lying. Although, maybe he, as a prominent "effective manager," meant something completely different, because in their terminology there are enough convenient euphemisms that can cover up failures. For example, "negative growth", or, say, "positive negative profit".
But, some will say, is it bad to cut the old charges? No, not bad, especially if it is not possible to re-equip them in time, this must be done. Nuclear weapons, if not serviced and re-equipped in time, not only become useless, but it also becomes dangerous. The authors of the tabloid fables and forum rumors from various underdeveloped countries and territories usually do not know this. They like to tell something like "we have 3-4 nuclear warheads stolen from the warehouses of the Soviet Army, hidden in secret cellars and caches, and if so, tremble, Russians. " If you do not take into account the fact that nuclear weapons can be stolen even from the warehouses of the USSR Armed Forces, even the Russian Federation, even the USA, and at least the DPRK is absolutely impossible, and the charge itself is useless.
The Americans have repeatedly eliminated their production of nuclear weapons (officially, the facilities were partially preserved, but in reality there is a lot to be re-created) and greatly reduced the capacity for reloading and servicing nuclear weapons, they encountered the fact that they had to rely on ammunition which did not disappear, but very necessary, but in time they didn’t succeed to re-equip them, because the lines had much more necessary charges, such as LEP (Life Extension Program) programs. and, we use the abbreviation PSE) SBShB W76 and W88 for the D5 "Trident-2" SLBMs and their minimal upgrades, talking about W76-1.
Trump loves to say that he, he says, does a lot for nuclear missile power, but, in fact, he does it more for military officials, corporate leaders and congressmen and senators who feed on it, allocating extra money for new programs. Moreover, if we compare again with the “peacemaker” Obama, his military expenses were again higher (especially considering the rise in prices in the US military-industrial complex and general inflation).
No, something is being done. Thus, a preliminary study of the GBSD new ICBM program has begun, the price of which is growing by leaps and bounds - in 2015. the total cost of the program from the 400 hosted monoblock ICBMs and 242 to the reserve and for testing was 61 billion. dollars, at the beginning of 2017. - in 140, but now it has grown. But at the same time, realizing that the program may not lead to success, the options are being worked out how to leave the MiniTen-3 ICBM in service with the 2030-2040. Exactly the same story with the bomber B-21 "Raider", which is, in fact, an attempt to resell the B-2A US Air Force in a new package. The price list of the program is already constantly growing, and there are fears that it will fail for this reason, therefore at the same time "straw is underlain at the place of the fall." It is about working out options, how to force at least some of the 36 currently used for the main purpose (some are somewhat larger, but the rest are used for testing or are used as a source of spare parts) of the old B-52H working men, the youngest of which are older than the Caribbean Crisis, fly to 2075g. A new Columbia-type SSBN is being developed, which will be commissioned in the 2030-x, and the missiles that will once be replaced with it are certainly very successful D5 (they will not be replaced immediately). But with her, not everything is smooth so far.
A new Nuclear Policy Review (Nuclear Post Review) was adopted - one of the key documents in the nuclear weapons field in the United States. Previous NPRs were accepted in 2010, 2002, 1994. Only this document raises serious doubts about the competence of its drafters, both in terms of considering the development of nuclear forces of potential adversaries (the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China or, say, the DPRK), and in part of the plans of the United States itself.
As applied to nuclear charges, the following can be noted in it. So, in our media and blogosphere strenuously relished news from this very NPR-2018 about “the beginning of the development of a new SBC for a new sea-based KR” (talking about the NGLAW program for replacing the “Tomahawk”, which, however, will last by itself until about 2040). By the way, talk of replacing the "Tomahawk" in the near-fleet circles of the United States intensified immediately after, to put it mildly, the ambiguous results of the strike on Shairat. And also about the ultra-low power BB for the Trident-2, which is planned to be developed, according to NPR. Why such a BB is needed for Americans is another question, but the fact is that the plans of the Department of Energy, also recently published, do not have either one or the other block. There are no new charges in the plans for the coming decade at all. Just because it is impossible to produce them, the production of a number of important components has been lost - the Americans are only planning to restore the production of nuclear weapons.
This is reflected in the same document of the Department of Energy (DoE_ and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). There are only all types of nuclear ammunition that are in the US now. These are BB ICBMs and SLBMs W78, W87, W76 (0 and 1 options) , W88, B61 bomb (options 3, 4, 7, 11, 10) and B83, special warhead W80-1 for the nuclear option KR air-launched AGM-86 bombers B-52H. appear and the tasks assigned to the nuclear weapons complex countries (well, what remains of it - there is no production, there is only possible reassembly, retransmission, partial retrofits, such as electronics, fuses and the charges themselves).
As for ammunition, this is: the completion of the alteration of W76-0 to W76-1 by next year, the alteration of the first working sample of the adjusted bomb B61-12 (400 bombs of the remaining modifications will be converted into it, the rest will be disposed of, its capacity is limited to 50ct), a number of works with W88, Creation of the first working model of SBP W-80-4 for the new CR LRSO (by reworking from W-80-1). There are no new naval warheads for sea-based missiles, and there are no new warheads for Trident-2 SLBMs either. And the pilots simply won’t give a single W80-4 warhead to the sailors - they probably won’t fit the new naval KP. And they themselves do not have enough of them, because the AGM-86B nuclear missiles are not enough even for a full salvo of the existing B-52H group used for their main purpose, including because there are not enough charges. Well, it’s worth recalling the traditionally “warm” relations between the types of US forces, especially the Air Force and Navy. What, in general, happens in any armed forces, the only question is the forms of this rivalry and the degree of its radicalism. Remembering General Curtiss LeMay, who said, "The Soviet Union is our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy" ("The USSR is only our rival, and our real enemy is the Fleet"). So do not see the sailors W80-4.
Why was it then necessary to enter into the nuclear doctrine clearly unrealizable elements? But there are plenty of other oddities, for example, such as completely fragmentary knowledge of the nuclear programs of the RF Armed Forces (much of what V. Putin’s sensational Message spoke about was not there, nor was it what he had forgotten about. tell), and not only that. It may, of course, in the closed part of the document, everything is different, but it is hard to believe in it.
But there are a number of activities that are likely to be able to return to America the possibility of creating nuclear ammunition from scratch, based on accumulated nuclear materials, but not earlier than the beginning of 2030-s, and most likely later. The fact is that similar plans were in previous NPR, but they were not implemented. In particular, to ensure the possibility of stuffing "plutonium cores" after 2030. order 50-80pcs. in year. These are elements of the plutonium "fuses" of thermonuclear charges. And even the numbers were similar. Do it now - time will tell.
If not, then the planned reduction of the nuclear weapons system to the "3 + 2" scheme may not take place. That is, two types of tactical charges - bombs V61-12 and SBCH W80-4 and three types of strategic BB (suitable SLBMs and ICBMs) - IW1, IW2 and IW3, which is planned to produce about mid-2030-x, and some with Xnumx's. So far, nothing irreparable has happened for America - well, they have lost a number of types of charges that they didn’t want to lose, they have greatly reduced their arsenals, but they still have charges for the SNF, this is the main thing to be disposed of - for the time being, too. But with TNW, everything is much worse and there is no chance of solving this problem in the foreseeable period. Another thing, if the "negative growth" and further continues at this rate, problems will appear.
But what will be next will be seen. The likelihood that the current plans for restoring the production of nuclear warheads in the same way "will leave to the right" on the timeline is quite high. In the meantime, Mr. Trump will continue to tell us fables about America’s steadily growing American nuclear power. Growing down on a couple of nuclear potentials Britain's a year. Or, if you want, on the potential of France (well, it’s not enough for Chinese). And then his successors will tell.
Information