Answer to Russia and China: US Navy Deploys W76-2 Warheads

Answer to Russia and China: US Navy Deploys W76-2 Warheads
Emblem of the project W76-2


In accordance with previous decisions, the Pentagon began the deployment of the latest thermonuclear warheads of reduced power W76 Mod. 2 (W76-2). Trident II missiles with such military equipment were recently loaded onto one of the U.S. Navy submarines. Now she is on patrol routes. It is expected that in the near future, other warheads will receive other SSBN American fleet, and this will affect the international military-political situation.

From plans to practice


The development of a promising thermonuclear warhead for SLBMs was announced in February 2018 in the new US Nuclear Policy Review. The creation of such a product was associated with the specifics of the situation in the world. It was supposed to be a response to new characteristic threats from some states.

Already in February 2019, the Pantex plant (Texas) completed the assembly of the first W76 Mod. 2. At the same time, the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) stated that the production of such weapons gathering pace, and before the end of the current financial year, new warheads will reach the initial operational readiness stage. Exact production rates, plans, etc. not called. It was mentioned that the release of new weapons will continue until 2024.

On January 29, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) released new W76-2 progress data from its own sources. It also provides some estimates that have not yet received official confirmation or refutation.

FAS reports that at the end of last year, the first warhead of a new type arrived at the Kings Bay Naval Base (Georgia). They were mounted on Trident II SLBMs and loaded onto the USS Tennessee nuclear submarine (SSBN-734). Then, a ship with promising weapons went on combat alert to the designated areas of the Atlantic Ocean.

The FAS suggests that over the past year, the industry managed to produce about 50 W76-2 products. Moreover, not all of them are involved in the current duty. According to the Federation, the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) nuclear submarine carries only one or two missiles with new military equipment. The remaining 18-19 Trident II products on board have old warheads - W76-1 or W88.

Technical features


The new W76-2 thermonuclear warhead is a slightly redesigned version of the existing W76-1 product. The modern project provides for relatively simple and inexpensive measures to extend the resource and change the characteristics.


SSBN USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) based, September 2019

The W76 warheads available in the military were mass-produced from 1978 to 1987. A total of 3400 such products were manufactured in two versions, the W76 Mod. 0 and W76 Mod. 1. In the future, measures were taken to extend the resource. The basic version of the warhead has a capacity of 100 kt TNT, modification W76-1 - 90 kt. Charges are mounted in Mk 4 or Mk 4A warheads. The latter are used on Trident II missiles, which are in service with the US and British Navy.

The promising W76-2 warhead is made by reworking the existing W76-1 product. Instrumentation charge is replaced by modern components. In addition, a power reduction is carried out. Due to the special tactical role, this parameter is limited to 5-7 ct. After such an upgrade, the Mk 4 / W76-2 warhead remains fully compatible with Trident II SLBMs and the U.S. Navy SSBN can be used with them. With the exception of the warhead explosion power, all the characteristics of the updated strike complex remain unchanged.

Response measure


According to the 2018 US Nuclear Policy Review, the W76-2 project was designed to respond to new challenges from third countries. The main reason for its appearance is called the recent actions of Russia, China and other countries in the field of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

A few years ago, Russia revised its defense doctrine and changed the principles of the use of nuclear weapons. According to the United States, this led to a decrease in the threshold of use, which significantly changes the balance of forces and can affect the military-political situation in the world. In response to Russia's actions, Washington launched several new projects, including modernization of cash warheads according to the modern project W76-2.

The main feature of the product is W76 Mod. 2 is the reduced power of detonation while maintaining all other characteristics and compatibility with the standard carrier. Due to this, it is proposed to obtain new opportunities that more fully correspond to modern challenges.

According to the NNSA, the main objective of submarines with Trident II missiles and warheads W76-2 will be the expansion of capabilities to deter a potential enemy. Scenarios are possible in which the enemy organizes a low-power nuclear strike. In this case, the response by the US as a full-fledged nuclear missile strike is considered inappropriate and redundant. As a result of this, nuclear forces need some new means combining the basic qualities of tactical and strategic weapons.

It is for this purpose that the warhead W76-2 was developed. It should guarantee the possibility of a symmetrical response to a low-power nuclear attack. It is believed that such a response will stop the probable enemy and prevent a new blow from his side. Such a strategy is called "escalation for de-escalation" and enjoys some popularity among the military and political leadership of the United States. Willingness to such scenarios is considered an effective deterrence measure.


Tennessee at Sea, 2013

The formal reason for creating the product is W76 Mod. 2 became the actions of Moscow. Moreover, the Russian authorities have repeatedly said that the change in the defense doctrine is not connected with aggressive intentions. In addition, it was noted that it is the new low-power charge of the American development that is the very factor that lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and leads to serious risks.

As you can see, the United States did not heed the Russian statements and continued the work already begun. Their result was the appearance of serial warheads and their deployment on a submarine overlooking combat duty. The obvious conclusions about Washington’s plans and intentions follow from this.

Escalation or de-escalation?


Promising thermonuclear warhead W76 Mod. 2 is proposed as a special tool for some specific situations. The concept of a low-power retaliatory strike is proposed, which does not provoke a further exchange of warheads.

However, this concept has long been criticized for a number of reasons. First of all, the very possibility of a limited exchange of strikes without further escalation of the conflict raises doubts - regardless of the type and parameters of the weapons and means used. Nuclear weapons are a last resort and their use should provoke an appropriate response.

The installation of warheads of limited power on full-fledged SLBMs leads to great risks. A likely adversary or third countries will be able to identify the fact of a missile launch, but determining its combat equipment is not possible until the warhead is undermined by the target. Accordingly, the adversary will expect the worst case scenario, expect a high power strike - and act accordingly. All this also leads to rapid escalation and does not allow to keep the conflict in the initial stages.

It is unlikely that the US military and political leadership does not understand all the risks associated with the creation and deployment of new low-power thermonuclear weapons. However, the production of W76-2 products has been launched, and the first such samples have already gone on duty with the carrier submarine. It is expected that in the near future, combat duty with new thermonuclear charges will carry several submarines.

Thus, hiding behind dubious rhetoric and ambiguous concepts, the United States created and put into operation a new type of strategic weapon for solving special tasks. How effective such a tool will be in solving the stated problems is a big question. However, it is obvious that the appearance of this tool will not improve the strategic situation in the world and will not increase overall security.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Proton 3 February 2020 18: 07 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    I don’t understand one thing, they don’t catch up with them, that if it will be a tactical nuclear weapon, the answer will fly as many as possible. request
    1. WILL 3 February 2020 18: 39 New
      • 22
      • 6
      +16
      I think the thing is different ... they can not produce more powerful charges. So they came up with Erzats ...
      1. Skay 3 February 2020 19: 05 New
        • 11
        • 3
        +8
        they cannot produce more powerful charges

        The filling of a nuclear charge degrades over time. It needs to be restored. We can do it, Americans not.
      2. Kuroneko 3 February 2020 19: 16 New
        • 11
        • 2
        +9
        Quote: ANIMAL
        they cannot produce more powerful charges. So they came up with Erzats ...

        It's not about power. They simply cannot produce new charges. The nuclear component of the US military-industrial complex has been the most degraded over the decades when the Yankees considered themselves winners and rested on their laurels. There is no one to do the new ones stupidly (even Westinghouse was covered with a copper basin) and not from anything (their NPP program was also curtailed). And the existing charges - inevitably degrade from time (half-life and all that). It is not known how they will behave. So as a temporary way out - reduce their power. So, at least, they can be left in the service for a couple of decades.
        1. ref25 3 February 2020 21: 09 New
          • 3
          • 7
          -4
          They can, they all can. Small caliber PSUs, and there is an ultra-small caliber (aviation, artillery) are needed for the targeted destruction of targets with minimal damage to the environment, of course, the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is reduced, the calculation is that the other side does not dare to use powerful apples. In World War II, chemical weapons were not used, although Hitler had chemical weapons.
          1. Range 3 February 2020 21: 50 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Hitler needed territories and he did not want to pollute them for this reason.
            1. Alexey LK 5 February 2020 04: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Spectrum
              Hitler needed territories and he did not want to pollute them for this reason.

              But Kaiser Wilhelm did not need the territory, and therefore he polluted them! Did I understand your logic correctly?
          2. Stalllker 3 February 2020 22: 57 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            for targeted destruction of targets with minimal damage to the environment ... smiled
          3. Kuroneko 4 February 2020 05: 10 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: ref25
            They can, they all can. Small-caliber power supply, there is also a super-small caliber (aviation, artillery) are needed for the targeted destruction of targets with minimal damage to the environment

            Why then only Russia now has nuclear tactical land mines?
          4. Alexey LK 5 February 2020 04: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: ref25
            for targeted destruction of targets

            First of all, what is "target destruction"? Is this how to decompose the target into points? wink
            Secondly, in your opinion, SLBMs are a means of destroying point targets? What then are the goals for you - these are the points? Cities? Are you planning a war on a small globe? But then again, the power needed is appropriate ...
            I would also understand if this warhead were installed in an anti-bunker bomb, in a torpedo or in an artillery projectile - all this is yes, against "point" targets. But how to aim the SLBM at a point? Apparently, I missed something ...
        2. Passing 3 February 2020 21: 48 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Kuroneko
          The nuclear component of the US military-industrial complex has degraded ... There is no one to do new ones stupidly

          Quote: Kuroneko
          And the existing charges - inevitably degrade from time (half-life and all that) ... So as a temporary way out - reduce their power.

          The half-life of plutonium is 24000 years. To reduce it even a little bit, you need to wait much more than the last 20 years
          And how do you imagine reducing power? Like there is a "rotten" warhead, do we file off the excess and back truncated "rotten" warhead with a file? Maybe we will not rave? Firstly, there the power decreases at the level of design, and as for the "repair" of a rotten warhead, there are no options - to clean plutonium from decay products and put it back. Those. send to the processing plant. In another factory give shape. On the third, put everything together. So what is the problem, why can Americans do this for weak warheads, but not for ordinary ones? I see no reason.
          1. Kuroneko 4 February 2020 05: 07 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Passing by
            Those. send to the processing plant. In another factory give shape. On the third, put everything together. So what is the problem, why can Americans do this for weak warheads, but not for ordinary ones? I see no reason.

            Americans now Yes are these plants?
            1. Passing 4 February 2020 16: 31 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Well, where did they get the uranium / plutonium for the new low-power charges? Well, the answer to that question is not for me, but for yourself at least.
          2. bk0010 4 February 2020 23: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is not nonsense. Plutonium decays, part of the material becomes much more active plutonium-240. With an increase in its amount by an extremely insignificant amount (fractions of a percent), the assembly is delivered before the first kilotons are released (it turns out to be a zilch instead of an explosion). It is treated by replacing fissile material, the old material - by the factory.
        3. Karaul14 4 February 2020 12: 12 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Kuroneko
          They simply cannot produce new charges. The nuclear component of the US military-industrial complex has been the most degraded over the decades when the Yankees considered themselves winners and rested on their laurels.
          Hahhahaha. How many people are so many fairy tales)))




          Quote: Kuroneko
          There is no one to do the new ones stupidly (even Westinghouse was covered with a copper basin) and not from anything (their NPP program was also curtailed). And the existing charges inevitably degrade from time (half-life and all that). It is not known how they will behave. So as a temporary way out - reduce their power. So, at least, they can be left in the service for a couple of decades.
          This is called "I don’t know anything, I don’t understand anything about this, but just in case I’ll write."
          1. Kuroneko 4 February 2020 12: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Karaul14
            This is called "I don’t know anything, I don’t understand anything about this, but just in case I’ll write."

            Well, where am I to you, guru.
            Below I ask you to forgive the despicable ignoramus. T_T
            1. Karaul14 4 February 2020 12: 25 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Kuroneko
              Well, where am I to you, guru.
              Below I ask you to forgive the despicable ignoramus. T_T
              It's okay, the main thing is to continue to sincerely believe in your tales.
        4. Alexey LK 5 February 2020 04: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kuroneko
          They simply cannot produce new charges.

          A very interesting question is whether they will be able to "return" the power of 90-100 ctn with those components that were used in the W76-2, if necessary? Or is it all irreversible?
      3. Chaldon48 3 February 2020 20: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Perhaps the United States intends to inflict on a non-nuclear "non-democratic" country or a country such as North Korea.
        1. freejack 4 February 2020 01: 03 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Perhaps the United States intends to inflict on a non-nuclear "non-democratic" country or a country such as North Korea

          Perhaps .... But I think about something else ... Our AWACS "saw" the warheads ... Will the ultra-small ones shine differently?! ... And the direction? ... From Vladivostok to the North. Korea’s one hundred km.
          Commander-in-chief can say "oncoming" and mustache ... recourse
          Or will Trump call Putin before that? ... request
          1. Chaldon48 4 February 2020 01: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Trump is not a suicide, he will call before giving an order to a submarine, which will wait in a given square at a recess depth. Then the salvo and Putin will be faced with a fait accompli.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 4 February 2020 12: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Of course not!!!
      We are talking about the use of tactical nuclear weapons (this is such a thing, suitable for suppressing the defense of a battalion stronghold, for example, and after a year you can walk under the epicenter of air blasting) through the territory of third countries ... we are with NATO only like that (well, if they don’t surrender right away or we won’t defeat them right away in a day) and we’re going to fight, and we have thousands of nuclear weapons, starting from artillery shells, through cruise missiles to short-range ballistic missiles .... and the US has 400 free-falling bombs, which, given our air defense, is useful extremely arbitrary ... although taking into account the quantitative we can escalate the ratio for a long time after they have these 76-1 run out
      1. bk0010 4 February 2020 23: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Under the hypocenter. The epicenter is its projection onto the earth. Atomic shells seem to have taken apart everything: they have power - units of kilotons, and a charge of 0.2-0.5 Mt can be made of the same material. Of course, he will not fit into the cannon, but there is already no shortage of delivery vehicles.
  2. K-50 3 February 2020 18: 09 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    In accordance with previous decisions, the Pentagon began the deployment of the latest thermonuclear warheads of reduced power W76 Mod. 2 (W76-2).

    Strange pin-owl logic. what
    One nuclear strike against Russia and they will have to be scrapped from the bottom of the ocean, well, or the Stalin Canal. In our DEFENSE Doctrine, this is clearly and unequivocally indicated, and even power in general is a secondary matter, and moreover, dangerous, for it pushes minionuclear forces to resolve contradictions. That opriori is not true and fraught. yes
    1. Egoza 3 February 2020 18: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: K-50
      One nuclear strike against Russia and they will have to be scrapped from the bottom of the ocean, well, or the Stalin Canal. In our DEFENSE Doctrine, this is stated clearly and unequivocally,

      But they believe that in the Russian Federation democracy and, in general, “a progressive public will not allow it!” you never know what is written there. You never know what you say.
    2. dvina71 3 February 2020 19: 06 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Quote: K-50
      Strange pin-owl logic.

      Nothing strange. TNW (thermo) of high power is a deterrent. Its military value is small. Well, unless the enemy drives a couple of armies into a big city .. which is unlikely. But the elm has a small capacity and this is already a weapon of war. The conclusion is simple .. Americans are preparing for a limited nuclear war. The fact that a hundred years ago was done by many hours of artillery bombardment or by a raid of hundreds of long-range bombers, the United States can do with a strike of one warhead in a dozen kilotons ..
      And how do they justify this fifth case .. Russia and China are now well-known in the states it is logical to blame everything on them ... the voters approve ...
      In fact, this is the answer to the tactical special charges of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation .., only the delivery options are much more curious .. here you have stealth and range .. and time
      1. K-50 3 February 2020 19: 29 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Quote: dvina71
        ..here to you and secrecy and range .. and time

        And here is secrecy and range? If the strike with tactical nuclear weapons is on Russian territory, then the answer will be on the territory of the pin of owls, but already strategic. The final. Civilization begins with a "clean slate".
        1. dvina71 3 February 2020 19: 35 New
          • 3
          • 9
          -6
          Quote: K-50
          If the strike with tactical nuclear weapons is on Russian territory, then the answer will be on the territory of pin to owls, but already strategic. The final. Civilization begins with a "clean slate".

          Do you have a wedge of light converging on the Russian-state confrontation? Does the USA have no other tasks? Now they have a problem collecting infantry to attack Iran. But if the bases and control centers of Iran attack a 5kt charge? I think immediately those who wish will be added, and even the real coalition will put together ..
          Destruction of military infrastructure will be critical, and infection in a day will not be dangerous .. ordinary war ...
        2. dirk182 5 February 2020 19: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: dvina71
          In fact, this is the answer to the tactical special charges of the RF Armed Forces

          So I agree with you on this. The only question is who will start and where is this limited nuclear war. It feels like all the roads lead to Poland. What do you think?
      2. PSih2097 3 February 2020 19: 34 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: dvina71
        here you have secrecy

        what secrecy can we talk about if the carrier is a "trident", SPRN will yell from the moment the rocket is launched ...
        1. dvina71 3 February 2020 20: 07 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: PSih2097
          what secrecy can we talk about if the carrier is a "trident", SPRN

          If only our people consider it necessary to share the information with a potential victim .. The USA will not attack directly the Russian Federation .. they will simply bring the situation to the 90s level and submit to the UN a resolution on the protection of potentially dangerous facilities inside the Russian Federation, in connection with large-scale unrest .. Further, the occupation and the deriban of Russian pantries .. another hundred years of satisfying life in the west are guaranteed ..
          At the same time, having gained control of the Russian triad, they will redirect it to China .. many more years of satisfying life ..
          Small ulcers are for pacifying small, but autonomous .. types of Iran, Algeria .. it’s troublesome to fight them, but to defuse the bb at their bases .. and then come and take what you need.
    3. Vasily Ponomarev 3 February 2020 19: 19 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      don’t worry, we’ll all go to heaven, and they’ll just die, mind you’re not my phrase
      1. Charik 3 February 2020 23: 13 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        they will all hide in underground bunkers and the rest will burn on the surface
    4. Range 3 February 2020 21: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: K-50
      Strange pin-owl logic. what


      Sir, in order to avoid excesses with the site moderators, it is better to call them "state penguins." This is a translation of your expression from Serbian.
  3. Lamata 3 February 2020 18: 13 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    And what is the real TTX? who knows.
    1. PSih2097 3 February 2020 19: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      BB or rockets?
    2. Passing 3 February 2020 22: 03 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      United States nuclear forces, 2019
      Production has begun of a low-yield version of the W76-1 known as W76-2, which only uses the warhead fission primary to produce a yield of 5–7 kilotons. The First Production Unit of the W76-2 was completed at the Pantex Plant on February 22, 2019, and the full complement of warheads are scheduled for delivery to the Navy by the end of Fiscal Year 2019 (NNSA 2019). It is unknown how many W76-2 will be produced, but the NPR says it's a “small number” (Department of Defense 2018, 54), probably less than 50.

      Everything coincides, so what do you think that TTX from the article does not suit you?
  4. arhitroll 3 February 2020 18: 14 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    we are crazy in full and in a fiery paradise ...
  5. Alex_Bora 3 February 2020 18: 19 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    And it seems to me that this is a weapon for intimidation of various Basharov Asadov, Huseynov, and most importantly - the current allies or partners from the "divorce and maiden name."
    To like Izya at the border: "Shah, no one is going anywhere"
    1. ares1988 3 February 2020 18: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      So on bmpd you agree. They also believe that this measure is, first of all, directed against Iran and the DPRK. And, yes - it lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
  6. Amateur 3 February 2020 18: 20 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The formal reason for creating the product is W76 Mod. 2 became the actions of Moscow.

    NS Khrushchev wanted to detonate the "Kuzkin mother" of 100 megatons, but changed his mind and pulled the bomb with a "reduced" power. Only 50 megatons. wassat
  7. vadi64 3 February 2020 18: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I’m even afraid to evaluate the adequacy of the Pentagon general, not even of this described “weapon” ...
  8. Skay 3 February 2020 18: 35 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    The nuclear filling in them has worn out in charges, but there is no new one. Therefore, the W76 Mod was born. 2.
  9. rotkiv04 3 February 2020 18: 37 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    They think that if they hit with a charge of low power, they will be answered the same? No, then everything will be adult and the whole world in ruins, why do we need such a world without Russia
  10. Operator 3 February 2020 18: 38 New
    • 9
    • 5
    +4
    The only criterion for Russia not to take a decision on a massive retaliatory nuclear strike against the US national territory is the fact that the calculated trajectories (according to the Voronezh airborne radar data) of US military ICBM, SLBM and, in the future, airborne missile defense outside the Russian Federation’s territory are sent.

    If at least one calculated trajectory of the American warheads ends on our national trajectory, then no one will bother with fortune-telling on the coffee grounds - and what is the power of this unit, they simply press the big red button and get ahead of the United States with the application of an MPNR.

    Therefore, it is logical to assume that the low-power nuclear weapons of the United States are not intended for the Russian Federation or China, but for Iran and other countries of the Third World.
    1. Charik 3 February 2020 23: 29 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      what kind of dibil came up with the third world — what is this underground or underwater world — on earth all countries and all people are the same from the skin of bones and meat in brick-wooden houses and they will all die the same
  11. ximkim 3 February 2020 19: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The only criterion for Russia not to take a decision on a massive retaliatory nuclear strike against the US national territory is the fact that the calculated trajectories (according to the Voronezh airborne radar data) of US military ICBM, SLBM and, in the future, airborne missile defense outside the Russian Federation’s territory are sent.

    If at least one calculated trajectory of the American warheads ends on our national trajectory, then no one will bother with fortune-telling on the coffee grounds - and what is the power of this unit, they simply press the big red button and get ahead of the United States with the application of an MPNR.

    Therefore, it is logical to assume that the low-power nuclear weapons of the United States are not intended for the Russian Federation or China, but for Iran and other countries of the Third World.

    hi The charge, as it were, is not particularly annoying. It strains that this charge may fall on our country.
  12. Cowbra 3 February 2020 19: 08 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Listen, NATA, there is a thing - a garrison lip.

    And let go? You - Khan
  13. Prisoner 3 February 2020 19: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    When there is nothing to frighten and bend, such dances with a tambourine, or rather with thermonuclear munitions, are arranged. Perceived as a tantrum, but a tantrum with unpredictable consequences.
  14. Avior 3 February 2020 19: 56 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    . According to the 2018 US Nuclear Policy Review, project W76-2 was designed to respond to new challenges from third countries.

    Actually, the author corrected himself later in the article. This is a project strictly against Russia, and this is how it is presented in the US nuclear strategy published in February 2018.
    It is important why the SLBM is chosen.
    There is an opportunity to choose a target and declare it before launching - you still can’t shoot down a rocket
    At the same time, there is no reason to start a big war - everyone knows that the rocket is one and where it flies
  15. ABM
    ABM 3 February 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    only, as I understand it, this is not a "New thermonuclear warhead", but a nuclear warhead - a thermonuclear reaction is not provided
    1. Hermit21 4 February 2020 09: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is the initiating plutonium charge with the MGM of the main warhead
  16. Chingachguk 3 February 2020 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I won’t understand one thing, the United States has loaded a couple of tactical charges onto the boat, and the whole world is already preparing for the fact that this will affect the international situation. Russia creates a hyper sound, the first in the world today! And it absolutely doesn’t affect anything, and many still believe that it’s just cartoons, and how they drove to the Russian Federation, they’re driving ...
    1. Suhoy 4 February 2020 23: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Apparently these many know a lot more than ours. And cartoons can be just cartoons.
  17. Charik 3 February 2020 22: 43 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    most likely these are hypersonic maneuvering warheads
    1. Hermit21 4 February 2020 09: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This is the initiating plutonium charge with the MGM of the main warhead
  18. Hermit21 4 February 2020 09: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Place low-power charges on strategic carriers is cretinism. Because no one will find out if 5 kilotons flies there or 100. In response, they will work according to the full program. By the way, the Americans spied on this addiction at the Britons. But those who have at least oatmeal, fife-o-klok, could and intercourse with dead pigs as an excuse for mental disability laughing
  19. Pushkowed 4 February 2020 11: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Americans themselves consider the concept of "escalation to de-escalate" flawed and inoperative. This is worn with her, as with a written bag. But Americans see this as a manifestation of weakness. The main drawback of this strategy is this: during the exchange of point-wise low-power nuclear strikes (moreover, strictly in turn and strictly for military purposes!) one of the parties must make a political decision DO NOT RESPOND to another blow and sit down at the negotiating table. Well, or continue the war by non-nuclear means. An alternative is a full-blown nuclear war. Since the days of the Cold War, Americans are confident that they will not be able to make a "capitulatory" decision. So two options are seen:
    Option 1. Psychological changes in American society in recent years have forced them to reconsider their views. To become more prone to concessions in order to preserve their skins.
    Option 2. All this is disinfecting for the removal of eyes. And the real purpose of W76-2 is that it is a weapon of aggression. High-precision ammunition for the destruction of silos and command posts in the counter-force first strike.
  20. 5-9
    5-9 4 February 2020 12: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Gospadi ... we are not talking about attacks on the territory of the Homeland and Homeland, we are talking about third countries. Even the ATS and NATO plans at the time of the highest tension involved hundreds and almost a thousand tactical-level nuclear strikes against Poland, the GDR, the FRG and Denmark, etc ... but without the USSR and the USA. MRYAU SYS with millions of dead Russians and Americans do not need anyone.
    We have an overwhelming quantitative and qualitative (in terms of carriers) quantity of tactical nuclear weapons ..... for information, after an air blast of 2 ktn a year later you can walk through the epicenter ... it’s better not to eat mushrooms. And if this happens near Krakow? There is no apocalypse and terrible horror ... just weapons that we will use and will escalate .... their eyes have opened and they are trying to somehow rectify the situation .... and okay, replacing W-76-2 with 5 ctn instead of the W-76-1 for 90 ctn, not bad for us
  21. dirk182 5 February 2020 19: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: vadi64
    I'm even afraid to evaluate the adequacy of the Pentagon general

    what are you afraid of? How many years we live in the eternal confrontation-modernization and still live. Do not be afraid. There are no idiots.
  22. Igor Polovodov 6 March 2020 17: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Escalation for the sake of de-escalation - a form of terrorism