"Bad idea": Biden opposes arming US Navy submarines with "low-yield" nuclear warheads

Preparing for the inauguration, Joseph Biden made a statement about Donald Trump's proposal to equip US Navy submarines with missiles with "low-yield" nuclear warheads. We are talking about ICBMs Trident in a modified warhead. Trump voiced such a proposal several times, arguing that this "will allow us to cope with various threats at sea."

Joe Biden, commenting on this proposal, literally stated the following:

It is a bad idea.

According to Biden, he does not support the idea of ​​arming American submarines with "low-yield" nuclear weapons.

We are talking about the W76-2 warheads. Some time ago, there were reports of the completion of the planning cycle for the production of these warheads for the needs of the Navy, which in itself was called a "controversial decision."

Now Biden has made it clear that the W76-2 is unlikely to be used on US Navy submarines. And if they are already using it?

Joe Biden:

Using such weaponsis, according to many experts, alarming. It increases the risks. I will say it again - using such warheads on submarines is definitely a bad idea.

At the same time, the report of the relevant US departments says that "the required amount of W76-2 has already been assembled and delivered to the Navy." The production was carried out at the Pantex plant in Texas.

According to some reports, such warheads were installed on ICBMs, which are armed with the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) submarine of the Ohio class.

If this is the case, then the question arises: after Biden came to power, the W76-2 warheads will be removed from the missiles already used by the underwater fleet USA? American reporters did not ask Biden this question.

Comments

[Lech from Android.]

Both Trump and Biden have bad ideas.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Lech from Android.

Both Trump and Biden have bad ideas.

Biden is absolutely right here: such a weapon lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, creating the illusion of the possibility of being limited to local use, without global consequences.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Olgovich

such a weapon reduces the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons,

The threshold of responsibility is seated

[Temples]

The otvetka will arrive at least for a small charge, at least for a large one.
Even if there is no charge at all, the response will arrive.

For an ICBM flying in our direction is an act of aggression to which, according to the doctrine, we must send a nuclear response.
Obliged.
The whole world is in dust after launching an ICBM in our direction.

Here is such a thing.

And Biden knows it. For not a boy for a long time.

[YOUR]

Or another, for example, commercial interest. The re-equipment of the missiles will be transferred to controlled structures.

[XXXIII]

Quote: Lech from Android.

Both Trump and Biden have bad ideas.

Yep, another savior of the world.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: XXXIII

Yep, another savior of the world.

And also a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Peace, like the unwashed one who unleashed wars, but received the Nobel Prize

[iouris]

Quote: Lech from Android.

both have bad ideas.

They have no other ideas for us. It is important that the leadership of the Russian Federation does not have bad ideas.
Biden (if he lives to see his inauguration) will lead the case to deprive the Russian Federation of nuclear weapons by forcing them to "limitation treaties." In the current situation, any limitation of the Russian Federation's ability to defend itself is an extremely dangerous business. Biden can negotiate, for example, ... with Ukraine.

[Thrifty]

Biden, become an American "Gorbachev" - let all the submarines, for a start, "on pins and needles!" And then there are aircraft carriers and cruisers behind! !!

[Revolver]

Quote: Thrifty

Biden, become an American Gorbachev

He does not decide anything, he would not forget that in the toilet he must first take off his pants, and then do all the other things. So contact his puppeteers. And they receive a salary and instructions from Soros, so by and large all questions are for him.

[VASH ONS]

... rather to Rothschild and his family, and something tells that the "white house" may not reach ... business.

[MinskFox]

If there is anyone behind Biden and co, then it is not Rothschild and not Soros, but people whose names we do not know.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Thrifty

"! And there are aircraft carriers and cruisers behind! !!

Don't forget aviation

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Thrifty

Biden, become an American Gorbachev! !!

In my opinion - D. Biden = K.U. Chernenko usa.

[mvg]

Lord, are you a special trying to look like an ITIE or is it so arbitrary?

[Hunter 2]

Bidon will specifically adjust Trump's nuclear program. His first statement on changing the budget for this program, now on warheads. Well ... we'll see what he thinks out there.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Hunter 2

Well ... we'll see what he thinks out there.

At his age, "thinking" is already difficult.
Therefore, most likely, he delegates this function to someone from his henchmen, possibly a "Mexican-Indian".
But, whatever he comes up with, it seems to me that it will be "the same eggs, side view!" (from).

[Alex777]

Let's hope so hard. Biden definitely doesn't need a nuclear war.
Yes, and the second such risky as Trump, we do not need in the States.
Trump's assertion that wars (elections) are "easily won" I immediately disliked.

[D16]

The use of such weapons is considered by many experts to be alarming. It increases the risks. I will say it again - using such warheads on submarines is definitely a bad idea.

And grandfather is right. You cannot use ICBMs in local showdowns. May be misunderstood.

[Ham]

you need to match the needs with the possibilities ...
As I understand it, the weight and power of warheads did not decrease because of a good life, but for very specific reasons

[Avior]

They were created in connection with the concept of a single retaliatory strike put forward in the US nuclear strategy.
The Americans, after Obama destroyed the nuclear-powered Tomahawks, have virtually no way of delivering a limited, pinpoint nuclear strike. They have very few tactical nuclear weapons in general, mostly free-fall bombs. And they have nothing to respond to a single nuclear strike, except to start a full-scale nuclear war.

[timokhin-aa]

They were created in connection with the concept of a single retaliatory strike put forward in the US nuclear strategy.

And in what year was this strategy adopted?

[Avior]

2018 if I'm not mistaken
Nuclear Posture Review
Released every eight years
This is a short official version in Russian on the Pentagon website
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872876/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-TRANSLATION-RUSSIAN.PDF
Described in section

IMPROVING CONTAINMENT EFFICIENCY WITH NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES AND FACILITIES

Page 9-11

In addition, in the short term, the United States plans to modify a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​to be able to use low-yield nuclear warheads, and in the longer term, move to the use of sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM). Unlike the DCA, low-yield SLBMs and SLCMs do not need host country support to remain an effective deterrent. They will provide additional diversification of platforms, range of nuclear weapons, range and combat capability, and will serve

an important insurance against an unpredictable nuclear scenario.

[timokhin-aa]

Congress allocated money for this work in the fall of 1996, immediately after Yeltsin was elected President of the Russian Federation. Development began in 1997.
W76-2 is an old project, it dates back to the same time as the LCS with the Zumwalts - when the US was preparing for the final forceful sweep of humanity.
They just didn't have time.

[Avior]

You need to look at the old strategies, maybe this has already happened.
But in 1996 they could easily make tactical charges without converting them from strategic ones.
Are you sure that we were not talking about other heads - with adjustable detonation power?
To be honest, I haven’t met, and the term is too long since 1996.
And the development time is too big.
A year or two is another matter, but not 24.

[timokhin-aa]

The beginning of experimental work - 1997, in America the financial year begins in the fall of the previous calendar.
Then, by the way, they had Tomahawks with special warheads and there was no need for high-precision weapons for SLBMs at all.

[Avior]

I heard that before that they made a charge of regulated power, but now we are talking about something else.

[Vladimir_2U]

American reporters did not ask Biden this question.

The general level of amerskoy journalism has slipped, and serious journalists are not allowed to reach it. Enough shame with Zhenya Psaki, but here is generally an old man.

[APASUS]

How interesting is the American policy in the field of nuclear weapons. The most paradoxical is that nuclear charges take years to build, but each president can cancel the program of the previous president.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: APASUS

but each president can cancel the program of the previous president.

All programs go through Congress approval. Those for which appropriations have been allocated are no longer canceled, but revised ...

[APASUS]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

All programs go through Congress approval. Those for which appropriations have been allocated are no longer canceled, but revised ...

Not why are they being revised, first they needed missiles with low-power charges, and then no. Is this in my opinion a rejection of the program or am I confusing something?

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: APASUS

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

All programs go through Congress approval. Those for which appropriations have been allocated are no longer canceled, but revised ...

Not why are they being revised, first they needed missiles with low-power charges, and then no. Is this in my opinion a rejection of the program or am I confusing something?

The Pentagon's R&D programs are funded by selected companies.
But the question of acceptance into service is considered in Congress under the question "Against whom and how much?"
Well, and then - pure politics - how many congressmen will vote "for" or "against".
The rationale behind the vote is substantiated by the administration of the US President with its statements like "if we don't accept it and don't build it, we'll have a kirdyk from Russia and China."
In light of what is happening in the overseas country, it is not yet clear what Biden and his comrades will do ...
PS
Happy New Year, colleagues!
Happy and prosperous New Year!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: APASUS

Is this in my opinion a rejection of the program or am I confusing something?

The new nuclear strategy was adopted by the Trump administration in early 2018 and unveiled in February of that year. There were no more revisions of the nuclear strategy.
But orders for the conversion of W76-1 into W76-2 are likely to be hacked to death, because Bydown believes that reducing power from 100 kt to 5-6 ... reduces the strength of the States. They have 6,8 thousand tactical charges, mainly in aviation BPs. But in order to overcome a strong air defense it is easier to "send" an SLBM than to risk a flyer and an aircraft. Therefore, the military under Trump decided to "cut sturgeon" from the Navy to 5-6 kt ...

[rocket757]

So it looks like the new administration is simply against everything that was started under the previous one.
It is unlikely that the very idea, limited by a vigorous war, will be forgotten, buried.
I can’t believe it, in general.

[Orkraider]

All with the coming!


This Biden solution is reasonable, but on the other hand, if as stated in the article:

At the same time, the report of the relevant US departments says that "the required amount of W76-2 has already been assembled and delivered to the Navy."

This statement is populism.

[Old26]

Quote: Temples

The otvetka will arrive at least for a small charge, at least for a large one.

For some reason, most of the readers believe that the US has only one enemy. And he doesn't have others. The same Iran, or the DPRK, or someone else in the Middle East, or Latin America. the calculation was made that firstly this will not cause such fierce opposition in the world as the use of 1 or 100 kt warheads. Secondly, this lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. For example, against the same Iran, the United States would hardly have used strategic nuclear weapons with SSBNs, because this would cause an unpredictable reaction. But to dash around the underground nuclear plants of Iran 400 kt BG is a completely different matter. A minimum of destruction, a minimum of infection (for yourself), plus it is easy to become "white and fluffy", we will destroy 2 kt with a charge of 5 thousand people, instead of 5-6 million.
Or maybe just "resistance" to everything that Trump does (as Trump did everything against what other presidents did before him).

Quote: YOUR

Or another, for example, commercial interest. The re-equipment of the missiles will be transferred to controlled structures.

Alteration of charges is done at the same plant. Retrofitting - it will be during the next regulation. They will remove one type of BG and replace it with another

[Avior]

For example, against the same Iran, the United States would hardly have used strategic nuclear weapons with SSBNs

They are unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
They have bombs for relatively widespread use.
They remake submarine missiles in limited quantities, 2 missiles per boat, in order to be able to say that in two hours a blow will be struck on such a city or region, and there was no way to reflect it.
You can't do this with bombs - a single carrier can be knocked down, if several - a single blow will not work