Military Review

A batch of "low-yield" nuclear warheads W76-2 delivered to the US Navy

72
A batch of "low-yield" nuclear warheads W76-2 delivered to the US Navy

While the new US President Joe Biden opposes the idea of ​​arming American submarines with "low-yield" nuclear weapons, the United States has completed production of a batch of the latest low-yield nuclear warheads W76-2. This was reported by the National Nuclear Safety Administration.


The new warheads have already been donated to the US Navy to equip parts of the Trident II (D5) ICBMs in the Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSBNs). Armed with missiles with new warheads, the submarines have already entered combat duty.


The total number of transferred warheads in the batch is not reported, however, American military experts say that the Pentagon has received at least 2019 new nuclear warheads W50-76 with a yield of 2-5 kilotons from November 6 to the present day.

It is noted that each SSBN carries two missiles with a "low-power" warhead, the remaining 18 Trident II missiles are still equipped with warheads W76-1 with a capacity of 90 kilotons and W88 with a capacity of 455 kilotons.

The decision to re-equip some of the missiles with "low-power" nuclear warheads was made by the Donald Trump administration "to contain Russia." According to American politicians, Moscow may feel that the United States will not want to use its nuclear weapon in case of confrontation with the Russian Federation, as the current nuclear weapons have too much power.

However, this decision caused a mixed reaction. According to some experts, the enemy will still not find out that a missile with a low-power nuclear warhead has been launched against him and in response will send his own, but more powerful one.

Trident is a family of three-stage American solid-propellant ballistic missiles deployed on submarines. The missile can carry up to 14 warheads W76 (100 kt) or up to 8 W88 (475 kt), which are also being upgraded.
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 30 December 2020 18: 34
    0
    The missile can carry up to 14 W76 warheads (100 kt) or up to 8 W88 (475 kt), which are also being upgraded.

    Yes, this is serious.
    God forbid it will fly ...
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 30 December 2020 18: 57
      0
      Lipchanin is sarcasm, or are you serious? ??
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 30 December 2020 19: 00
        +2
        Quote: Thrifty
        Lipchanin is sarcasm, or are you serious? ??

        What sarcasm is there when this is aimed at you?
        about 14 warheads W76 (100 kt) or up to 8 W88 (475 kt),
        1. Thrifty
          Thrifty 30 December 2020 19: 07
          +3
          Lipchanin - I thought you were frightened by the five-kiloton warheads. .. hi
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 30 December 2020 19: 15
            0
            Quote: Thrifty
            five kiloton warheads scared you. ..

            Thrifty, not frightened, but strained
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 30 December 2020 20: 07
        0
        Quote: Thrifty
        Lipchanin is sarcasm, or are you serious? ??

        What do you think. A small charge, a smaller carrier, is more difficult to detect and an air defense battalion is being destroyed. So it's quite serious. By the way, we have no joke combat readiness on the B-61 carriers. In the sense of the Paramilitary Organization
        1. Tcheluskin
          Tcheluskin 30 December 2020 22: 02
          +6
          Small charge, less carrier

          Evil tongues say that the W76-2 is just "rotten" W76: the charge is less, only the mass-dimensional characteristics and, as a result, the carriers are the same.
  2. frruc
    frruc 30 December 2020 18: 54
    +19
    According to some experts, the enemy will still not find out that a missile with a nuclear warhead of reduced power has been launched against him and in response will send his own, but more powerful one.

    What difference does it make to the power of the warhead on the Trident II, in return they will receive a "Kuzkin mother", such as "Bulava" "Sineva" with all the proletarian hatred, as they say.
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 30 December 2020 19: 21
      +12
      "blue" splashed ...
      on the Stalin strait
      1. Land defence
        Land defence 31 December 2020 08: 28
        +15
        Quote: Anchorite
        "blue" splashed ...
        on the Stalin strait

        To ensure freedom of navigation
        1. Anachoret
          Anachoret 31 December 2020 10: 49
          +1
          I dare to clarify, "peaceful shipping strategic missile carriers and cruisers of Russia "
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 30 December 2020 19: 38
      +10
      Quote: frruc
      What difference does it make to the power of the warhead on the Trident II, in return they will receive a "Kuzkin mother", such as "Bulava" "Sineva" with all the proletarian hatred, as they say.

      Is World War III knocking on the door? America leads her by the hand, I think ...
    3. Tusv
      Tusv 30 December 2020 20: 17
      +5
      Quote: frruc
      According to some experts, the enemy will still not find out that a missile with a low-power nuclear warhead has been launched against him.

      We all know and see, only we have to answer with Satan or an analogue of Sarmat, so that there is no excruciating pain for the last one that was lived aimlessly. give me a sec
    4. dauria
      dauria 30 December 2020 22: 42
      +2
      type "Bulava" "Sineva" with all the proletarian hatred, as they say.


      No. These charges are not for an implacable enemy. This is for hesitant viewers. Who are standing next to the fight and drooling. Here is a clear signal for them, "Dear goats, hold back the Wishlist and do not shine."
      Clearly, briefly and intelligibly - "We are ready to break in to the full, do you want to check?" And the price of only 5 thousand lives, you think, the shopping center with customers burned down. The world will swallow in silence.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 30 December 2020 18: 56
    +10
    We need to declare thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 megatons "ultra-low-power", and create a dozen of them! !!
    1. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 30 December 2020 19: 43
      -3
      Quote: Thrifty
      We need to declare thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 megatons "ultra-low-power", and create a dozen of them! !!

      Zvizdets planet ... Sakharov, at one time, proposed to blow up 100 megatons on Novaya Zemlya - as a result, they reduced it to 50, they were afraid to split the earth's crust. In theory, there is no power limit, there is common sense. And, for example, New York or Chicago, in order to feel how it is to fight with Russia - and one, in my opinion, megatons for tonsils ...
      1. Oprichnik
        Oprichnik 30 December 2020 20: 53
        +5
        Recently there was an article, and in it a knowledgeable person with graphs and other clarifying details and figures, argued that such large cities for a complete "Arctic fox" need, as it were, not a dozen 1Mgt of charges.
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 30 December 2020 20: 57
          +2
          Quote: Oprichnik
          Recently there was an article, and in it a knowledgeable person with graphs and other clarifying details and figures, argued that such large cities for a complete "Arctic fox" need, as it were, not a dozen 1Mgt of charges.

          Let me remind you that "only" 20 kilotons were dropped on Hiroshima, of which 16 were detonated. So the question here is not to destroy Nuyork, but to panic all of America. And for this one megaton - for tonsils. Remember their shock on September 11, or, for example, Pearl Harbor ... And Stalingrad on August 23, 1942, America never dreamed of even in nightmares ...
          1. El Chuvachino
            El Chuvachino 30 December 2020 23: 47
            +2
            Exchange of nuclear weapons between countries is not about panic, but about destruction.
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 31 December 2020 00: 12
              -2
              Quote: El Chuvachino
              Exchange of nuclear weapons between countries is not about panic, but about destruction.

              About the destruction of CIVILIZATION ... I would say so.
      2. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 31 December 2020 09: 29
        +2
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Quote: Thrifty
        We need to declare thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 megatons "ultra-low-power", and create a dozen of them! !!

        Zvizdets planet ... Sakharov, at one time, proposed to blow up 100 megatons on Novaya Zemlya - as a result, they reduced it to 50, they were afraid to split the earth's crust. In theory, there is no power limit, there is common sense. And, for example, New York or Chicago, in order to feel how it is to fight with Russia - and one, in my opinion, megatons for tonsils ...

        The earth will not notice either 100 or 1000 mt, do not write nonsense
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 31 December 2020 09: 57
          0
          Quote: Vol4ara
          The earth will not notice either 100 or 1000 mt, do not write nonsense

          I am not an academician Sakharov, I will not argue. But, probably, when he blew up 50 megatons, he knew better than you and I put together.
          1. Vol4ara
            Vol4ara 31 December 2020 10: 53
            +2
            Quote: Zoldat_A
            Quote: Vol4ara
            The earth will not notice either 100 or 1000 mt, do not write nonsense

            I am not an academician Sakharov, I will not argue. But, probably, when he blew up 50 megatons, he knew better than you and I put together.

            Of course, he knows better, so he removed the uranium circuit from the reaction, replacing it with lead, not because of fear for Mother Earth, but because of the fear that the landfill would become clogged with fission products so much that it would be very problematic to work on it later, this is the only reason abandonment of 100 mt
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 31 December 2020 11: 04
              -1
              Quote: Vol4ara
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              Quote: Vol4ara
              The earth will not notice either 100 or 1000 mt, do not write nonsense

              I am not an academician Sakharov, I will not argue. But, probably, when he blew up 50 megatons, he knew better than you and I put together.

              Of course, he knows better, so he removed the uranium circuit from the reaction, replacing it with lead, not because of fear for Mother Earth, but because of the fear that the landfill would become clogged with fission products so much that it would be very problematic to work on it later, this is the only reason abandonment of 100 mt

              It is written in Wikipedia. And what I voiced - the participants of the project spoke on TV. I heard about 10 years ago.
              1. Vol4ara
                Vol4ara 31 December 2020 11: 10
                0
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Quote: Vol4ara
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Quote: Vol4ara
                The earth will not notice either 100 or 1000 mt, do not write nonsense

                I am not an academician Sakharov, I will not argue. But, probably, when he blew up 50 megatons, he knew better than you and I put together.

                Of course, he knows better, so he removed the uranium circuit from the reaction, replacing it with lead, not because of fear for Mother Earth, but because of the fear that the landfill would become clogged with fission products so much that it would be very problematic to work on it later, this is the only reason abandonment of 100 mt

                It is written in Wikipedia. And what I voiced - the participants of the project spoke on TV. I heard about 10 years ago.

                It may have been written, but nevertheless this is official information and it is also voiced in many memoirs and in specialized literature. And choosing who to believe, wiki or TV, is undoubtedly a wiki.


                But the crater Chikshulub, formed as a result of a meteorite fall. And now attention - the released energy is about 100 teratons, and this is 2 million times higher than the power of the king of the bomb on Novaya Zemlya. And as you can see, this did not significantly affect either the Earth or life on it, yes, it made many dominant animal species outsiders, but this did not even throw evolution to bacteria and fungi, mammals have quite adapted to themselves and became dominants
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 December 2020 23: 02
      +1
      Starting from a certain (30 or 50 Mt, EMNIP), a piece of the atmosphere is simply thrown into space, because of which the radius of damage begins to grow noticeably slower than the usual cube root of power. And the mass of the warhead will continue to grow as usual. It makes no sense to bother. The only option that I heard about when we were considering a super-powerful 400Mt warhead was to turn off the western hemisphere with an electromagnetic pulse by detonating it in space.
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 31 December 2020 11: 23
        +1
        Quote: bk0010
        considered a super-powerful 400Mt warhead - to turn off the western hemisphere with an electromagnetic pulse by detonating it in space.

        To turn off the Western Hemisphere with an electromagnetic pulse, it is better to simultaneously detonate 3 warheads of 150Mt each over the Western Hemisphere or over the North Magnetic Pole, at a distance of 12800 km from one another at the tops of an equilateral triangle in space at an altitude of 6400 km above the Earth. Shock waves from these three nuclear forces will close into a closed electrically conductive plasma circuit, compress and strengthen the Earth's magnetic field captured by them, which will lead to catastrophic electromagnetic interference in power systems, power transmission lines and cable lines located in the western hemisphere under the barycenter of an equilateral triangle of centers of three nuclear forces.
    3. Land defence
      Land defence 31 December 2020 08: 32
      +15
      Quote: Thrifty
      We need to declare 100 megaton thermonuclear charges "ultra-low-power"

      And who checked these "low-power" from the States? Maybe they lied too.
  4. yfast
    yfast 30 December 2020 19: 00
    +4
    Quote: Thrifty
    We need to declare thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 megatons "ultra-low-power", and create a dozen of them! !!

    It is necessary to make all 10 megaton warheads so that the partners have no illusions.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 30 December 2020 19: 05
      +5
      yfast - all 10 megatons each, and a dozen warheads of 100 megatons, or 20 50 megatons good lol
      1. DEVIL LIFE`S
        DEVIL LIFE`S 30 December 2020 19: 25
        +2
        I am for, and it is necessary to declare the purpose of these missiles - the development of democratic values ​​in the world, or that they are against terrorists in Africa.
        1. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 30 December 2020 20: 54
          +1
          Good suggestion!!! Well done comrade Madaminov!
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 December 2020 23: 05
      +4
      It has long been calculated that 0.15-0.2 MT is optimal for treating non-buried targets, and 0.5 - 0.8 MT for buried targets. 10 goals of 0.2 MT will cover a larger area than one in 10 MT.
  5. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2020 19: 20
    +1
    Quote: yfast
    Quote: Thrifty
    We need to declare thermonuclear charges with a capacity of 100 megatons "ultra-low-power", and create a dozen of them! !!

    It is necessary to make all 10 megaton warheads so that the partners have no illusions.

    Exactly. And leave a couple of dozen "Voevod" capable of carrying such charges. And all other missiles (land and sea) should be written off as unnecessary trash.

    Quote: Thrifty
    yfast - all 10 megatons each, and a dozen warheads of 100 megatons, or 20 50 megatons good lol

    Answering the previous speaker to his proposal, I understood that at least a couple of "Voevod" zhysyachki would be needed. And after reading your post, I realized that I was wrong and we will have to write off all our missiles as unnecessary junk. Until the last
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 30 December 2020 20: 29
      0
      The old 26 does not require these warheads to be used immediately, they are not milk, they will not turn sour hi
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 30 December 2020 23: 10
        +2
        Sour. During storage, as a result of nuclear decay in the assembly, the amount of extremely active plutonium-238 increases, after exceeding its content in the activator, the assembly will be blown apart before the first kilotons are released. Pshik will turn out instead of an explosion. Therefore, charges are regularly sent for recovery.
  6. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 30 December 2020 19: 21
    +3
    In general, an interesting question: against whom is it planned to be used? Obviously against someone who has little or no nuclear weapons.
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 30 December 2020 19: 28
      0
      Nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon. Nobody is going to use it. Regardless of the charging power. But who to scare is also understandable. Russia.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 30 December 2020 19: 45
        +1
        For containment, the larger the charge, the better, especially considering that the 5 kt warhead and 90 kt are the same size.

        Low power is advisable either if it is planned to use it on its territory or next to its troops (but this is not for ballistic missiles), or if the opinion of the UN or something similar will matter after use.
        1. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 30 December 2020 20: 59
          +1
          If nuclear weapons are used, then the UN and other trekkontors DO NOT give a damn and forget, and not only their opinion, but also about their existence
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 02: 09
            +2
            Yes, that's not a fact.

            Example: The United States is using 3-10 five-kiloton warheads against Iran.

            So, what is next? Russia or China will start a nuclear war with the USA? No, they won't. Iran will respond with something? It is unlikely to fly.

            And this is where the excuse comes out of his sleeve, saying that they were not totalitarian killers of cities, but kosher democratic bombs ... Considering who protects the UN, the result may be interesting.
            1. SVD68
              SVD68 31 December 2020 07: 06
              0
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Example: The United States is using 3-10 five-kiloton warheads against Iran.

              Let's look at this example. Our early warning system for the attack reports that SLBMs are starting from the Indian Ocean, by all indications of Trident II, moving north. How do we react to this?
              1. Vol4ara
                Vol4ara 31 December 2020 09: 32
                0
                Quote: SVD68
                Quote: Sancho_SP
                Example: The United States is using 3-10 five-kiloton warheads against Iran.

                Let's look at this example. Our early warning system for the attack reports that SLBMs are starting from the Indian Ocean, by all indications of Trident II, moving north. How do we react to this?

                Yeah, it starts and moves along a ballistic trajectory and the points of its fall in the north are immediately known
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 31 December 2020 11: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Vol4ara
                  Yeah, it starts and moves along a ballistic trajectory and the points of its fall in the north are immediately known

                  The fact of the matter is that not immediately. But you need to react immediately - otherwise there may simply not be enough time to make a decision, to pass the launch command and to test it on the ground.
                  That is, after the detection of each such launch, the readiness of the RF Armed Forces immediately rises to maximum. Then the adversary goes symmetrically to DEFCON 1.
                  And then the whole world prays that no one will lose their nerves, and that SPYAU correctly estimates the area of ​​the possible fall of the warhead. Measurement error, the spot fell on Orenburg - the enemy inflicts a disarming blow with full-fledged warheads, an immediate symmetrical response is needed. And then - off we go ... rockets slowly float away.
                  1. Vol4ara
                    Vol4ara 31 December 2020 11: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Quote: Vol4ara
                    Yeah, it starts and moves along a ballistic trajectory and the points of its fall in the north are immediately known

                    The fact of the matter is that not immediately. But you need to react immediately - otherwise there may simply not be enough time to make a decision, to pass the launch command and to test it on the ground.
                    That is, after the detection of each such launch, the readiness of the RF Armed Forces immediately rises to maximum. Then the adversary goes symmetrically to DEFCON 1.
                    And then the whole world prays that no one will lose their nerves, and that SPYAU correctly estimates the area of ​​the possible fall of the warhead. Measurement error, the spot fell on Orenburg - the enemy inflicts a disarming blow with full-fledged warheads, an immediate symmetrical response is needed. And then - off we go ... rockets slowly float away.

                    I wonder how the protocols will change after the leading countries have adopted the maneuvering units
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 31 December 2020 15: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Vol4ara
                      I wonder how the protocols will change after the leading countries have adopted the maneuvering units
                      No way. A long time ago the R-36orb with a maneuvering satellite warhead was made, I think all possible options have already been taken into account.
                      1. Vol4ara
                        Vol4ara 31 December 2020 18: 30
                        0
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Quote: Vol4ara
                        I wonder how the protocols will change after the leading countries have adopted the maneuvering units
                        No way. A long time ago the R-36orb with a maneuvering satellite warhead was made, I think all possible options have already been taken into account.

                        Well, such a thing .... They will shoot in the direction of China, but it will fly to you and you will find out about it a minute before the explosion, and then without knowing exactly which object is the target. Counter-strike does not work
        2. Avior
          Avior 30 December 2020 22: 26
          +1
          US adopted a new nuclear strategy a couple of years ago
          According to this strategy, if the enemy (guess who? smile ) will use a single tactical ammunition against the US allies in order to intimidate them and force them to withdraw from the war, then the United States has nothing to answer - they have a minimum of tactical weapons, and they are of little use for a single strike, and in response it will only be necessary to start a full-fledged nuclear war.
          Therefore, we made several units of low-power missiles with guaranteed delivery.
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 30 December 2020 19: 47
      0
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      In general, an interesting question: against whom is it planned to be used? Obviously against someone who has little or no nuclear weapons.

      They don't plan to use anything. We all remember how the Yankees and North Korea tsikanuli. And the Kimov missiles were not close to the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia. Therefore, there will be no missile war. So, as usual, they will shit like cats in the corners ...
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 30 December 2020 21: 06
        0
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Is World War III knocking on the door? America leads her by the hand, I think ...


        Quote: Zoldat_A
        They don't plan to use anything


        How can such different thoughts coexist in one head?
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 30 December 2020 21: 09
          +1
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          Is World War III knocking on the door? America leads her by the hand, I think ...


          Quote: Zoldat_A
          They don't plan to use anything


          How can such different thoughts coexist in one head?

          Here is my "versatile" head - one hemisphere is left, the other is right. And they cannot make friends in any way. Which ten years. By the way, about America. She longs for war with us, but not with her own hands. Ukrainian, Moldovan, Georgian, Baltic, even Central Asian or Chinese - just not their own. Vietnam taught them a lot. So I don't see any contradiction.
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 02: 11
        +2
        And I never said anywhere that it was against Russia or China.

        That is, there is a possibility of using these bombs against any Iran or DPRK, against which the US TODAY will no longer openly pull up
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 31 December 2020 05: 17
          0
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          That is, there is a possibility of using these bombs against any Iran or DPRK, against which the US TODAY will no longer openly pull up

          I will not say for Iran, but before North Korea, the United States has ALREADY stopped short with all its bombs and aircraft carriers - we have already seen it. Cheeks puffed up - and nothing else .... It was enough for Kim to only hint about a retaliatory strike against California ... The submarine wandered somewhere at a safe distance, the fleet moved in the southern seas. Like in TOM movie -
          There is movement - no progress.
          And safely that America dumped at a safe distance.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 09: 40
            +1
            Don't idolize Kim that much. The war against the DPRK is not profitable purely economically: there is no oil there, and America is not fighting for the idea.
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 31 December 2020 09: 53
              0
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Don't idolize Kim that much.

              And I wasn’t going to ... Just to how much the clang of teeth and rattling of weapons was - and Kim did not even promise, but hinted that his missiles would be able to reach California. And that's it ... Steam into the pipe ...
    3. frruc
      frruc 30 December 2020 21: 04
      -1
      And what's the difference, against whom. If the first missile takes off from yabch. All nuclear-armed countries will bring their nuclear arsenals to hotline # 1 and use them at the first whistle.
  7. brother Goronflo
    brother Goronflo 30 December 2020 19: 21
    0
    Still, something tells me that they shouldn't hope for it ...
    I'm afraid that tomorrow, on New Year's Eve, they will launch these missiles across Iran ...
  8. Observer2014
    Observer2014 30 December 2020 19: 50
    -4
    What nonsense is it to restrain Russia with low-yield nuclear warheads. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia will bring down the full power of the Strategic Missile Forces on the foe. What kind of deer invented this garbage for them? And most importantly, convinced that everything would be like it was? And our nuclear strike, even if the low-power warheads should be missed. I have the impression that our chief strategist is your politician. Here, there. And from here. laughingWell, they replaced 10% of the BCH with "garbage" Well, what a victory, if that. Test yes hi
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 02: 13
      0
      Yes, that's clearly not against Russia. And this is bad, since they can and in fact be used against relatively weak countries.
  9. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 30 December 2020 19: 56
    0
    Apparently this is a new level of threats for the third world ... Rossi's absolutely violet power ... the fact of its use will already generate a blow to the full program and with all the consequences ... chanting of teeth about low power ... .. it won't work with Russia ...
    1. what's up
      what's up 30 December 2020 20: 44
      0
      They will hit the thermal power plant, nuclear power plant, hydroelectric power station. For heat and water supply facilities, as a last resort. Hydroelectric power plants, only if they harm the neighbors. Before that, hit the nuclear facilities ...
  10. KKND
    KKND 30 December 2020 20: 17
    0
    The decision to re-equip some of the missiles with "low-power" nuclear warheads was made by the Donald Trump administration "to contain Russia." According to American politicians, Moscow may feel that the United States will not want to use its nuclear weapons in the event of a confrontation with the Russian Federation, since the current nuclear weapons are too powerful.

    Trump is ours !!! Trump-pa-ram! fellow He just got out of the INF Treaty and questioned strategic offensive arms. Moreover, the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons was lowered. In Rostov our agent on a well-deserved pension. yes
  11. rocket757
    rocket757 30 December 2020 20: 24
    +1
    The illusion of the possibility of a "small nucleus", quickly, accurately, filigree ... very dangerous delusions in our complex world.
    nothing remains without consequences.
  12. Gunther
    Gunther 30 December 2020 21: 20
    +1
    .... new US President Joe Biden opposes the idea of ​​arming American submarines with a "low-power" nuclear weapon

    but I will support our agent Joe Beadon soldier
  13. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2020 21: 45
    +1
    Quote: Tusv
    What do you think. Small charge, less carrier, more difficult to detect

    Smaller media? The namesake, as it was "Trident-2", and remained ... With the same dimensions

    Quote: Zoldat_A
    Russia to fight - and one, in my opinion, megatons for tonsils ...

    Few. There will be destruction, human losses too, but for a city like New York they are not critical

    Quote: Oprichnik
    Recently there was an article, and in it a knowledgeable person with graphs and other clarifying details and figures, argued that such large cities for a complete "Arctic fox" need, as it were, not a dozen 1Mgt of charges.

    I guess, yes. 10 1 megaton charges are significantly more efficient than one 10 megaton charge

    Quote: Zoldat_A
    Let me remind you that "only" 20 kilotons were dropped on Hiroshima, of which 16 were detonated. So the question here is not to destroy Nuyork, but to panic all of America. And for this one megaton - for tonsils. Remember their shock on September 11, or, for example, Pearl Harbor ... And Stalingrad on August 23, 1942, America never dreamed of even in nightmares ...

    You will think that in Moscow the shock will be less from the explosion over the city of 1 megaton charge. Most people will die precisely because of panic - they will trample ...

    Quote: Thrifty
    The old 26 does not require these warheads to be used immediately, they are not milk, they will not turn sour

    Now 10 megatons can still be raised by Voevoda. In a year or two and they will not be. And the parameters of "Sarmat" in the network are most often from a flashlight. They just take it by analogy with the "Voevoda"), although what the "Sarmat" will be - no one knows for sure .. And to believe what they say is not to respect yourself

    Quote: Sancho_SP
    In general, an interesting question: against whom is it planned to be used? Obviously against someone who has little or no nuclear weapons.

    Quite right. This is when you need to destroy someone, or something, but at the same time do not make the whole country rise up against them. The same Iran. A pair of charges across Tehran (government quarter), a pair of charges across Natanz and Fordow (nuclear production). A minimum of destruction, casualties and it is unlikely that when most of the fanatics die, the rest will rise to defense (of course, all this is conditional)

    Quote: Sergey39
    Nuclear weapons are a deterrent weapon. Nobody is going to use it. Regardless of the charging power. But who to scare is also understandable. Russia.

    The United States has several of its most beloved countries, which it will gladly scare off with such charges, and, if necessary, use them. Iran, DPRK, Venezuela. If you think about it, there will be a heel or two.

    Quote: frruc
    And what's the difference, against whom. If the first missile takes off from yabch. All nuclear-armed countries will bring their nuclear arsenals to hotline # 1 and use them at the first whistle.

    Not always. it all depends on the situation. They can (in the future) install these charges on hypersonic missiles. And launching a rocket from an airplane will not cause such a reaction as an unknown (unplanned) launch from a nuclear boat

    Quote: Brother Goronflo
    Still, something tells me that they shouldn't hope for it ...
    I'm afraid that tomorrow, on New Year's Eve, they will launch these missiles across Iran ...

    Maybe they will shy away. But most likely not
  14. bk0010
    bk0010 30 December 2020 22: 55
    0
    Very good, let everyone change.
  15. IL38
    IL38 31 December 2020 01: 59
    -4
    and in response will send
    He won't send anything.
  16. Outsider
    Outsider 31 December 2020 03: 52
    -2
    Quote: Oprichnik
    Recently there was an article, and in it a knowledgeable person with graphs and other clarifying details and figures, argued that such large cities for a complete "Arctic fox" need, as it were, not a dozen 1Mgt of charges.

    - Not true. Over any city - even New York, even Moscow, it is enough to detonate a charge of 10 megatons at an altitude of 10 km - and it will completely burn out... and there will be no radioactive contamination of the area.
  17. Outsider
    Outsider 31 December 2020 03: 54
    -1
    - This small tactical nuclear weapon is designed not just for a massive exchange of nuclear strikes on cities, but for a specific war on the battlefield.
  18. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 09: 45
    0
    Quote: SVD68
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Example: The United States is using 3-10 five-kiloton warheads against Iran.

    Let's look at this example. Our early warning system for the attack reports that SLBMs are starting from the Indian Ocean, by all indications of Trident II, moving north. How do we react to this?


    10 warheads - one missile. This is not a massive launch to react to.

    Moreover, the launch can be announced in advance, even as a training one, but even as an act of retaliation for some other September 11th. A terrorist attack with a dirty bomb would be a low tide by the way.
  19. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 31 December 2020 09: 59
    0
    Quote: Zoldat_A
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Don't idolize Kim that much.

    And I wasn’t going to ... Just to how much the clang of teeth and rattling of weapons was - and Kim did not even promise, but hinted that his missiles would be able to reach California. And that's it ... Steam into the pipe ...


    Again, I'm not sure what is connected. The DPRK behaved about the same for decades, and no one attacked them. In recent years, perhaps Twitter has appeared)

    America does not need the Korean War. They already have bases in Korea (only South) and Japan. There is nothing valuable to take there. But to get a guerrilla hemorrhoids abruptly Vietnam all the chances.
  20. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2020 17: 46
    0
    Quote: SVD68
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Example: The United States is using 3-10 five-kiloton warheads against Iran.

    Let's look at this example. Our early warning system for the attack reports that SLBMs are starting from the Indian Ocean, by all indications of Trident II, moving north. How do we react to this?

    An unfortunate example. Hitting Iran from the Indian Ocean with Trident when Russia is to the north - the Americans are not that dumb after all. But from the Philippine Sea - why not?

    Quote: Alexey RA
    The fact of the matter is that not immediately. But you need to react immediately - otherwise there may simply not be enough time to make a decision, to pass the launch command and to test it on the ground.

    No one will react before it becomes clear where the finish point will not be. The level of combat readiness will be increased, but no one will launch a response until it becomes clear where the warhead is aimed