"The deplorable state": The United States called on to modernize the country's nuclear arsenal

The United States' nuclear arsenal is in a "deplorable state" and needs serious modernization. This was stated by the former Deputy Chief of Staff of the US Army General Jack Keane.

According to the general, although the size of the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia are on the same level, in terms of the state of the American nuclear weapon does not meet the expectations placed on it and requires serious modernization. He stressed that Russia is already completing a ten-year nuclear modernization program, and the United States has not even undertaken this.

We need to modernize our nuclear arsenal, which is itself a deterrent, and not give our adversaries any incentive because they can take advantage of the weaknesses they see in our nuclear arsenal.

- added the general.

Keane said that in order to get out of this "deplorable state", Washington needs to bring its nuclear arsenal to such a state that Moscow and Beijing will consider it "convincing."

Also, according to the retired general, the United States lags behind Russia and China not only in nuclear weapons, but also in non-nuclear weapons. He stressed that a shortage of conventional weapons could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, and this would be a "monstrous" scenario.

(...) it is necessary to increase the number of ground-based offensive missiles and anti-ship missiles, as well as modernize conventional weapons. This is an urgent question

- he added.

Comments

[Finches]

And take the button from the senile Biden, otherwise, God forbid, the sclerotic finger will tremble ...

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Finches

And take the button from the senile Biden, otherwise, God forbid, the sclerotic finger will tremble

No, the button has nothing to do with it ... This is the same song - Russia is threatening, about to attack, but we do not have enough weapons, vigorous bombs are not the first freshness ... GIVE A DAY !!!

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

vigorous bombs not of the first freshness ...

Sprinkle with salt

[ironic]

Better money, it will be safer. They will take the loot, but nobody will touch the bonba.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

GIVE YOUR DAY !!!

Will the money machine overheat? And so it is threshing around the clock, pouring into the American economy, not trillions, but soon the bill will go to tens of trillions. The world will not "eat" so many dollars, it is already choking. With what I congratulate the Americans.

[Private-K]

Quote: Finches

And take the button from the senile Biden, otherwise, God forbid, the sclerotic finger will tremble ...

Let the Old Man be better for Button - he was originally brought up to respect her.
And we must be careful that the Button does not fall under the fingers of the schizoactive Kamala Harrris.

[Mykhalych]

And the START-3 treaty has already been prolonged. Here's a bad luck, so the Americans have gone to waste ...

[Cowbra]

And the striped ones were generally told that not only dirty Russian barbarians should observe this treaty? It's just that the United States had never heard of this before, and with the same INF Treaty they never even thought about installing universal launchers on land for axes, or testing SAM-3 on a medium-range missile allegedly destroyed under a treaty ...

[ironic]

What is it expressed in?

[rocket757]

The United States' nuclear arsenal is in a "deplorable state" and needs serious modernization. This was stated by the former Deputy Chief of Staff of the US Army General Jack Keane.

Expect nothing else ..... boom to see how things go.

[silverwolf88]

having a printing press at hand ... without restraining itself in the parameters of the US military budget, of course, they will solve the problem of building up the arsenal of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (with charges it is more difficult ... the new one still needs to be tested and not simulated) ... and they will master hypersound technologies it's a matter of time but will it make the WORLD safer? ... will reduce the risk of injury? (legal rhetorical questions) ...
in terms of technological groundwork for delivery vehicles (for example, the same Trident of the latest version), everything is more or less worthy and even more than ... and the United States has never really relied on the ground component of the nuclear triad ...

[mojohed2012]

The United States does not particularly want to radically modernize its land-based strategic nuclear forces, as shown by their inaction over the past 20 years.
They do not have unpaved mobile systems, but they have numerous ships and submarines with nuclear warhead carriers and the most numerous combat aircraft.

[ironic]

It seems that they have already decided on a program for replacing ground-based missiles?

[ironic]

So both the first and the second are already known when they will be replaced and with what and for how much money. It's just that the States are not replacing anything until they plan and prepare a new production line. They always do that.

[Ros 56]

Oh, and these striped ones lie a lot. Under the guise of a shitty state of atomic weapons, they decided to rivet more?

[ironic]

So far, START-3 has not been denounced and will most likely be extended.

[Ros 56]

You have a late ignition, already extended.

[ironic]

For a year according to one of the points of the agreement That's not what I mean.

[bar]

The United States' nuclear arsenal is in a "deplorable state" and needs serious modernization.

There is nobody to modernize, "technologies are lost" (c). It happens. Let them contact Rosatom.

[Clear]

Quote: bar

There is no one to modernize, "technologies are lost"

Is the USE also in the USA?

[bar]

It's worse in the US. There are no state-owned enterprises permanently engaged in "strengthening defense capabilities." There, for each topic, money is stupidly allocated for which private firms carry out a specific order. The order ends, "thanks everyone, everyone is free." The topic of nuclear weapons in the United States died out a long time ago, new developments were not carried out on the same scale, the companies that once were engaged in this often no longer exist. And the technology is really lost. The same Westinghouse Electric Corporation went bankrupt altogether. Soon they will buy striped fuel for their nuclear power plants on the side.
This is the problem for the United States and Russia's advantage. Fortunately, we did not manage to kill all the state-owned enterprises of the military-industrial complex, and at the very least, they survived the 90s, they kept some personnel, in some places even the scientific and design school was preserved. Hence the current successes of Rosatom, and hypersound, etc., which seem to have appeared out of nowhere.

[Oleg83]

Quote: bar

It's worse in the US. There are no state-owned enterprises permanently engaged in "strengthening defense capabilities." There, for each topic, money is stupidly allocated for which private firms carry out a specific order. The order ends, "thanks everyone, everyone is free." The topic of nuclear weapons in the United States died out a long time ago, new developments were not carried out on the same scale, the companies that once were engaged in this often no longer exist. And the technology is really lost. The same Westinghouse Electric Corporation went bankrupt altogether. Soon they will buy striped fuel for their nuclear power plants on the side.
This is the problem for the United States and Russia's advantage. Fortunately, we did not manage to kill all the state-owned enterprises of the military-industrial complex, and at the very least, they survived the 90s, they kept some personnel, in some places even the scientific and design school was preserved. Hence the current successes of Rosatom, and hypersound, etc., which seem to have appeared out of nowhere.

Why lie then (or do not know what you are writing about, if only to write agitation)?
In the United States, there are many national nuclear laboratories owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), i.e. state
Westinghouse was sold to a Canadian-American investment fund in 2018 (so your bankruptcy information is out of date)
Also, who writes about the dependence of US nuclear power plants on uranium from the Russian Federation - the RF quota is 20%, in recent years it has dropped to 18% and will soon fall to 15%
"and technologies are really lost" - in the Russian Federation they write this way about any area in the US economy. Then how in the United States created the latest reactors for the Navy for a full life cycle (without recharging)

[bar]

Quote: oleg83

the newest reactors for the Navy were created for a full life cycle (without recharging)

What's so special about that? It is just a disposable product, the "full life cycle" of which is just limited to one charge. Automotive gearboxes are also filled with "lifetime" oil. As she died, it means that the service life is over
And yes, if you do not understand, I will repeat my main idea. "
"In the US it is worse. There are no state-owned enterprises that are constantly engaged in" strengthening defense capabilities. "

[ironic]

This is not worse, this is better. Full life reactors reduce boat maintenance costs and improve overall system reliability. Cutting up funds in the public sector is always more aggressive than in any private business, and noticeably.

[bar]

Quote: ironic

Full life reactors reduce boat maintenance costs and improve overall system reliability.

But at the same time, the service life of the boat is reduced to the life cycle of the reactor.
Americans are rich, they can afford disposable boats.

[ironic]

Yes shrinks to it seems 42 years Which by any means leads to a generational replacement, but allows wealthy Americans to save on disposable boats.

[bar]

Quote: ironic

Yes shrinking to it seems 42

It "seems" somehow checked and what is it confirmed?

[bar]

By the way, our boats of project 887 "ash" are also "refueled" for their entire service life.

[ironic]

Are you sure? This is the same OK-650 only with updates and buns, well, a bit more powerful.

[ironic]

I was a little mistaken, it will be 42 in Columbia, but for now they have been testing 33 years in Virginias, of which 19 have already been riveted.

[bar]

Quote: oleg83

Also, who writes about the dependence of US nuclear power plants on uranium from the Russian Federation - the RF quota is 20%, in recent years it has dropped to 18% and will soon fall to 15%

Maybe it will fall, sanctions are a harsh business. You just forgot to write that the share of self-produced fuel in the United States is only 10%. It is not surprising that with such volumes, the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons is a problem. Or will they also buy weapons-grade plutonium according to quotas?

[ironic]

And what appeared? Vanguard? Its accuracy, judging by the power of the head, leaves much to be desired, the size leaves much to be desired, and the number on alert and in a couple of years will want more. Dagger? Aerobalistic version of Iskander. Zircon? It has not yet fully appeared and it is not yet clear what it is. And what is wrong with them with nuclear weapons? How many intercontinental warheads in the world do we know capable of flying in a 90m circle? And in the 30m triangle?

[ironic]

Ihnim simply could not tell the victims of the Unified State Exam in Russian, they do not know English, and from Russian this is not translated by Google.

[ironic]

And how have they already agreed on funding for the replacement of both? And why did the new Mace never reach the performance characteristics of the Trident D5, and why the Topol-M that remains in service is fundamentally no better than Minuteman-3, and if we take into account the accuracy of the head, then even worse? What's wrong with new technologies? When Bulava-2 appears, will it be able to compete with E6 in performance characteristics? Will Yars be able to do it with GBSD? Do you think the heavier Yars-C warheads advanced it technologically or is it more of a quantitative upgrade?

[rotmistr60]

"The deplorable state"

I would like to wish that I continue to be in this state.

... which itself is a deterrent

Since when has American nuclear weapons been a deterrent? They created it first, when no one else possessed it, tested it on the Japanese to intimidate the USSR, developed plans for the atomic bombing of our country and have been constantly rattling it ever since. And is this containment?

[ironic]

Well, you can only wish it, because funding for the new program is already available - 95,8 lard for land and, accordingly, 14 + 6 for planning the first boat. In the meantime, they are perfectly covered by Trident and Minuteman, the generals are preoccupied with raising interest on this amount.
Well, in Japan, they saw the containment of Stalin's spacecraft that way. And since then, both sides had such plans with a small cart, but no one was in a hurry to implement them. This is containment.

[Maikcg]

Translated into Russian - give me money !! 11

[Scharnhorst]

General is our man! We are not in a position to fight the Americans - only we are starting to live well! In order to finally put an end to the American economy, with our comments we must support their desire to increase the military budget, support BLM and LGBT people, print dollars, the desire for green energy, the exploration of the Moon and Mars, and you never know what else ...

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Scharnhorst

just start to live well!

Whoa! At least somewhere life has become better, life has become more fun. And where, if not a secret?

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Scharnhorst

Vodokanal reduced the tariff for sewerage by 47 kopecks

And how much is it in percentage, may I specify?
Otherwise, I always vote for the block the communists United Russia and non-party members.

[Old26]

The United States' nuclear arsenal is in a "deplorable state" and needs serious modernization. This was stated by the former Deputy Chief of Staff of the US Army General Jack Keane.

The meaning of the speech is the same - "give me money." Very funny to read the opinion of ex. ZNSH of the Ground Forces on an issue that does not apply to the Ground Forces, but only to the Navy and Air Force.

Quote: mojohed2012

The United States does not particularly want to radically modernize its land-based strategic nuclear forces, as shown by their inaction over the past 20 years.
They do not have unpaved mobile systems, but they have numerous ships and submarines with nuclear warhead carriers and the most numerous combat aircraft.

The ground component has NEVER been fundamental to the structure of the US strategic nuclear forces. The basis is SLBMs and strategic bombers.
To upgrade, just they upgrade. They did not make new missiles, but modernized them in full. Practically now in service "Minutemans-3" have only old names. Inside, everything is new

[Oleg83]

Last year, Northrop Grumman won a tender to build a new silo-based missile to replace the Minuteman.

[ironic]

Nevertheless, there is already a budget for replacing them with GBSD.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Old26

"Minutemans-3" have only old names. Inside, everything is new

Electronics can be upgraded endlessly.
But fuel sticks age and lose their properties. And this is almost the most expensive part of the rocket.

[ironic]

Oh, the general knocks out the money. Well done. Effectively. There we have recently, for still less significant reasons, knocked out 9 lard under guarantee loans for 200 lam at a high interest rate.

[Old26]

Quote: ironic

Oh, the general knocks out the money. Well done. Effectively. There we have recently, for still less significant reasons, knocked out 9 lard under guarantee loans for 200 lam at a high interest rate.

This ex. the general cannot knock out anything. It was "launched" in the media with one goal - to show America's next "lag" behind Russia. Previously, there was a lag in missiles and bombers. And the air force general or the admiral will knock out the money.

[ironic]

Well, also work, not just sit on a well-paid pension.

[Old26]

Quote: ironic

And why didn't the new Mace never reach the performance characteristics of the D5 Tridents?

Well, in fact, no one set the task of surpassing the Trident in performance characteristics. Nevertheless, the Bulava and Trident are missiles of various classes. The second is almost 20 tons heavier.

Quote: ironic

And the Topol-M that remains in service is fundamentally no better than Minuteman-3, and if you take into account the accuracy of the head, then even worse?

When comparing, you should never say what is better and what is worse. For example, "Topol-M" is 10 tons heavier than "Minuteman-3". At the same time, the "Minuteman" throw is almost the same as that of "Topol-M", maybe a kilogram is 100-150 less. The power of the Topol-M warhead is greater than that of Minuteman-3. The KVO of the Minuteman is smaller (120-180 m) versus 200 m of the Topol-M. KVo is compensated by the power of the BG. So both ICBMs are roughly equal.

[ironic]

But they must perform the same task, deliver a nuclear strike from hidden carriers, which are more difficult to detect and destroy anywhere in the world, and given that D5 is also serving its term, in the future the opponent of Bulava will be E6, whose characteristics will be optimized based on the experience of the successful D5.

The power of the Topol-M warhead is determined by the technological capabilities of the time of its development. Such power has long been considered excessive in the west, provided that the accuracy of the hit is appropriate. W87 mod1 of the second phase (in fact, mod1 was two-stage), the accuracy was brought to <150m, how much less is not reported. And this is more than enough to solve any problem posed for a 475Kt head. The warhead of the new missile will be even more accurate and possibly less powerful. 0.8-1Mt Topol-M is intended either to cover the lack of accuracy or for political effect. And if we sum up the practical experience of past generations of weapons - for the first and for the second.

[Old26]

Quote: ironic

0.8-1Mt Topol-M is intended either to cover the lack of accuracy or for political effect.

Most likely to cover missing accuracy. No wonder there is a formula that a two-fold increase in accuracy is equivalent to a three-fold increase in power capability

[Sands Careers General]

We need to modernize our nuclear arsenal

Sounds simple, "give me money"

[Old26]

Quote: ironic

For a year according to one of the clauses of the agreement.

There is no such point there. Article XIV, paragraph 2 states that the contract can be extended for up to 5 years. Specifically, other time data are not given