The US administration promised to bet not on the quantity, but on the quality of nuclear weapons

At present, the United States does not see the need to build up its nuclear arsenal to a level that would demonstrate a quantitative superiority over potential adversaries in the field of nuclear weapons. Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser to the President of the United States.

According to a White House spokesman, the United States is betting not on the quantity, but on the quality of nuclear weapons. At the same time, Washington expresses its readiness to follow the quantitative restrictions on nuclear weapons that were spelled out in the START as long as Russia behaves in a similar way.

In addition, the United States promised to continue to notify the Russian side of the launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and exercises of nuclear forces. That is, in the current global military-political situation, certain contacts between Washington and Moscow, including in the military sphere, are preserved.

However, earlier in the US State Department it was reported that from June 1, the transfer of information to the Russian side about the status and location of strategic weapons that fell under the START ceased.

Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov today noted that communication between the United States and the Russian Federation on the issue of START is carried out through diplomatic channels and did not answer in more detail, sending journalists with questions about this to the Foreign Ministry.

Comments

[evgen1221]

Hm. The quality of a nuclear weapon can only be the power and quo of it, truncated, the rest is lyrics for the bills.

[blackGRAIL]

Nuclear arsenal. For example (quote from Wiki): Unlike the R-36M, the concept of the Sarmat complex focuses not on the maximum weight of the thrown warheads that can be destroyed by anti-missile defense (ABM) systems, but on the delivery of a smaller number of warheads, but at such trajectories and such methods that significantly complicate their destruction even by promising missile defense systems; The “orbital bombardment” technology embedded in the rocket makes it possible to strike at the enemy’s territory along a suborbital trajectory through the South Pole of the Earth, bypassing the deployed batteries. Here it is an example of the quality of a nuclear arsenal.

[Tusv]

Quote: evgen1221

Hm. The quality of a nuclear weapon can only be power and quo

Don't bother the Yankees to cut the budget. "If you happen to be at war and I'm in a single-breasted one," but there won't be enough money for a frock coat

[bayard]

Quote: Tusv

Don't bother the Yankees to cut the budget. "If you happen to be at war and I'm in a single-breasted one," but there won't be enough money for a frock coat

They also lack the technical capabilities - their nuclear potential has degraded and they urgently need to change the nuclear weapons for new ones, because the old ones have already expired all the warranty deadlines, and the new radiochemical plant has just been launched and can produce no more than 30 nuclear weapons per year. Now they just need to at least upgrade their nuclear arsenal, so there can be no question of quantitative growth, they will simply change old BBs for new ones.
"Minutemen" are also very old and they are left in service for the sake of nominally maintaining the strength of the strategic nuclear forces. They are just working on a new rocket, and it is still far from the start of its testing.
So they say this not from a good life. And that is why, a few years ago, Obama, during his tenure as president, rushed around with the idea ... complete nuclear disarmament. They simply did not have the opportunity to re-equip their strategic nuclear forces and produce new nuclear warheads to replace the old ones within an acceptable time frame. They did not have the technical means for this (the old radiochemical plant was closed and disposed of a long time ago, and the new one was only then ... going to be built. They have now completed it, but it has not yet reached the required production capacity. There are problems with personnel (new personnel are just they didn’t prepare, and the old nuclear physicists, gunsmiths, simply died or became very old... That is why it is so critically important for them that Russia remains within the framework of the START, or rather agree to a new wave of cuts.
And now the problems with the budget deficit create simply monstrous problems in matters of complete (!) Re-equipment of strategic nuclear forces, and all types at the same time. They now need to replace ICBMs, SSBNs, strategic bombers, and nuclear weapons of all kinds as soon as possible. And since the beginning of the 90s, all these areas have been in the deepest decline. There are no production facilities or they require complete reconstruction and renovation, there are no personnel, there are no scientific personnel (they were not in demand, they were not trained).
Under these conditions, Russia needs to complete its programs for re-equipping strategic nuclear forces, return to service the previously destroyed class of strategic nuclear weapons carriers, such as IRBMs, build up the naval component of strategic nuclear forces, return nuclear weapons to warships, develop tactical nuclear weapons both in terms of nuclear weapons and in terms of carriers. For the realization that only the Military Force of an ultimatum nature is able to stop these perverts from their bestial plans and aspirations. If the enemy is weak in this segment, it is this direction that should become our "sword-hoarder".
Healthy Militarism is what our Army, Economy, Science and public life needs. Without enumeration and overdose with an emphasis on the word Healthy.

[tralflot1832]

So it’s not interesting, did we, under the USSR, before the first START treaty, warn about our launches and where are the ICBMs?

[K-50]

The US administration promised to bet not on the quantity, but on the quality of nuclear weapons

There is no reception against scrap.
How does quality replace quantity?
Here's an example.
A vigorous loaf arrives for a couple - three tens of megatons and carries out an air blast over the territory of the adversary, behind him, the same "gifts" fly after him with a landing.
What will be left of "quality"? A scorched desert and a lot of coals, in the sense of not blacks, but remnants of the inhabitants.
That's it, game as they say ove, game over.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: K-50

A vigorous loaf arrives for a couple - three tens of megatons

Now there are no such powerful warheads on strategic missiles, a maximum of 750-800 kilotons.

Quote: K-50

What will be left of "quality"? A scorched desert and a lot of coals, in the sense of not blacks, but remnants of the inhabitants.

We are talking about a missile defense breakthrough, apparently, this means quality, that is, missile defense can be broken through in quantity, or use all sorts of gliding warheads, a flat trajectory, etc.

[K-50]

Quote: Lt. air force reserve

We are talking about a missile defense breakthrough, apparently

Well, a dozen or two will arrive at 0,7 or 0,8 Mts in an air blast. All electronics in the trash, both military and civilian. Then the territory is sown with the "square-nesting" method.
The result is the same - desert and coals. For this we have enough "good", we also measure their allies in full measure, so that they are not offended that they were surrounded.

[bk0010]

Quote: K-50

For this, we have enough "good", we also measure their allies in full measure, so that they are not offended that they were surrounded.

Not enough: we have about 1550 warheads and about 700 ICBMs. That's not a lot.

[blackGRAIL]

True with warheads, but ICBMs are much smaller. The latest announced data (for 2008): 330 ICBMs and 176 SLBMs. The Russian nuclear potential from the Soviet one (1990) has decreased by almost 10 times.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

And what is their quality? Minuteman-3 since 1970, Trident-2 since 1990, AGM-86 ALCM air-to-ground missiles since 1981 in service.

[KCA]

Where and how will the United States develop nuclear charges, not, well, on supercomputers they will be able to model even better than us, but where and from what will they assemble? From U235 from Russia? Pu239 will work out? Saw Shura, saw, they are gold, there is no uranium enrichment in the states, since their 300 centrifuges have burst, they cannot isolate plutonium from mining either

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: KCA

From U235 from Russia? Pu239 will work out?

If I'm not mistaken, Australia has the largest deposits of uranium.

[KCA]

What's the point? In uranium ore, the content of U235 is 0,91% maximum, enrichment plants are needed, there are none, in the USA at all, and how many ore deposits there are in Australia, 90% of real production is controlled by Rosatom, openly or indirectly, or explicitly, or through a chain masters of Rosatom

[Plate]

Quote: KCA

In uranium ore, the content of U235 is 0,91% maximum, enrichment plants are needed, there are none, in the USA at all

The United States is a leading technological power. And also the richest. If they need something, they will either develop it or set such a price that those who want to do it will come running from all over the world. Russia has nothing that the United States does not have - do not forget about it.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Plate

The United States is a leading technological power. And also the richest

Not everything is decided by money. This is especially pronounced in the atomic region. The Americans epically screwed up their nuclear technologies (not very advanced), while other countries are in no hurry to share. It is very difficult to lure away nuclear specialists, since they are all under the control of the relevant competent authorities. Even France, although a NATO ally, prefers to supply the United States with a finished product and does not share technology. There is nothing to say about Russia. And besides Rosatom and the French, there are practically no other specialists, since the Chinese and Koreans use other people's work thirty years ago.

[Ivan F]

"Americans pissed epically, while other countries are in no hurry to share." - they don't "pr..li" anything. There is a question of expediency from a financial point of view. Let's look at production:
in the United States, nuclear power plants generate 102 MW of electricity
in France, nuclear power plants generate 65 MW of electricity;
in Japan, nuclear power plants generate 46 MW of electricity;
in Russia, nuclear power plants generate 25 MW of electricity;
In terms of the amount of electricity generated at nuclear power plants, Russia ranks 8th.
"Even France, although a NATO ally, prefers" - these are not France's preferences, but the desire of transnational business. If tomorrow he needs to transfer all the atomic "science" of France into the hands of the United States, this will happen instantly, without the slightest squeak from Paris.
So it’s purely a matter of financial calculations - “As of November 2021, the construction of 2 new reactors with a total capacity of 2,5 GW continues in the USA. It was decided to abandon the construction of 2 more AP1000 reactors (Virgil C. Summer 2 and 3), due to a double increase in the cost of the estimate and the unwillingness of the parties to incur additional costs.

"Not everything is decided by money." What can't be solved with money can be solved with big money. This is how the world works.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Ivan F

Let's look at production

The vast majority of US nuclear power plants are 60 years old or older. The youngest station was commissioned in 1996. The epic proser happened at the very end of the nineties, the beginning of the two thousandth. Since then, nothing but paper projects has been created.
Although, the maintenance of existing reactors is indeed at a very good level, which allowed the Americans to extend their service life by twenty to forty years.

Quote: Ivan F

As of November 2021, the construction of 2 new reactors continues in the USA ... A decision was made to abandon the construction of 2 more AP1000 reactors ...

These unfortunate four reactors began construction ten years ago in 2013. Two have already been abandoned because they sawed twice as much money as expected, without any clear results. Whether the remaining two will be completed is unknown.
Which, in principle, quite exhaustively indicates the level of modern nuclear competencies in the United States. Not only in the peaceful sphere, by the way. Americans do not modernize their atomic bombs from a good life - the nuclear filling inevitably degrades over time (no one has canceled the half-life), this leads to a decrease in power, which the Americans are trying to compensate for with accuracy

Quote: Ivan F

If tomorrow he needs to transfer all the atomic "science" of France into the hands of the United States, this will happen instantly, without the slightest squeak from Paris

Well, that's what you think. In reality, everything is not so primitively simple.

[Ivan F]

"The vast majority of US nuclear power plants are 60 years old or older." - As of January 2023, 11 operating NPPs in Russia operate 37 power units with a total installed capacity of ~30 GW. At the same time, the Russian Federation received from the USSR 28 power units at 10 nuclear power plants with a total nominal capacity of 20 MW. So all the stations (except one) and most of the blocks are the heritage of the Union, and they say that they say there is old stuff, but everything is new with us, well, that's it.

"The epic failure happened at the very end of the nineties, the beginning of the two thousandths." - yes, not a proser at all, but a financial calculation - "during the years of construction, the payback of the nuclear power plant was in question. Mass production of shale gas lowered the price of it by almost three times. Nuclear energy began to lose to gas-fired power plants." They just count money. And even so - we have 11 stations, they have 57. We generate 30 GW, and they produce 90 GW. So who's in the "prosere" can still be argued.

"Americans do not modernize their atomic bombs from a good life" - from a good one, because, unlike us, they can easily afford it. With their budget of 800 billion. against 70 of ours.

"this leads to a decrease in power, which the Americans are trying to compensate for with accuracy" - and this is exactly what works. What's the point of a superbomb if it doesn't hit the right place. About the fact that they say she will smash everything without hitting, you can not say - this is a childish approach. By the way, Ukraine is an excellent example, when in the middle of a lunar landscape of some craters, there is still a whole opornik, made from a known substance and sticks. Everything is fine, but if you have problems with accuracy, then alas, nothing will help. Here the quantity will not turn into quality, because the enemy will not give you time and will do everything exactly.

"Well, that's what you think. In reality, everything is not so primitively simple" - I would also like to think that France (or substitute any country under US control) has its own opinion. But the reality does not justify my hopes as I do not peer into it. Remember the recent scandal with AUKUS, when France was thrown with boats worth 40 billion. Well, nothing, they just wiped it off. With our "helicopter carriers" it happened the same way. Or remember the French presidential candidate Strauss-Kahn, whom the United States easily "removed" by imprisoning the right Sarkozy. So I think about different things, but the reality so far turns out to be primitively simple. After the last independent Frenchman, De Gaulle, was removed from the helm of France (beginning with a student rebellion, does it remind you of anything?), the United States does not experience any great difficulties in France. And if they need it, they will take AREVA for themselves when they want and for how much they want.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Ivan F

that's what works

I am afraid that in modern conditions, free-falling atomic bombs, whether conventional or high-precision, can only work in someone's imagination.

Quote: Ivan F

yes, not a proser at all, but a financial calculation

Uh-huh, not having achieved what they wanted, they pretended that they wanted what they had achieved.
And by the way, think what you want - American nuclear technology will not get any better from this.

[Bolt cutter]

300 centrifuges ruptured, they cannot separate plutonium from mining either

Plutonium is separated by chemical methods due to the difference in its chemical properties from uranium.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

Plutonium is separated by chemical methods

There is practically no plutonium in nature. It is obtained by irradiating uranium and only then isolated by a chemical method.

[Bolt cutter]

then isolated chemically.

Accordingly, the absence of centrifuges among the Americans (extremely unlikely) will not affect its production.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Bolt Cutter

the lack of American centrifuges (extremely unlikely) will not affect its production

Americans don't really have centrifuges. There was once a project to create a megacentrifuge under 10 meters high, but they did not master it. So the Americans used the diffuse method, which is about 55 times more energy-intensive than centrifuges. However, now there are no diffuse enterprises either.
The production of plutonium will be affected not by the absence of centrifuges, as such, but by the absence of its own enriched uranium.

[Amateur]

they cannot separate plutonium from mining either

In 1993, the Mountain Chernomyrdin Treaty was signed, thanks to which Russia transferred 500 tons of enriched weapons-grade plutonium to the United States as fuel for American nuclear power plants. Moreover, in the framework of the same agreement, our country over the next years gave the United States another 14446 tons of low enriched uranium.

Where where. In ̶K̶a̶r̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶e̶ of Russia.
So that Borka the drunk and Vitka the literate glassy earth.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Amateur

the Gora-Chernomyrdin treaty, thanks to which Russia transferred 500 tons of enriched weapons-grade plutonium to the United States as fuel for American nuclear power plants

Rave. There has never been so much weapons-grade plutonium in the entire world. Plutonium in all forms produced 1200 tons.
And according to the HEU-LEU agreement, 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium should be disposed of.

[KCA]

I wouldn’t trust contracts like that, BN-300, 600, 800 industrial reactors, just plutonium on the exhaust, BN-800 is 100% loaded with MOX fuel, this is U235 and SNF together, on U239 exhaust, I’m waiting for BN-1200 and BREST , and striped zhzhzhzh, flew

[rocket757]

At present, the United States sees no need to build up its nuclear arsenal to the level

. And to what?

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Quote: Lt. Air Force stock

Quote: K-50

A vigorous loaf arrives for a couple - three tens of megatons

Now there are no such powerful warheads on strategic missiles, a maximum of 750-800 kilotons.

Quote: K-50

What will be left of "quality"? A scorched desert and a lot of coals, in the sense of not blacks, but remnants of the inhabitants.

We are talking about a missile defense breakthrough, apparently, this means quality, that is, missile defense can be broken through in quantity, or use all sorts of gliding warheads, a flat trajectory, etc.

In fact, there are no exact data on the power of Russian warheads in nature. This story is dark: yes, those that fly along a ballistic trajectory have a power of 100 to 800 kt, but there are also 2 mt, this is the one that stands on the Vanguard. Kromn of everything else there is also Poseidon, 2 mt is also declared there, but they darken, since to get the proper effect (megatsunami) you need more.

[Yura]

The US administration promised to bet not on the quantity, but on the quality of nuclear weapons

Well, much more when they already have more than dofiga.

[Amateur]

Quote: Lt. air force reserve

Now there are no such powerful warheads on strategic missiles, a maximum of 750-800 kilotons.

Does the reserve lieutenant know the state and military secrets of the country and does not hesitate to disclose them? "I do not believe" ©.
Therefore, you should not write about what you do not know.
©K.Stanislavsky

[Zenn]

Yes, American strategic launch vehicles developed in the 1960s and manufactured in the 1970s and 80s are so outdated that they are probably more dangerous for the United States itself if they are launched.
We saw how their ultra-modern anti-missiles scatter all over Kyiv.
It is even scary to imagine how many of their Minutemen will be able to simply exit the mines, and how many of those who have come out will fall just as beautifully on the territory of the United States itself, following the example of anti-missiles from the Patriots in Kiev.
Here you will inevitably think about the quality, and not about the quantity of nuclear weapons.

[Viktor 7007]

America deserves the top prize. the piglet grew for a long time and turned into a dirty pig. here you can choose a zombie apocalypse when pigs eat everyone. or super bingo nuclear mushrooms.

[Zagrebun]

Err.... quality is the ability to meet (meet, expect) the user's requirements. Hug and cry. The locals will use the information.