Russian Nuclear Triad: Status and Warheads

You are both right. That is why peaks in nuclear tests were usually connected with the technological progress of nuclear weapons.
The generation that we have now was not further developed due to the lack of needs.

here is a good text for you...

RIA Novosti
11.02.2023;
08:00

"They can solve everything in a couple of minutes." Which country has the most nuclear missiles?


Demonstration of tests of the Sarmat strategic missile system. Archive photo

MOSCOW, February 11 - RIA Novosti. At the end of January, the doomsday clock was moved forward by ten seconds. Now they show 90 seconds to "nuclear midnight". All because of increased talk about the use of atomic weapons. Which countries are "keeping gunpowder dry" against the backdrop of a growing escalation - in the material of RIA Novosti.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Now the nuclear club includes nine states, which are usually divided into old and new. The first include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the victors in World War II - the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China.
These countries managed to acquire retaliatory weapons before the adoption of a key document - the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970. Over time, 190 independent states joined it and still observe it.


Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile RS-24 "Yars"

Only five countries refused to do so: India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea (North Korea initially supported the treaty, but then withdrew from it) and South Sudan. All of them, with the exception of the young African state, also acquired a non-peaceful atom.
At the same time, Tel Aviv has never officially recognized its existence.

Parity leaders

Russia and the United States are the only ones who officially possess a full-fledged nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic aircraft capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction strikes, and submarines with submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Moscow and Washington, according to experts from the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), accounted for 90 percent of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world by January 2022:

—
   deployed warheads: USA - 1744, Russia - 1588;
   —
   warheads in storage: Russia - 2889, USA - 1964;
   —
   the total number of warheads in service: Russia - 4477, USA - 3708;
   —
   the total number of warheads, taking into account those awaiting disposal: Russia - 5977, USA - 5428.


Photo: Tinker Air Force Base History Office
American B-52 strategic bomber with AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise missiles on board

Lagging behind and catching up

Third place is questionable. Previously, it was occupied by France - the exact number of charges in service with the Fifth Republic is unknown. According to President Emmanuel Macron, there are "less than 300". Paris has sea and air carriers, previously there was also a land component of the nuclear triad, but in 1996 it was decided to deactivate medium-range ballistic missiles. The process took two years.
There is also no exact data on Chinese nuclear weapons. SIPRI believes that Beijing managed to bypass Paris and make 350 warheads. At the same time, the Pentagon announced back in November 2021 that China managed to create a full-fledged nuclear triad.


AP Photo / Mark Schiefelbein
Chinese solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile "Dongfeng-41" at the parade in Beijing

They do not want to stop there - by 2035, the Celestial Empire can produce about one and a half thousand warheads, which will allow it to achieve parity with the United States and Russia.
The UK has more modest reserves:
*    120 deployed warheads;
*    another 60 are in storage;
*     in total, including those awaiting disposal - 225.

Pakistan has close capabilities with India - 165 and 160 warheads, respectively. According to SIPRI, Israel is armed with 90 warheads, while experts estimate the stocks of North Korea at 20 warheads.

Reasons for concern

The report of the American "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" notes that the threat of a collision between nuclear powers is now more acute than ever - this is evidenced by both the hostilities near the Chernobyl and Zaporozhye nuclear power plants and "the degradation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III)" - the last nuclear détente agreement in force. It is it that ensures parity between Moscow and Washington and still remains in force. But there are difficulties.


Press Service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Strategic missile system with a mobile-based intercontinental ballistic missile PGRK "Yars"

In early February, Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said that Moscow considered it inappropriate to invite American inspectors to verify compliance with the two countries' latest active nuclear defusing agreement. According to the diplomat, such a decision is the result of a hybrid war unleashed by the West against Russia.

The presence of US WMD in Europe, which is contrary to the NPT, does not help the de-escalation either. For example, 150 American B61 tactical thermonuclear aerial bombs are stored at bases in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Moreover, now they are being changed to the updated B62-12.

https://ria.ru/20230211/omu-1851253685.html

Nuclear test is long overdue

I just hope these morons will not be doing it on their own territory, it would defeat the whole point to say nothing of polluting their own country

PapaDragon wrote:
Nuclear test is long overdue

I just hope these morons will not be doing it on their own territory, it would defeat the whole point to say nothing of polluting their own country

Is there anywhere on the finish border and baltic state borders that is suitable? Also in kaliningrad ?

mnztr wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Nuclear test is long overdue

I just hope these morons will not be doing it on their own territory, it would defeat the whole point to say nothing of polluting their own country

Is there anywhere on the finish border and baltic state borders that is suitable? Also in kaliningrad ?

Too close, defeats the whole purpose

Central Atlantic or East Pacific

Wait for wind to be just right

Make sure it's steamed live

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Nuclear test is long overdue

I just hope these morons will not be doing it on their own territory, it would defeat the whole point to say nothing of polluting their own country

Is there anywhere on the finish border and baltic state borders that is suitable? Also in kaliningrad ?

Too close, defeats the whole purpose

Central Atlantic or East Pacific

Wait for wind to be just right

Make sure it's steamed live

It would be perfectly adequate to do underground tests. Announce it. Start drilling the tunnels. Give them lots of time to come to their senses. Open to negotiating a new security architecture based on mutual security, if not Europe will get repeated and regular reminders of the power of nuclear weapons.

No country would let foreign military test nukes on their territory, not even underground

On the border, in russian territory. Maybe 200m in.

I wanted to ask this question for quite some time, is there a Russian equivalent to the US W88 nuke warhead?

Apparently, the W88 packs a 475 kiloton yield while small enough to fit in mirved missiles, while similar-sized Russian warheads only have 100-150 yield.

So, is this just another NATzO propaganda? What are your thoughts?

PhSt wrote:I wanted to ask this question for quite some time, is there a Russian equivalent to the US W88 nuke warhead?

Apparently, the W88 packs a 475 kiloton yield while small enough to fit in mirved missiles, while similar-sized Russian warheads only have 100-150 yield.

So, is this just another NATzO propaganda? What are your thoughts?

I think the MIRV warheads of RS-24 Yars have a 300KT yield, so they are quite similar.

Russia does not have the equivalent of the W 88 warhead on SLBM naval missiles. Warheads with a lower force of 100-150-200kT are used. These are more equivalent to W-76. Currently, it's hard to say anything about the parameters of the new Russian warheads, for example, for the Bulava SLBM. These are brand new loads. As for the MIRV warheads, the USSR already had the equivalent of W88 or W-87 on their ICBMs. For example, 15F444 warheads on RT--23 missiles. They have a power of about 400KT, some sources suggest even 500kT and are supposedly even more compact than W-87 or W-88. Generally, russian nuclear warheads are similar in size and power to american ones. Little is known about the new russian warheads for Bulava or Yars and Sarmat. Russia also has a much heavier MIRV for the R-36M2 with a power of about 750kT.

Visible MIRV warheads on an RT-23 missile that carries a 10MIRV of approximately 400kT

mnztr wrote:On the border, in russian territory. Maybe 200m in.

200 meters could make sense but only if it's above ground

Also, underground tests don't result in cool videos

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:On the border, in russian territory. Maybe 200m in.

200 meters could make sense but only if it's above ground

Also, underground tests don't result in cool videos

Above ground is too damaging for the environment. You don't need videos when the ground is shaking.

mnztr wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:On the border, in russian territory. Maybe 200m in.

200 meters could make sense but only if it's above ground

Also, underground tests don't result in cool videos

Above ground is too damaging for the environment. You don't need videos when the ground is shaking.

Of course it's damaging for the environment, that's why you make sure it's as far away from your territory as possible or at least close to enemies in order to share the fun

If you fire one off underground maybe couple of thousand people will notice, above ground everyone with internet will notice, even retarded ones who are the main target audience

Everyone had plenty of warning and this is the age of breaking old taboos so do it right or don't do it at all

PhSt wrote:I wanted to ask this question for quite some time, is there a Russian equivalent to the US W88 nuke warhead?

Apparently, the W88 packs a 475 kiloton yield while small enough to fit in mirved missiles, while similar-sized Russian warheads only have 100-150 yield.

So, is this just another NATzO propaganda? What are your thoughts?

Whats the big deal of making a more powerful thermonuclear warhead? Isn't it just a matter of adding a bit more tritium or deutrium? The amount of material that is actually fused in miniscule. So to go from 150 KT to 500KT is really not significant in terms of warhead size.

The Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has published a report stating that nuclear powers are increasing the number of deployed nuclear warheads. As of January 2023, out of 12,512 nuclear warheads, approximately 9,576 were in storage for potential use, an increase of 86 from January 2022, according to the think tank.

Approximately 3,844 warheads (40%) were reported to have been mounted on missiles and aircraft, and about 2,000 (most of them belong to the Russian Federation or the United States) were on high alert - they were equipped with missiles or they were placed at air bases with strategic bombers .

"Nine nuclear states - the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals," the organization's report says.

It is noted that last year some countries deployed new weapons systems with nuclear warheads or capable of carrying them. Thus, as of January of this year, Washington increased the number of deployed warheads to 1,770 units (in 2022 it was 1,744), and Moscow - to 1,674 units (last year it was 1,588). London and Paris have the same number of nuclear warheads: 120 and 280, respectively.

According to SIPRI, the total number of warheads, including those decommissioned from the United States of America, is 5244 (against 5428 last year), Russia - 5889 (against 5977 in 2022).

Earlier, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on statements by US national security adviser Jake Sullivan about new arms control efforts, said that Moscow considers it extremely important to talk with Washington about nuclear weapons. The Kremlin spokesman focused on the need to understand how the proposal of the American side would be formulated.

https://tvzvezda-ru.translate.goog/news/20236121014-AroHE.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui&_x_tr_hist=true

Just an idea that I happen to come up today, because NATO has an addiction to expansion, Russia needs to update its nuclear weapons doctrine where the number of its strategic and tactical nukes will depend on the size of a hostile military block, in this case NATO. The Idea is simple. lets say Russia alots 5000 nukes for the US, 5000 nukes for Canada, maybe 2000 nukes for the UK because of its small size, so on and so forth. Then, because Finland had expanded NATO territory, Russia will have to add another 5000 nukes to its arsenal for use against Finland.

And the 5000 nukes per country is not an exaggeration. Its important for Russia to turn the planet into a powder keg to ensure its survival. Guaranteed Extinction of NATO is essential.

The US has no active fissile material reprocessing capability since the 1990s so all their nuclear warheads have steadily decreased in yield over the years. The sitting US president also cancelled the plans to reacquire this capability.

fissile materials do not age as quickly in nuclear weapons. Plutonium and its decay products can be deployed in warheads for more than 60 years. Instead, they must replenish the tritium in the first stage booster.

kvs wrote:I am suspicious about this.   The self-anointed masters of the universe would not allow such a degradation of a key tool of power.
So we are not getting the real story about US warhead manufacturing and nuclear reprocessing capacity.  

Is it? The state of the US now does not inspire confidence that the people in charge are conscious stewards of the country and its potential. The opposite really.

Arrow wrote:fissile materials do not age as quickly in nuclear weapons. Plutonium and its decay products can be deployed in warheads for more than 60 years. Instead, they must replenish the tritium in the first stage booster.

And how do you think tritium is produced in the first place?

And how do you think tritium is produced in the first place wrote:

In nuclear reactors with lithium6.

Arrow wrote:
In nuclear reactors with lithium6.

You're so close. Like index finger and thumb close that you can't fit a paper close.