7 ms·

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?

ianburrell 2y ago
Nuclear warhead is a single nuclear device. Are you thinking MIRV where multiple nuclear warheads are mounted to missile? The US has down rated lots of SLBMs and ICBMs recently. Many of the warheads in storage are from missiles. They could put them back, but then they would show in the active count.
- johnohara 2y ago
  That's insightful because it means it may be strictly an accounting issue versus an actual reduction in the number of warheads i.e. the number of warheads counted == the number mounted, not the total number possessed.
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    The number of mounted warheads is a very important issue, because a nuclear war will take at most half a day. So all the mounted warheads at that point are the ones that can be used, nothing more. Of course if the war doesn't come as a surprise but with a lot of buildup, then you can remount everything over a few weeks.
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    The number mounted matters cause it determines how missiles can be used. With multiple warheads, ICBMs could be used for first strike. First strike won’t work, but opponent still needs to worry about it. With one warhead, ICBMs are only useful for retaliation strike. Also, the US is still following New START treaty after Russsia pulled out.
alexb23 2y ago
No, a MIRV [1] missile has multiple warheads, each warhead has a single device and is counted as such. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...
Scaevolus 2y ago
The US recently improved trigger accuracy, detonating warheads at precise distances to maximize kills on hardened targets, which had the effect of increasing the number of effective warheads.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  I remember reading about this a few years ago... the MC4700 "super-fuze" It looks like it was deployed back in 2009 on the warheads on Trident SLBMs. From [0]: "Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Warheads that would otherwise overfly a target and land too far away will now, because of the new fuzing system, detonate above the target. The result of this fuzing scheme is a significant increase in the probability that a warhead will explode close enough to destroy the target even though the accuracy of the missile-warhead system has itself not improved. As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do." [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
  - whartung 2y ago
    More accurate warheads also means smaller warheads. The goal of the warhead is to take out the intended target. If you can't do that with precision, you brute force it raw power. As they say: "There's only 'close' with horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons". But even that's not true. The hardened targets are designed to be hardened against the capability of the potential attacker, that whole arms race thing. We dropped vast tonnage of dumb bombs in WWII simply because we had to contend with a) getting the bombers through in the first place, and b) ensuring the designated target was effectively damaged. Replace a fleet of B-17s with a B-2 and some precision munitions, and you get a net win of effectiveness. Same with nuclear weapons. When you can miss by a country mile, you need a warhead sized so that it doesn't really matter. Better precision in guidance and fuzing is a "good" thing. The dark side, smaller weapons, potentially, are "more usable" with "fewer side affects" (which is also a "good" and "bad" thing).
BMc2020 2y ago
What you are thinking of is (or used to be, called a MIRV, a mulitiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicle). There's still only one atom bomb per warhead, but 6 warheads per mirv. Think of the MIRV like a cylinder on a revolver with 6 warheads per MIRV like the bullets in it. The warhead has the minimum amount of hardware necessary to make it blow up, while the MIRV has the computers and rocket engines on it. So the MIRV zips forward, backward, up down, then releases a warhead at the right moment for the warhead to fall to the ground. (which has no movement capability at all, not even fins). Then the MIRV zips around and releases another warhead and so on until all 6 are gone. That being said, there are LOTS of ways to deliver warheads. The one that scares me the most is that the Russians have hidden ones pre-positioned in our 40 biggest cities or so. Fun Fact: The russians don't even have to fire their missiles to wipe us all out. They could set them all off in their silos and create a nuclear winter that would accomplish the same thing. edit: Sorry to pile on, you went from 0 to 3 replies in the time it took me to write this.
- johnohara 2y ago
  What I was thinking was that whenever the U.S. enters into any form of weapons reduction agreement there has to be an enormous amount of internal reluctance to actually make those reductions. Reagan's so-called "trust, but verify" policy. I find it difficult to accept that any party to those agreements would actually reduce anything without having equivalent plans B, C, and D. I am not a weapons expert so thank you for your insight.
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    All those arms-reduction treaties are accompanied by some regime of mutual inspections and checks. Each party visits the other's facilities and counts stuff, assesses production and storage capabilities, paperwork, etc. And compares those results to their otherwise-obtained (read: by spies) data about the other party's weapons counts. Of course it isn't foolproof, and each party can and will maybe try to sneak a few more warheads somewhere. But those inspections at least provide some rough limit on the sneakiness, because if they had more than X% more, we would have noticed or so...
  - 2y ago
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
> LGM-118 Peacekeeper > MIRV ICMB produced and deployed by the United States from 1985 to 2005. The missile could carry up to twelve Mark 21 reentry vehicles (although treaties limited its actual payload to 10), each armed with a 300-kiloton W87 warhead. Initial plans called for building and deploying 100 MX ICBMs, but budgetary concerns limited the final procurement; only 50 entered service. Disarmament treaties signed after the Peacekeeper's development led to its withdrawal from service in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper So, that's what we had been doing for a couple decades. The most crazy ass nuclear cluster bomb. Now we're still trying to replace the LGM-30 Minutemen ICBMs we have had since 1962: Northrop Grumman's LGM-35 Sentinel. And it's taking forever & costing an unbelievable sum ($200B, $210M/missile including ground systems, although they're back to the drawing board to try to get costs down). https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-commitment-to-sentinel-nuclear-missile-as-costs-balloon/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-co... This is after Minuteman was ~$7m/missile, a super-cheap cast-solid-fuel design, with McNamera shutting down efforts on more expensive & fancy Atlas and Titan missiles. Weighing 1/9th the weight of the monstrous Soviet R7. One persistent dude (Hall) convinced everyone we didn't need fancy we needed a survivable competent second strike capable missile swarm. Minuteman is wild. There are some great submissions on it; the communication network submission from three days ago was fabulous & shows very much a Paul Baram of RAND/Arpanet style network resiliency idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41019604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41019604 Also of note, Minuteman's original D-17B computer is also quite the thing. There are some great submissions on it. It uses an early hard-disk like thing as working memory. It uses diode-resistor logic (DRL) since diode-transistor-logic (DTL) wasn't reliable enough yet. Incredibly stunningly built guidance computer that was core to a reliable totally cutting edge inertial guidance system. Anyhow yeah, we built them decommissioned utterly crazy multi-warhead missiles. And are trying and having trouble going back and building a new single warhead ICBM.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  Note that the Minuteman 3, the currently deployed one, also had (has?) a MIRV capability (3 warheads). I believe it's just a single warhead now because of treaties (which may have expired), and I don't know how difficult it would be to re-MIRV it.

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?

ianburrell 2y ago

Nuclear warhead is a single nuclear device. Are you thinking MIRV where multiple nuclear warheads are mounted to missile? The US has down rated lots of SLBMs and ICBMs recently. Many of the warheads in storage are from missiles. They could put them back, but then they would show in the active count.

johnohara 2y ago
That's insightful because it means it may be strictly an accounting issue versus an actual reduction in the number of warheads i.e. the number of warheads counted == the number mounted, not the total number possessed.
- holowoodman 2y ago
  The number of mounted warheads is a very important issue, because a nuclear war will take at most half a day. So all the mounted warheads at that point are the ones that can be used, nothing more. Of course if the war doesn't come as a surprise but with a lot of buildup, then you can remount everything over a few weeks.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  The number mounted matters cause it determines how missiles can be used. With multiple warheads, ICBMs could be used for first strike. First strike won’t work, but opponent still needs to worry about it. With one warhead, ICBMs are only useful for retaliation strike. Also, the US is still following New START treaty after Russsia pulled out.

alexb23 2y ago

No, a MIRV [1] missile has multiple warheads, each warhead has a single device and is counted as such. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...

Scaevolus 2y ago

The US recently improved trigger accuracy, detonating warheads at precise distances to maximize kills on hardened targets, which had the effect of increasing the number of effective warheads.

sillywalk 2y ago
I remember reading about this a few years ago... the MC4700 "super-fuze" It looks like it was deployed back in 2009 on the warheads on Trident SLBMs. From [0]: "Before the invention of this new fuzing mechanism, even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them. But the new super-fuze is designed to destroy fixed targets by detonating above and around a target in a much more effective way. Warheads that would otherwise overfly a target and land too far away will now, because of the new fuzing system, detonate above the target. The result of this fuzing scheme is a significant increase in the probability that a warhead will explode close enough to destroy the target even though the accuracy of the missile-warhead system has itself not improved. As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do." [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
- whartung 2y ago
  More accurate warheads also means smaller warheads. The goal of the warhead is to take out the intended target. If you can't do that with precision, you brute force it raw power. As they say: "There's only 'close' with horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons". But even that's not true. The hardened targets are designed to be hardened against the capability of the potential attacker, that whole arms race thing. We dropped vast tonnage of dumb bombs in WWII simply because we had to contend with a) getting the bombers through in the first place, and b) ensuring the designated target was effectively damaged. Replace a fleet of B-17s with a B-2 and some precision munitions, and you get a net win of effectiveness. Same with nuclear weapons. When you can miss by a country mile, you need a warhead sized so that it doesn't really matter. Better precision in guidance and fuzing is a "good" thing. The dark side, smaller weapons, potentially, are "more usable" with "fewer side affects" (which is also a "good" and "bad" thing).

BMc2020 2y ago

What you are thinking of is (or used to be, called a MIRV, a mulitiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicle). There's still only one atom bomb per warhead, but 6 warheads per mirv. Think of the MIRV like a cylinder on a revolver with 6 warheads per MIRV like the bullets in it. The warhead has the minimum amount of hardware necessary to make it blow up, while the MIRV has the computers and rocket engines on it. So the MIRV zips forward, backward, up down, then releases a warhead at the right moment for the warhead to fall to the ground. (which has no movement capability at all, not even fins). Then the MIRV zips around and releases another warhead and so on until all 6 are gone. That being said, there are LOTS of ways to deliver warheads. The one that scares me the most is that the Russians have hidden ones pre-positioned in our 40 biggest cities or so. Fun Fact: The russians don't even have to fire their missiles to wipe us all out. They could set them all off in their silos and create a nuclear winter that would accomplish the same thing. edit: Sorry to pile on, you went from 0 to 3 replies in the time it took me to write this.

johnohara 2y ago
What I was thinking was that whenever the U.S. enters into any form of weapons reduction agreement there has to be an enormous amount of internal reluctance to actually make those reductions. Reagan's so-called "trust, but verify" policy. I find it difficult to accept that any party to those agreements would actually reduce anything without having equivalent plans B, C, and D. I am not a weapons expert so thank you for your insight.
- holowoodman 2y ago
  All those arms-reduction treaties are accompanied by some regime of mutual inspections and checks. Each party visits the other's facilities and counts stuff, assesses production and storage capabilities, paperwork, etc. And compares those results to their otherwise-obtained (read: by spies) data about the other party's weapons counts. Of course it isn't foolproof, and each party can and will maybe try to sneak a few more warheads somewhere. But those inspections at least provide some rough limit on the sneakiness, because if they had more than X% more, we would have noticed or so...
- 2y ago

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

> LGM-118 Peacekeeper > MIRV ICMB produced and deployed by the United States from 1985 to 2005. The missile could carry up to twelve Mark 21 reentry vehicles (although treaties limited its actual payload to 10), each armed with a 300-kiloton W87 warhead. Initial plans called for building and deploying 100 MX ICBMs, but budgetary concerns limited the final procurement; only 50 entered service. Disarmament treaties signed after the Peacekeeper's development led to its withdrawal from service in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper So, that's what we had been doing for a couple decades. The most crazy ass nuclear cluster bomb. Now we're still trying to replace the LGM-30 Minutemen ICBMs we have had since 1962: Northrop Grumman's LGM-35 Sentinel. And it's taking forever & costing an unbelievable sum ($200B, $210M/missile including ground systems, although they're back to the drawing board to try to get costs down). https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-commitment-to-sentinel-nuclear-missile-as-costs-balloon/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-co... This is after Minuteman was ~$7m/missile, a super-cheap cast-solid-fuel design, with McNamera shutting down efforts on more expensive & fancy Atlas and Titan missiles. Weighing 1/9th the weight of the monstrous Soviet R7. One persistent dude (Hall) convinced everyone we didn't need fancy we needed a survivable competent second strike capable missile swarm. Minuteman is wild. There are some great submissions on it; the communication network submission from three days ago was fabulous & shows very much a Paul Baram of RAND/Arpanet style network resiliency idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41019604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41019604 Also of note, Minuteman's original D-17B computer is also quite the thing. There are some great submissions on it. It uses an early hard-disk like thing as working memory. It uses diode-resistor logic (DRL) since diode-transistor-logic (DTL) wasn't reliable enough yet. Incredibly stunningly built guidance computer that was core to a reliable totally cutting edge inertial guidance system. Anyhow yeah, we built them decommissioned utterly crazy multi-warhead missiles. And are trying and having trouble going back and building a new single warhead ICBM.

sillywalk 2y ago
Note that the Minuteman 3, the currently deployed one, also had (has?) a MIRV capability (3 warheads). I believe it's just a single warhead now because of treaties (which may have expired), and I don't know how difficult it would be to re-MIRV it.