Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

You don't know that normally according to USAF bomber doctrine, one bomber can only hit four targets per mission.

 

Then we'll use 80-90.

And maybe future administrations will expand the numbers to even more than 145.

Although what I'd really like to see us spend more money on are mobile ICBMs so we can disperse them in a crisis and not have to rely on launch on warning.

The nice thing about bombers is they can fly home and reload and then fly another mission.

We built 1750 warheads for our ALCMs. I have not heard that we are going to use all 1750 of them in our new stealth cruise missiles, but we certainly could do so if we wanted to. And that's not counting all our bombs.

If we have a scenario where a nuclear war is so catastrophic that there is nothing for the bombers to fly home to, then our SLBMs and ICBMs will be in play too.

 

According to the Nuclear Triad doctrine, the bombers aren't the only way we have to hit a target...

 

Everything that I've said is true.

No such failings.

I have not changed anything.

Pointing out facts is not trolling.

Wrong. I know exactly what I am saying.

Wrong. I said heat from the primary is not involved in the fusion.

Yes. One of the many times I corrected your untrue statements.

Wrong. Most hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from fission.

They have big fallout because they get at least half their yield from fission.

Wrong. Everything I've said is true.

 

1) If a bomb gets most of its yield from fusion there is very little fallout -
2)Most hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from fission

Both of your above clams are false the yeild from fusion is far higher than fission in a hydrogen bomb .. and the fallout is big.

 

Yes.

Wrong. Both of my above claims are true.

Wrong. Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half their yields from fission.

Because almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from fission.

 

It's been 11 months. Did they get here yet?

 

No .. they don't .. The yeild from Fusion is orders of magnitude higher than from Fission .. you have no clue what you are talking about.

Prove your claim that the half the yeild in a "Fusion Bomb" comes from fission.

 

No nation on Earth including the U.S. has ever had the policy of "launch on warning".

 

The US will launch our ICBMs at their attacker if we detect that they are under nuclear attack.

 

Yes they do.

Wrong. Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from fission.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

Already done, multiple times. Over and over and over again. That site that you linked to, error prone as it is, confirmed that I am right about this.

 

No we won't. And it probably isn't possible anyway to launch them before a bunch of them strike targets in the U.S.

 

Depends what you call "fission". I doubt it is what you are thinking about.

 

We will if we detect that our ICBMs are under threat.

We are notified of the target area just seconds after any ballistic missile is launched.

Fission is when heavy atoms (like uranium) are split.

 

.. a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb .. Show that 50% of the yeild comes from Fission .. This should be good for a laugh .. ..

 

Why? Most U.S. nuclear firepower is aboard our Ohio class submarines and the Trident II missiles are accurate enough to destroy any hardened target in Russia or China.

 

*cough*Trident II=ICBM*cough*

 

Trident II is an SLBM, not an ICBM.

 

And that matters why? What do you think the letter M in the acronym MAD stands for? Hint (Mutual). It doesn't matter whose nuclear weapons hit first. That's the whole point of MAD. All that matters is that the nation being attacked will have enough launch systems and time left to retaliate. 'Victory' (if that word can be used in this context) is not decided by whose bombs detonate first because at worst the opponents missiles will be hitting their selected targets something like 15-35 minutes or so later (depending on the launch system).

So its not a race. God forbid it ever happens but I guarantee the guy who launches the first strike will not be saying 'Oh look we win!"

 

He will if he should manage to destroy most of the enemies nuclear weapons before they can be launched. That was the point being debated throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s regarding the ICBMs of the Soviet Union.

 

Because that will waste our ICBMs. It is much better to fire them after the enemy has committed their nukes to attacking them and let the enemy waste their nukes destroying empty silos.

We want to hold our SLBMs in reserve so they are a threat to enemy cities, not squander them early in the conflict.

 

I already have, repeatedly, over and over and over again, from that website you linked to.

If you keep asking again and again I'm going to stop repeating myself at some point. However, one more time from the website that you linked to:

"Fusion releases neutrons. These neutrons hit a layer of uranium surrounding the fusion fuel causing atoms in it to fission; this fissioning generally contributes more than half of the weapon's total explosive yield."

 

American SLBMs haven't been tasked to use against enemy cities in 30 years.

 

But if you have a Model T that's been meticulously maintained and periodically upgraded, and equipped with a machine gun, it's a race. Especially when your opponents are infamous for being unable to maintain their equipment.

 

So since about the end of the Cold War?

It's the job that SLBMs are best suited for since they can remain undetected.

Mobile ICBMs would be good for the job too, so long as they can stay hidden, but we haven't bothered to build any.