America has a lot of warheads but its delivery systems are relatively behind Russian and Chinese systems. For instance, the current US land/silo based missiles are Minuteman 3s, which were first built in the 1970s. Even with upgrades, they are generally understood to be inferior to much more recent Russian Yars and Chinese Dong Feng missiles.
That said, increasing the number of warheads doesn't really help in terms of that deficiency so the between the lines conclusion is that the new American missile systems have hit such snags that the military is considering making up the deficiency with numbers of warheads.
Does it really matter if the delivery system is inferior? Google says they have five thousand warheads. Even if 4900 get intercepted (98% success rate), 100 nukes will connect.
Also, besides the launch silos, there's the bombers and the nuclear subs, which are enough to end the world by themselves
Nuclear war planning isn't as simple as applying a rate of interception or failure to your stock of warheads. You have to plan for eventualities like what happens if you're subject to a first strike - can you ensure that enough of your own warheads will survive to retaliate? If not, or if your opponent thinks not then your opponent is much more likely to try a first strike.
Modern missiles aren't just faster or harder to shoot down, they're also more survivable. Have you noticed that while the Russians and Chinese parade their missiles on big ass trucks, the US doesn't seem to have any? That's because there isn't a road or rail mobile variant of the Minuteman 3. So those MM3s have been sitting in silos only for decades, more than enough time for opponent satellites to pinpoint exactly where they are. On the other hand, a Russian or Chinese missile can drive around their own road or rail systems and be untraceable unless you have real time satellite footage that just happens to catch them moving.
So if your missiles can't move, you can only protect them by hardening their emplacements and silos. Unfortunately, most American silos are about as old as the missiles in them and were designed to withstand much lesser yields of warheads. Maybe some could be brought up to a newer standard, but building of that scale would also paradoxically tip your opponent off to which missile sites to target first.
Therefore, if you're in a position where you aren't convinced your own missiles will survive a first strike, your only move to maintain deterence is new missiles or more missiles (or both). Contracts were passed out for new missile designs around 2017 but it seems like nothing has come to fruition. Therefore the only other option is to build more warheads so that they can be fired from planes and other systems instead.
This leads on to the next point which is that warheads are not all necessarily sitting on missiles read to go at all times. Most of the time they're in central stockpiles that are easier to guard and maintain and are only parcelled out to units in times of heightened nuclear tension. A modern nuclear power has more platforms that can deliver nukes than actual nukes themselves - the whole point of a nuclear triad (ICBMs, planes, subs) is to ensure maximal redundancy so that no one type of attack can destroy all delivery systems.
Hence, a nuclear war planner has to figure out how many ICBMs and warheads are likely to survive a first strike, then figure out how many warheads are needed to put on planes and ships and subs for a counter strike. If the US military is thimking it needs more warheads, then one major reason could be that it's realized it's delivery platforms are not as survivable as predicted.
Do they need them to be good, or just to have a lot? Look at Hamas breaching the vaunted Iron Dome by sheer number of projectiles. Likewise, I heard Ukraine overwhelmed Russian S-300/400 with a simultaneous launch of something like a dozen ATACMS
ICBMs are notoriously difficult to intercept. Nobody realistically has an interception system able to take down enough of them to matter. The problem with old ICBMs is that they're less survivable if the enemy strikes you first so you need even more warheads and delivery systems to compensate.
Russia has more nukes. It also has weaker conventional armed forces and a history of nuclear sabor rattling, hence the US and its allies being nervous about a degraded MAD system.
With MAD, the idea is to be in the position that any adversary knows that if they attack you, they will be utterly annihilated. There should be no scenario under which an adversary sees a nuclear attack as advantageous. The US has aging systems and both China and Russia have been developing new capabilities. Numbers alone may not keep up, especially if a large number of missiles are disabled via nukes or other means.
5000 nukes will annihilate everyone. Earth wouldn't recover for centuries.
Now, yes, delivery systems determine if the nukes can actually be used, but having more than 5000 nukes is just a hat on a hat. As long as they're 5000 functional nukes there's just no reason to have more.
Again, it's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of maintaining a credible MAD threat so that any adversaries does not see nuclear war as a viable option. Nuclear weapons are meant to be brandished credibly as a response, not used.
Well, there are other parts to MAD. Things like keeping mil to mil communication open at all times, especially times of increased hostility, to avoid escalations. But in the end, it is insuring that the nuclear game is set such that it is never in anyone's best interest to set off nuclear weapons.
Already have more nukes than every other country, this is literally pointless. After a certain point having more nukes just becomes a hat on a hat.
Oh there is a point. Hint: Who does the US Government pay to maintain/create it's nuclear arsenal?
Private contractors probably, it's all a big bonanza for a few rich people to get richer I'm sure. Just paying for more hats on hats.
But never underestimate how dog brained these people are, they probably actually believe this makes us more secure lol
General Electric unless it’s changed
One of our most handsomest generals!
Lmao
Is this what Lt. Surge got promoted to in Pokemon Red 2/Blue 2?
America has a lot of warheads but its delivery systems are relatively behind Russian and Chinese systems. For instance, the current US land/silo based missiles are Minuteman 3s, which were first built in the 1970s. Even with upgrades, they are generally understood to be inferior to much more recent Russian Yars and Chinese Dong Feng missiles.
That said, increasing the number of warheads doesn't really help in terms of that deficiency so the between the lines conclusion is that the new American missile systems have hit such snags that the military is considering making up the deficiency with numbers of warheads.
Does it really matter if the delivery system is inferior? Google says they have five thousand warheads. Even if 4900 get intercepted (98% success rate), 100 nukes will connect.
Also, besides the launch silos, there's the bombers and the nuclear subs, which are enough to end the world by themselves
Nuclear war planning isn't as simple as applying a rate of interception or failure to your stock of warheads. You have to plan for eventualities like what happens if you're subject to a first strike - can you ensure that enough of your own warheads will survive to retaliate? If not, or if your opponent thinks not then your opponent is much more likely to try a first strike.
Modern missiles aren't just faster or harder to shoot down, they're also more survivable. Have you noticed that while the Russians and Chinese parade their missiles on big ass trucks, the US doesn't seem to have any? That's because there isn't a road or rail mobile variant of the Minuteman 3. So those MM3s have been sitting in silos only for decades, more than enough time for opponent satellites to pinpoint exactly where they are. On the other hand, a Russian or Chinese missile can drive around their own road or rail systems and be untraceable unless you have real time satellite footage that just happens to catch them moving.
So if your missiles can't move, you can only protect them by hardening their emplacements and silos. Unfortunately, most American silos are about as old as the missiles in them and were designed to withstand much lesser yields of warheads. Maybe some could be brought up to a newer standard, but building of that scale would also paradoxically tip your opponent off to which missile sites to target first.
Therefore, if you're in a position where you aren't convinced your own missiles will survive a first strike, your only move to maintain deterence is new missiles or more missiles (or both). Contracts were passed out for new missile designs around 2017 but it seems like nothing has come to fruition. Therefore the only other option is to build more warheads so that they can be fired from planes and other systems instead.
This leads on to the next point which is that warheads are not all necessarily sitting on missiles read to go at all times. Most of the time they're in central stockpiles that are easier to guard and maintain and are only parcelled out to units in times of heightened nuclear tension. A modern nuclear power has more platforms that can deliver nukes than actual nukes themselves - the whole point of a nuclear triad (ICBMs, planes, subs) is to ensure maximal redundancy so that no one type of attack can destroy all delivery systems.
Hence, a nuclear war planner has to figure out how many ICBMs and warheads are likely to survive a first strike, then figure out how many warheads are needed to put on planes and ships and subs for a counter strike. If the US military is thimking it needs more warheads, then one major reason could be that it's realized it's delivery platforms are not as survivable as predicted.
Dongfeng 5 is he highest yield active service ICBM @ 5 Mt.
Yields have gotten smaller over time as a matter of practicality.
Do they need them to be good, or just to have a lot? Look at Hamas breaching the vaunted Iron Dome by sheer number of projectiles. Likewise, I heard Ukraine overwhelmed Russian S-300/400 with a simultaneous launch of something like a dozen ATACMS
ICBMs are notoriously difficult to intercept. Nobody realistically has an interception system able to take down enough of them to matter. The problem with old ICBMs is that they're less survivable if the enemy strikes you first so you need even more warheads and delivery systems to compensate.
Russia has more nukes. It also has weaker conventional armed forces and a history of nuclear sabor rattling, hence the US and its allies being nervous about a degraded MAD system.
5000 nukes is already enough to end civilization, what the fuck would having even more be worth?
With MAD, the idea is to be in the position that any adversary knows that if they attack you, they will be utterly annihilated. There should be no scenario under which an adversary sees a nuclear attack as advantageous. The US has aging systems and both China and Russia have been developing new capabilities. Numbers alone may not keep up, especially if a large number of missiles are disabled via nukes or other means.
5000 nukes will annihilate everyone. Earth wouldn't recover for centuries.
Now, yes, delivery systems determine if the nukes can actually be used, but having more than 5000 nukes is just a hat on a hat. As long as they're 5000 functional nukes there's just no reason to have more.
Again, it's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of maintaining a credible MAD threat so that any adversaries does not see nuclear war as a viable option. Nuclear weapons are meant to be brandished credibly as a response, not used.
I'm pretty sure that numbers are how you present a credible MAD threat.
Bro watched Dr.Strangelove and took the wrong message
Well, there are other parts to MAD. Things like keeping mil to mil communication open at all times, especially times of increased hostility, to avoid escalations. But in the end, it is insuring that the nuclear game is set such that it is never in anyone's best interest to set off nuclear weapons.