Defensive Carry banner

21 - 25 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,417 Posts
We have 14 SLBM's and 4 SSGN's. You were in the Navy. This is public knowledge, even for sailors. You're right that the number or type of MIRVS on each missile is classified. But 14 SLBMs times 24 D5's (or C4's) times the max published payload equals 3,360. I split the difference on MIRV capability between W76 and W88. You forget that I know a little bit about those Trident I or II models and MIRVs. Evidently Wikipedia knows a little more than you.


I won't go into details, but the W76 and W88 are dial a boomers, from quite a bit less than Hiroshima to quite a bit more.
Your simple math ignores the politics. According to the Arms Control Association in April 2020:
  • The number of US operational warheads on all platforms allowed by the START treaty is 1,550. The estimate of actual warheads is 1,385. Bombers and ICBMs account for about 450 of those, leaving 935 for the subs, but the ACA estimates only 901 are actually deployed.
  • Likely about half our sub capability is in the Pacific. We have a treaty with the UK to keep a number of subs/missiles/warhead in the Atlantic so we keep about half of our subs on that side.
  • START also limits the US to 240 missiles deployed on submarines. The ACA estimates the actual number deployed is 203. Likely roughly half of those would be in the Pacific.
  • FWIW, there are only seven Ohio Class assigned to the Pacific, with likely only five at sea at any given time. Per the START treaty, they are limited to 20 operational silos each, so four have been disabled on each sub.
So you are looking at around 450 warheads from about 100 missiles for your China party, give or take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
China will fight dirty. I'm sure they have already played every conceivable scenario over and over in preparation. I think they know us far better than we know them.
And I would be really really Really disappointed if we fought fair and clean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldChap

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,077 Posts
Your simple math ignores the politics. According to the Arms Control Association in April 2020:
  • The number of US operational warheads on all platforms allowed by the START treaty is 1,550. The estimate of actual warheads is 1,385. Bombers and ICBMs account for about 450 of those, leaving 935 for the subs, but the ACA estimates only 901 are actually deployed.
  • Likely about half our sub capability is in the Pacific. We have a treaty with the UK to keep a number of subs/missiles/warhead in the Atlantic so we keep about half of our subs on that side.
  • START also limits the US to 240 missiles deployed on submarines. The ACA estimates the actual number deployed is 203. Likely roughly half of those would be in the Pacific.
  • FWIW, there are only seven Ohio Class assigned to the Pacific, with likely only five at sea at any given time. Per the START treaty, they are limited to 20 operational silos each, so four have been disabled on each sub.
So you are looking at around 450 warheads from about 100 missiles for your China party, give or take.
My post is not political. It is the facts about what the missiles are capable of. You're making a strawman argument. You may have some knowledge of nukes on an A6 or what you read on the internet. I built the weapons on submarines. I know exactly what they are capable of. I probably know a lot more about that than either you ever knew, or I will ever be able to talk about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,417 Posts
My post is not political. It is the facts about what the missiles are capable of. You're making a strawman argument. You may have some knowledge of nukes on an A6 or what you read on the internet. I built the weapons on submarines. I know exactly what they are capable of. I probably know a lot more about that than either you ever knew, or I will ever be able to talk about.
Well thank your for showing off your superior knowledge. The START agreement is the current reality, though, regardless of the technical capabilities. I would think someone so involved would have at least a passing knowledge of START.

Also no one is going to elect you president and anyone who is elected president is not going to do as you suggest. Talk about a straw man argument...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,077 Posts
You're welcome.

I wasn't ever asked to design or build anything to meet a treaty. I built the best weapons systems in the world to protect this country. I know weapons systems. I'll leave the treaties and surrender to the experts.

The fact that you have great difficulty distinguishing sarcasm when you read it is telling.
 
21 - 25 of 25 Posts
Top