Do the US nukes work either?

With all the news over the outdated nukes that the N. Korean's have, and the fact that the long range T2 missile failed, how reliable are the nukes that the US have?

I ask because i'm not too knowledgable on the servicing and testing of nukes. If the US where ever to launch a counter attack, are they sure theirs won't end up in the sea too? How often is proper testing done for these things?

After hearing just now that the missile defence system that you guys use is only 50% ready, i'd like to think your nukes were a bit more reliable. Would'nt want one of those going up on the launchpad!

CX.

I'm the same as you, not too sure about this. But i'd imagine that the US' Nukes work perfectly fine i mean with all the high tech weaponry etc, i'd presume they test them pretty regularly.

you also have to remember russia is said to have a missile defence system in place. if ou watched putin in bbc's webcast yesterday, he practically said that the russians have a defence system against missiles.

with regard to america. they have usually updated there system, ie different types of missiles, and systems. probably very advanced as is russia's.

According to the test the US military does, I would say the nukes do work. Because in the US they are probably checked once a day. And the US tests missles all the time. The difference between our testing and North Koreas testing is at least we give warning and let other countries know when we are testing to not have anyone think otherwise.

I don't see N Korea as much of a threat really. They don't have that many missiles and they can be eadily stopped. The US nukes will work because they go through maintenance and regular tests,checkups etc.

This is why the US is starting a nuke replacement project. Those nukes that they're building starting this year(?) are going to replace the older nukes. There are issues with any nuclear weapon as it ages. The only way to get better reliability is to replace them with newer weapons.

There are performance requirements that go along with the contracts.
Like someone mentioned they dump a lot of money into these programs.
testing, maintenance, training....
I'm certain at least 99% of SLBMs and ICBMs, when launched for real, will perform as designed.

Originally posted by andy1033
you also have to remember russia is said to have a missile defence system in place. if ou watched putin in bbc's webcast yesterday, he practically said that the russians have a defence system against missiles.

with regard to america. they have usually updated there system, ie different types of missiles, and systems. probably very advanced as is russia's.

Russia had a pretty elaborate missile defense system since the late 60's. However the system I know about does not cover the whole country (it is very hard to do this with Russia's size), and only covers vital regions like cities. Moscow city's missile defense was tested alot and is said to work fairly successfully.

The American missile defense however appears to be trying to accomplish too much- guarding the whole continent from missiles.

yes..there are new designs on the boards...

I think that new breakthroughs in technology and targeting has brought about the awareness of needing a new generation of Nuclear weapons. Also as stated the olde ones have alot of miles on them in storage areas or ready status.

Most nuclear weapons of which we commonly think are what we call "Air Burst weapons or ground level burst weapons.

I know that a new generation of Nuc weapon is being designed if not actually ready and fielded ...which is a deep penetrator type weapon.
The targeting of this type of weapon is self explanitory in todays warefare against extra deep or deep hardened targets.

I know that in the early days..there was atcually talk of using small yeild nuclear weapons as constrution tools..to remove large amounts of earth without having to haul it off. Obviously this was never done. The issue became the inability of being able to direct the blast as was possible with conventional explosives.
The question for those of you as thinkers...is whether we can now do this precise thing...direct the nuclear blast and yeild to accomplish the specific task.


Thanks,
Orangetom

how about this we dont make more nukes

All the nuclear weapons curently in teh US NUcear arsenal, hvae been proof tested. Which means that test detanations to validate teh design have been performed. The most recent design being the W-88 which sits atop the Trident II missile.

Also another member mentioned using nuclear weapons for construction. This was done n both the US and USSR with bad results. The USSR used a few nukes to blast giant holes in the ground for use as damns, but hey they didn't think about teh raditation. The US used a variety if nuclear detonations for different purposes, under Eisenhauers Atoms for Peace Project. Shot Gnome was exploded in a salt bed to produce radioactive isotopes for medicine. Shot Rullison was used to try and free natural gas in Missouri (?). The fact that they didn't persist with these peaceful uses, shows they weren't very effective.

the US nukes are alright the work and they are effective, nevertheless, Nukes are just detterence, no country is dumb enough to go into nuclear war, think about it, nuclear wiinters, who knows, if enough nukes are blown up, the Whole earth can blow up!!!!

Originally posted by maloy

Russia had a pretty elaborate missile defense system since the late 60's. However the system I know about does not cover the whole country (it is very hard to do this with Russia's size), and only covers vital regions like cities. Moscow city's missile defense was tested alot and is said to work fairly successfully.

The American missile defense however appears to be trying to accomplish too much- guarding the whole continent from missiles.

Russian antimissile system protects only Moscow, no other cities. And it is obsolete, 40 years old or so and almost certainly will not work against MIRV ICBMs.

how do you know that, even something 40 years old works of it's upadated and maintained and the russians do that. and btw how old do you think the US missle defense is old, at least 10-20 years.

Everyone here seems pretty certain they do.

West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 04/04/2005)

British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said. The news emerged after interviews with a group of American scientists with ties to the Los Alamos nuclear research facility, where the first atomic weapon was manufactured.

One of them, Richard Morse, of the University of Arizona and a former Los Alamos weapons designer, said the casing of the W76 nuclear warhead was so thin that it would probably fail if used. The British Trident warhead, the country's sole nuclear weapon, is based on the W76. Mr Morse said: "What is out there on those boats is at best unreliable and probably much worse."

The claims have been vigorously denied by US officials, who say that the warhead "looks like a pretty good weapon". They say the warheads have not been tested for 13 years because of the global moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons but were successfully detonated before then.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Simon666]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Simon666]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Do not quote entire articles. Visit the link to read the full article.

[edit on 2006/7/13 by Hellmutt]

the entire russian missile defence system was upgraded in the 1980`s and was last teseted (succesfully) last year.


and you can mention the `mirv` arguement - but the whole idea is to kill the warhead or `inert` it - this can be done by hard and fast radiation , they use enhanced radiation warheads in the ABM`s - or neutron bombs which do the job quite well.

Originally posted by Simon666
Everyone here seems pretty certain they do.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?

One of them, Richard Morse, of the University of Arizona and a former Los Alamos weapons designer, said the casing of the W76 nuclear warhead was so thin that it would probably fail if used. The British Trident warhead, the country's sole nuclear weapon, is based on the W76. Mr Morse said: "What is out there on those boats is at best unreliable and probably much worse."

hmm if you did your research you'd find that the W-88 warhead is what arms most Tridenst today not the W-76. The W-88 is the most advanced US warhead.

Originally posted by Harlequin
the entire russian missile defence system was upgraded in the 1980`s and was last teseted (succesfully) last year.

Lol right just as the US missile defence system has successfully completed its tests. What were the parameters of the Russian test ? If you don't know that then you are blowing hot air - no more needed to be said. Peple like you love the headlines but delve no deeper - typical.

Originally posted by rogue1
hmm if you did your research you'd find that the W-88 warhead is what arms most Tridenst today not the W-76. The W-88 is the most advanced US warhead.

The point was whether it was sure that all would work as advertized, which doesn't seem so sure, not whether it was sure even one would work.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by rogue1
hmm if you did your research you'd find that the W-88 warhead is what arms most Tridenst today not the W-76. The W-88 is the most advanced US warhead.

The point was whether it was sure that all would work as advertized, which doesn't seem so sure, not whether it was sure even one would work.

AS I said the W-76 has been phased out. The UK doesn't even use American warheads, they use their own lower yield 100 kt version.
Also the fact that the military was aware of the problem just shows how effective the stockpile stewardship of the nuclear warheads are.