Posted on 11/24/2024 12:25:26 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL officer and founder of Blackwater Private Military Company.
During their discussion, Prince pointed out how Russia changed the game this past week following the taunting of the US and NATO attacks inside the Russian borders.
According to Prince, the US has “no means” to shoot down Russia’s Mach 9 hypersonic missile like the one that was fired into Ukraine last week!
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I will look into this further. The % I quoted was direct from GPT.
A first level look brings in the New Start Treaty, which restricts total warheads deployed to be 1550.
In the text, it notes that bombers of both sides are considered to carry 1 warhead, regardless of its capacity — which probably makes sense in terms of it not arriving until waves of missiles have already arrived to destroy air defense. Thus, one bomb is appropriate until there is Bomb Damage Assessment, probably from orbit.
That single reality probably defines the %’s quoted to be correct.
Also helpful
chat.openai.com ChatGPT
Asked it this:
Does the new Start treaty consider MIRVs on ICBMs
Answer, yes. But then there is this:
Warhead Counting Rules:
New START counts the actual number of nuclear warheads mounted on deployed ICBMs, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers. For ICBMs equipped with MIRVs, each reentry vehicle (RV) carrying a warhead is individually counted toward the treaty’s warhead limits.
Delivery Vehicle Limits:
The treaty imposes a cap of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers) and an additional 100 non-deployed vehicles for a total of 800. MIRV-capable ICBMs fall under this counting system.
And eventually this:
MIRV-equipped ICBMs, like Russia’s RS-24 Yars, are permitted under New START as long as the aggregate limits of warheads and delivery systems are respected.
The U.S. has largely moved away from MIRVs on ICBMs (like the Minuteman III), instead focusing on single-warhead missiles for stability.
GPT has an entire /reddit devoted to asking it carefully structured questions and placing relevant text on websites to try desperately to get it to generate wrong answers, but this seems devoted mostly to wacko stuff like “what color is God’s hair?” I doubt they got around to corrupting START requirements.
But anyway, the combination of warhead restrictions and launcher restrictions would seem to generate the original estimate 70-80% SLBM allocation of warheads.
Develop lasers that can shoot them down. Moving at the speed of light has definite advantages.
This is why the US has gone into developing the B61, which is not under the limitations of START—missiles and “heavy” bombers. Ask your GPT what US Air Force and Navy fighters can carry the B-61, and it will tell you. But it won’t tell you how many are currently so armed—that’s classified.
Also, the same aircraft could be loaded up from other the other “normal” conventional weapons in a short period of time. Those are not under the START “mounted or deployed” restrictions.
I would be very concerned of F-22s with B-61 Gen 12s on them if I was Russia and China.
We have Space Force, NASA, Space X, and Elon Musk.
I don’t at all want WW3 or any nuclear exchange, but I do believe we still have the upper hand over Russia.
GPT says START’s constraints apply to strategic weapons systems. Not tactical.
The variation of yield is a defining parameter. There are ways to change the yield of that weapon, but doing so would constitute violation of the treaty if elevated to strategic levels and another warhead was not removed from deployment.
The Treaty is in a re-examination phase and will end in 2026 — in its current form, though negotiations are underway to re-assert.
The numbers are quite small. The current development maxes at 50 kilotons. This is smaller than any Russian strategic warhead.
The B61 can select yields up to 400 kt (still quite small by strategic levels) but if this was done a strategic weapon on some other launcher would have to be removed in order to comply with the treaty agreed to.
Bottom line would seem to be the warhead limit is strategic. If you elevate yield to levels that would be defined as strategic it would be a violation of a treaty agreed to.
BTW GPT offered up an array of tactical warheads of sub 100 kt. There are many.
This level of warhead will not be used strategically because there would be no point in delivering such a small thing 1000s of miles. Any strategic application will be much larger in yield and fall within the treaty.
. . . GPT offered up an array of **Russian** tactical warheads sub 100 kt. There are many
The discussion is about incoming ballistic missiles, usually fractionally orbital and high hypersonic.
Much too fast for any defense in existence, not to mention the enshrouding plasma that would render radar tracking impossible.
Those air defenses are for aircraft and short range missiles.
Having been in the USAF specifically around these things and the technology of them, the bigger bombs are not that valuable. The tendency over the years is to enhance accuracy while lowering the yields. A well placed 400 KT bomb is much better than a 10 MT slightly off target.
Another issue is the larger the K/MT, the faster the weapon degrades, so smaller is much less expensive and lasts longer. Still, the warheads do have to be constantly maintained, possibly recalibrated, and eventually replaced. It is super expensive.
That is why the USA has actually reduced the tonnage of their individual nuclear weapons. You’ll see the biggest bombs are over 50/60 years old, and probably long since expired in their ability to properly detonate.
Also, didn’t Putin just pull Russia out of the START agreements?
“Putin reminds me of Billy Jack where he tells the hooligan”
Billy Jack was a good guy, Putin a murderous KGB thug.
The 400 KT is listed as surface burst. Not sure why. Silos are deep and if you are going after them, you’ll use a lot more than 400.
The accuracy thing is a good point, but that’s a lot of years ago that the D-5 was considered destabilizing (by the SALT and START) negotiators because it was so accurate AND sub launched. It has always been leaned on to claim Russian guidance is inferior and that’s why bigger booms.
But that was in the days before GLONASS (the Russian GPS constellation). I doubt there is any accuracy differential anymore.
Yes I just looked it up. Here’s the deal with START.
The Russians have announced they are suspending adherence to the treaty, in keeping with some requirement to provide advance notice. This apparently does not mean warhead and launcher numbers are about to rise.
The treaty provides for onsite inspections by both sides. These were suspended during Covid on mutual agreement. Restarting them has run into the war in Ukraine. The Russians are tying their interest in restarting them to the treaty to their displeasure with US providing weapons there.
Probably useful to note that the inspections being suspended had no end date. There was no set day when they were to resume.
The suspension seems to apply only to these onsite inspections. No sign yet of an increase in numbers.
The treaty expires in 2026. There seem to have been hints at establishing dialogue, but they aren’t very loud.
That’s the whole point of hypersonic missiles - no one currently has a way to shoot them down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.