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.
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.