The Trident boats are not subject to the MIRV treaty restrictions that ICBMs are.
So, let’s just say it’s only 5 boats at sea. Each with 24 D5 missiles, each carrying, on average, 8 warheads. They can carry 12 each.
960 nukes, more accurate than the MMIII. And almost always closer, arriving much sooner. Sometimes less than 10mins.
It’s a true, first strike/counterforce weapon system and when combined with the Pershing II was the real winner of the cold war.
MMIIIs are limited to a single warhead by treaty. And that can’t be changed out overnight.
Trident subs have all been reduced to 20 missiles each. Not the original 24, unless we remove ourselves from the New Start treaty.
They all have verified counts by the New Start treaty every six months and that is posted on line by the dept of state. I bet we don’t cheat but the Russians have cheated on every treaty we have ever signed with them. We average 4-6 warheads per Trident II D-5 missile as declared by the treaty provisions every six months verified.
Latest MM3 missile launch in the last few weeks had a three warhead payload.
We do have an “upload” capability that is impressive but if you add up all the new missiles the Russians are adding like their Buluva SSBN missile (10 warheads capability) or the replacement of the SS-18 Satan, which has more than a dozen, their upload is also impressive.
The question is how much you want to trust the Russians with a weakly verifiable New Start treaty provisions...
They don’t carry 8 or 12, they carry 4. And you think that the Democrats are going to increase the warhead count?
In any case, we need more nukes, not fewer. We might want to consider using them offensively against China one day. When it comes to delivery systems, more is better.