U.S. Has Deployed New, Small Nukes On Submarine, According To Group

The USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine, recently deployed with low-yield weapons. I have zero reason to doubt the veracity of this report, as it is fully consistent with the new Nuclear Force Posture as released by the Trump administration.

The W76-2 warhead is believed to have a total yield of 5 kilotons or about a third of the bomb detonated at Hiroshima.

In comparison, W76-0 has a 100 kiloton yield and W76-1 has a 90 kiloton yield.

The small warheads are in response to Russia’s deployment of similar sized warheads, which they might theoretically use to deter the United States from responding.

The danger here is that with an incoming ballistic missile, the enemy (whether the United States, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India or North Korea) does not have a clue whether the warhead is 5 kilotons or 10 megatons. Also, when a nuclear explosion goes off somewhere there is going to be panic.

It only takes ONE mistake to eradicate mankind from existence.

I don’t care if they are 5 kilotons or 10 megatons, keep them in their ******* silos. Hopefully, nobody will ever be stupid enough to actually push the button, regardless of the warhead size.

That is why I don’t like this development, either with Russia doing it or the United States doing. Somebody will think, “but it is only a baby nuke.” While not thinking of papa nuke that might get fired in response.

1 Like

“Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Anything that makes nuclear war more likely is bad. It’s the reason I support dismantling ICBMs and focusing entirely on nuclear armed bombers like the new B-21 and the Trident subs.

Instead we are going to blow 100 billion on a new family of ICBMs to replace the Minuteman III. ICBMs are inherently destabilizing because if you believe you are under a counterforce strike you have to use them or lose them. Then you have a heart attack realizing that you launched a nuclear holocaust on bad information.


Ricky Bobby was right in terms of nuclear war. Second place is first loser. Matching Russia’s posture is the proper response. But just like Al Bundy scoring four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba “Spare Tire” Dixon, don’t let this distract you from the fact that Putin is trying to make himself a lifelong position as Supreme Leader of Russia.

No he wasn’t. There is no such thing as a winner in nuclear war. No matter what we ALL lose

Nobody wins in a strategic nuclear war.

The only thing the victim of a first strike gets out of retaliation is revenge. And the only thing the aggressor gets is SLBM warheads detonating across their cities.

There was this fear in the 1950s that making smaller warheads would actually increase their desirability for actual use. A multimegaton monster, or even MIRVed 500kt Plus warheads, are easy to understand and fear.

1 to 15kt weapons are dangerous because people begin to think about nuclear war on a scale. “We can use a few of these 5kt weapons; they’re not too bad.”

But the bad thing is that both the US and Russia maintain fleets of modern missiles that have MIRV buses with warheads in between 175kt-750kt.

If the decision was made to use a 5kt launch, how does the other side tell the difference? Or do they simply assume that it’s a strategic level launch and they are using counterforce targeting with most of them aimed at the ICBM fields in both countries. In that situation, you have to make a really tough decision. Because you can’t afford to lose 1/3 of your nuclear arsenal in a counterforce strike. So you launch and get them off the ground.

1 Like

Actually, first place is first loser.

1 Like

Exactly!!! Didnt Joshua teach us anything?