Talk:Nuclear triad: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

~~The~~{{~~WPMILHIST~~WikiProject Military history|class=start|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y

|US=yes

|Russian=yes

|Weaponry=yes

}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/Cold_War_Science_(Spring_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Ryanwilliamson5|Ryanwilliamson5]], [[User:Love meg91|Love meg91]], [[User:Simath|Simath]], [[User:Ryandcrist|Ryandcrist]], [[User:Pownism|Pownism]], [[User:Jerrodcwatson|Jerrodcwatson]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}

== 094 SSBN is operational ==

Line 28 ⟶ 33:

--[[Special:Contributions/50.207.191.155|50.207.191.155]] ([[User talk:50.207.191.155|talk]]) 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

==You have made an excellent case that China is an emerging triad power, provide cites that they always have a sub with fully operational SLBMs out on rotating deterrence patrol for several years running and you will have a case for full triad, also need cites that bombers or other aircraft have strategic deterrence assignments, not that they just exist in hangars with unknown role. The emerging triad section was created so passionate China or India triad'ers would not casually pop by and edit based on their idea of who is a triad power. If you disagree get a coalition together and call for a vote perhaps consensus will change and the artificial emerging triad section will be abandoned, though IMHO that would possibly knock China with questionable bomber and in late testing sea leg(JL-2 not clearly operational, 092 never patrolled one sank in port) and assuredly India back to non-triad. Solomon(for now)[[Special:Contributions/79.180.54.157|79.180.54.157]] ([[User talk:79.180.54.157|talk]]) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

== China now must be considered a triad power ==

Line 39 ⟶ 46:

--[[Special:Contributions/174.97.23.238|174.97.23.238]] ([[User talk:174.97.23.238|talk]]) 10:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

== clean up ==

Line 119 ⟶ 128:

I think Pakistan must be moved from Emerging Nuclear Triads to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers. There are many reasons to support this.

1#. Pakistan has no ICBM in development. Without this, it it not an emerging nuclear triad.

2#.The article states that Pakistan is developing an SLBM. But the reference given does not give any information about this.

3#.It says PAF practiced "Toss Bombing" but no reference is given for that.

4#.There are no supporting references to the information. Everything is believed to be developed. That is not right for a Wikipedia Article.

Therefore, I'm moving Pakistan to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers.

If anyone wants to revert it, please come with suitable and neutral references. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/110.225.249.80|110.225.249.80]] ([[User talk:110.225.249.80|talk]]) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

:Pakistan has successfully tested Submarine launched Nuclear-capable Cruise Missile according to [http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/asia/pakistan-submarine-missile/index.html CNN], [http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/pakistans-tests-new-sub-launched-nuclear-capable-cruise-missile-what-now/ the Diplomat] and [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-38561939/pakistan-test-launches-submarine-cruise-missile BBC]. So evidently the SLCM development appears to have completed although there are no indications when are they formally going to induct the missile into their arsenal. [[User:A3g0n|A3g0n]] ([[User talk:A3g0n|talk]]) 06:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually the entire definition of a nuclear triad is a bit broke. These days you don't necessarily need to have an ICBM or a heavy bomber to be considered a nuclear triad. This definition is from the cold-war era. You must have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons from all three forces ie. land, air, sea to have a complete nuclear triad. A common example of this is Israel. They are suspected nuclear triad even though they have ICBM's for their land forces only. Their navy uses SLCM to deliver nukes similar to that of Pakistan's capability. Pakistan has Shaheen and Ghauri series for land based attacks, Raad and Babur cruise missiles for air based attacks and Babur-3 SLCM's for sea based nuclear deterrence. This is essentially what a nuclear triad is.

As far as sources are concerned here are the sources:

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pakistan-enters-nuke-triad-club

http://zeenews.india.com/asia/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad-launches-missile-babur-3-from-submarine_1965794.html (Ironic)

http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/01/16/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad/

https://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-the-nuclear-triad/

A complete history of nuclear triad with modern triad definition.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/07/15/brief-history-nuclear-triad/

[[User:Usman47|Usman47]] ([[User talk:Usman47|talk]]) 07:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

== India as a nuclear triad. ==

Line 132 ⟶ 163:

: '''I agree'''. [[User:Anir1uph|Anir1uph]] ([[User talk:Anir1uph|talk]]) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

: Until India can demonstrate a working and deployable SLBM deterrent force consisting of several subs who deploy on rotating deterrence patrols for several years they will remain an emerging triad nation like China has been since 1986. Since for that period the Chinese type 92 SSBN subs with SLBMS never were able to fix tech issues and lost one of two subs of the class at sea, now the newer type 94 is still working out the kinks with the submarine design and new missiles, but 26 years and other submarine and ballistic missile designs over this time will have helped find engineering mistakes helping them advance to better designs. China after 26 years is still not properly triad, and not deploying on regular patrols like the SSBN's of US, UK, France, and Russia. When the first of class and India's national first ever domestic nuclear sub Arihant is fully commissioned and deploys on training cruises perhaps in December with empty tubes or to test experimental missiles it still will not be a operational deterrent, it will take at least a few years to discover the issues that have troubled every nation who builds its own first ship of any type and will require reliable citations that the missiles are fully operational and the Arihant and several subsequent SSBN's are on deterrence patrols in deep international water out of danger from a first strike on the sub pens. This position is also held by the Indian navy "The over 6,000-tonne INS Arihant will be more of `a technology demonstrator', rather than a fully-operational SSBN, for the subsequent follow-on nuclear submarines to follow."<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Home-made-nuke-sub-INS-Arihant-to-be-inducted-in-2-years/articleshow/5293123.cms |title = Submarine: Home-made nuke sub INS Arihant to be inducted in 2 years | India News - Times of India}}</ref> Right now as a non-triad state it is only due to constant uncited edit pressure that emerging category was created so there would not be constant edit pressure to make China and India incorrectly triad listed. Israel due to its unpopular world position and nuclear ambiguity was given a special low status and positioned below the declared nuclear states as a suspect state so it too would be left alone, it is also unclear that Israel is actually deploying their boats on deterrent patrols or currently has sufficient ships especially considering the resupply requirements of the conventionally powered but nuclear armed Dolphin class. There recently have not been too many attempts to elevate Pakistan and they are actually nowhere near having a working triad from the documents I have access to so they are located as non-triad. This current article arrangement is mostly to make it easy to keep this page organized and factually correct per cites and to discourage drive by uncited or badly cited edits by prempting with clarifications in the article such as is the case with information on the nuclear powered but conventionally armed Chakra attack sub.[[Special:Contributions/79.177.192.210|79.177.192.210]] ([[User talk:79.177.192.210|talk]]) 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Line 157 ⟶ 190:

<li>From [[Pakistan Navy]]: [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm Pakistan Navy] {{dead link|date=May 2011}}</li>

<li>From [[JL-2]]: {{cite web |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/jl-2.htm |title=JL-2 (CSS-NX-14) |website=Globalsecurity.org |date=20 April 2014 |accessdate=26 January 2015}}</li>

<li>From [[HAL Tejas]]: [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/lca.htm "Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)."] ''Global Security'', 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012. {{~~Wayback|df=yes~~webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140110100423/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/lca.htm |date =~~20140110100423~~10 January 2014 }}</li>

</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#888800;">⚡</~~font~~span>]] 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

== Official definition of a nuclear triad ==

Line 180 ⟶ 213:

:::How silly of me. The US Strategic Deterrent Coalition is a mainstream media publisher. It has no interest in presenting its own country's triad in the strongest possible light. Its claim to be unbiased may be taken unquestioningly at face value. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 20:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I suggest that as the emerging triad category has expired due to people who need to see India and China as full triad(the category was created to satisfy them and reduce edit pressure) we need to get a consensus on a simple cited definition rather than the current(my) text for US/Russia mentioning a robust capacity to sortie SLBM submarines on long deterrence cruises. Edits to removing any description or just mentioning sea missile, land missile, and air launched components as well as cite needed get removed. In the past I think I have also put up a cited description. I think since we mention China and India and might get DPRK with some form of SLBMs or SLCMs in a few years the description should not include only intercontinental bombers and ICBMs as this would have also disqualified the former French triad and is only true for superpowers who are an ocean away the US mil/gov sources to cite speak of the US and it's specific triad requirements not of triad arrangements in general. Solomon(for now)[[Special:Contributions/79.181.226.248|79.181.226.248]] ([[User talk:79.181.226.248|talk]]) 08:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

== China is indeed a nuclear triad power, adding source from NTI and stripes ==

According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force.<ref>http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/china/nuclear/</ref> Other source such as the '''''stripes''''' stated that the current Chinese land based nuclear arsenal is further modernizing with the new DF-41 missile getting close to induction. U.S. officials also expect China to have operational nuclear missile-equipped submarines in 2014; mean while the HK-6 bomber, a nuclear-capable aircraft with a range of about 2,000 miles, became part of the Chinese arsenal last year.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.stripes.com/news/on-land-and-sea-china-s-nuclear-capability-growing-1.299381 | title=On land and sea, China's nuclear capability growing}}</ref> Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.stripes.com/news/on-land-and-sea-china-s-nuclear-capability-growing-1.299381 | title=On land and sea, China's nuclear capability growing}}</ref>

--[[Special:Contributions/162.74.52.147|162.74.52.147]] ([[User talk:162.74.52.147|talk]]) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

:The Stripes article does not support the contention that China is a Triad power. It mentions improving triad capabilities, which is not the same thing. Please stop inserting your own personal interpretation of sources into this article. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|Scr★pIron]][[User talk:ScrapIronIV|IV]]''' 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

== China is indeed a nuclear triad power, disagree with ScrapIronIV ==

The source highlighted that China has all three legs. Which "Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad." — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD|2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD]] ([[User talk:2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD|talk]]) 23:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Line 209 ⟶ 246:

--[[Special:Contributions/50.76.189.25|50.76.189.25]] ([[User talk:50.76.189.25|talk]]) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

==Problem with the definition of a Nuclear Triad==

What definition are we using to define a Nuclear Triad? Strategic weapon systems only? Weapon systems of all ranges and capabilities? Or both?

A Strategic Nuclear Triad consists of (1) land-based ICBMs, (2) strategic bombers and (3) submarine-launched ballistic missiles and is capable of launching a worldwide strike. Currently, only the USA, China and Russia are shown to possess a Strategic Nuclear Triad, as they are the only nations that possess all three strategic systems.

India has land-based ICBMs and recently commissioned its first SSBN with submarine-launched ballistic missiles, however, the country lacks long-range strategic bombers and instead relies on simple fighter aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons by air. As such, while India does technically possess a Nuclear Triad, it does not possess a strategic one with global reach in all three domains. The same is true of Israel.

I think it would be beneficial to make this distinction in the article. [[User:Antiochus the Great|Antiochus the Great]] ([[User talk:Antiochus the Great|talk]]) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

: Since the term has only ever been used to describe, as you put it, "a strategic one with global reach in all three domains", I think the definition is clear. However, I don't see any objection to including in the article the point you make, as long as it is sourced and avoids [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 03:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

::Absolutely, there are some excellent resources on the strategic nuclear triads of China, Russia and the USA. I will get around to including them and making the appropriate changes to the article. Cheers. [[User:Antiochus the Great|Antiochus the Great]] ([[User talk:Antiochus the Great|talk]]) 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

== What does this mean!? ==

"Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Nuclear missiles launched from ships or submarines.[1][3] Although in early years the US Navy sea leg was carrier aircraft based with a very short period using sub launched cruise missiles such as the Regulus before SLBMs were ready to be deployed."

- From the article. The English is quite confused. It could use some punctuation and moving around, or ideally a rewrite. I've read it a few times now and I think the "leg was carrier aircraft based with a very short period" means that missiles were launched from aircraft carriers, but for a short length of time, they used submarine-launched cruise missiles...

How's a submarine-launched cruise missile not the same thing as the submarine missiles mentioned later?

It seems like that section was written in a hurry by someone with a lot of information to get down, who was perhaps too keen, or just didn't have the time or typing ability. If someone who knows what they're talking about, missile-wise, could improve it, it'd be nice. My English is pretty good but I know little about nuclear strategy beyond "duck and cover".

[[Special:Contributions/188.29.164.65|188.29.164.65]] ([[User talk:188.29.164.65|talk]]) 20:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

== Pakistan is a Nuclear Triad nation. Here's why? ==

Nuclear triad contrary to popular believe does not mean you should possess an ICBM or a strategic bomber to complete a triad. This definition is from the cold-war era. Nuclear triad simply means to have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons using all three major components of warfare i.e land, air and sea. That's why Israel is a suspected Triad power because it possess this capability. Similar to Israel, Pakistan also possess a nuclear triad consisting of following components:

'''Land:''' [[Shaheen-III|Shaheen]] Series, [[Ghauri_(missile)|Ghauri]] series, [[Ababeel_(missile)|Ababeel]]

'''Air:''' [[Hatf-VIII (Ra'ad)|Ra'ad]] and [[Babur (cruise missile)|Babur]] nuclear capable ALCM

'''Sea:''' [[Babur (cruise missile)|Babur-3]] cruise missile with nuclear capability

I would like to invite all participants to discuss this issue further.

http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/01/16/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad/

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pakistan-enters-nuke-triad-club

http://zeenews.india.com/asia/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad-launches-missile-babur-3-from-submarine_1965794.html (An Indian source)

'''A complete history of nuclear triad with modern triad definition.'''

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/07/15/brief-history-nuclear-triad/

[[User:Usman47|Usman47]] ([[User talk:Usman47|talk]]) 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

: {{ping|Usman47}} The sources you have provided are not that great and seem to be more of a hyperbole than actual content based off the testing of Babur SLCM. I have written this explanation multiple times so pointing you to one [[User_talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive_2#Rollback_of_valid_edits_in_List_of_states_with_nuclear_Weapons]]. In short, even if discount, the fact of SLCM vs SLBM (which is based on your "definition" of nuclear triad), Babur SLCM is not yet deployed only tested. To complete a triad, all three legs need to be operational, and Pakistan submarines need to go on deterrent patrols before this can be termed a completed triad. What you need is a scholarly source which indeed claims that Pakistan has an "operational triad". Hope this helps. [[User:Adamgerber80|Adamgerber80]] ([[User talk:Adamgerber80|talk]]) 20:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

== Redefining the nuclear triad section==

I made some edits to the "Redefining the nuclear triad" section, but I think it needs a lot of additional work. It focuses on only two points of view and only considers the US nuclear triad. For these reasons, perhaps the content should be integrated into the US section of the article, or perhaps the section should be expanded to cover other points of view and other countries. [[User:Inverted Hourglass|Inverted Hourglass]] ([[User talk:Inverted Hourglass|talk]]) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

==Reference log==