This morning I have got the following message from the Kulak:

Re: nuclear muscle flexing nonsense

“Russia has no satellite launch detection systems? What moron wrote this? The Russian nuke missiles are almost brand new and increasingly road or rail mobile Topol-Ms developed during the 1990s and fielded started from the mid to late 2000s. USN Tridents while deadly and with low warning time if launched from N Atlantic are 20+ years old, despite upgrades to the Ohio boats. The WY/ND/SD/MT based Minutemen III’s which replaced the START phased out MX Peacekeepers are mid 1980s vintage and more geographically clustered than their Russian silo counterparts which are more spread out.”

and a link to the Business Insider’s Alex Lockie: US nukes just got a lot deadlier —  and experts say it could cause Russia to attack!!!

Wow, breathtaking…

The article grabs your attention from the beginning: “A recent report from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists details how the US massively upgraded the lethality of its submarine-based nuclear missiles.”

“Because of this new “super fuze,” or timing element that ensures that each and every single missile will explode at precisely the right moment .” That’s why these missiles could be “used to wipe out Russia’s nukes buried deep underground.”

“Because of improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos.”

“But the US has even bigger nukes which sit in missile silos underground as ICBMs. Historically, these missiles would have been used for destroying Russia’s ICBMs, but since submarines can handle that now, the US can focus its big nukes on obliterating underground hardened nuclear shelters — the kind Kremlin officials would hide out in during an attack.”


Aha, this threat is personally for President Putin, isn’t it?

At the end Alex Lockie quotes NASA: (Without eyes in space, Russia would have to answer a very difficult question very quickly if they detected an incoming missile. NASA)”

As an illustration of the American superiority Alex Lockie  provides an image of nimbus B1, a NASA satellite.

According to a book Space and Nuclear Weaponry in the 1990’s edited by Carlo Schaerf, Giuseppe Longo, David Carlto, the American Nimbus-B1 meteorological satellite plunged into the Pacific Ocean in May 18, 1968.

I didn’t know what “fuze” was, left alone “super-fuze,” so I looked it up.

Turns out, fuze is a detonator, and a super fuze in this content would be detonator with a pre-set clock. “A time delay element used with a contact fuze permits the warhead to penetrate the target before detonation.”

Hmmm, this fuze sounds very masculine. We wouldn’t want a premature detonation, wouldn’t we?

The revelation that without this super-fuze the US warheads denote at random struck me as dumb.

Before I read the report, I checked to see what is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?

Their domain name  and they share IP  with this domain:

They seems to have a huge grudge against President Trump.

On Dec 16, 2016, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that Trump was “In denial: on both climate and intelligence,”  and on Jan 26, 2017 they reported with the reference to the Washington Post that “The Doomsday Clock just advanced, ‘thanks to Trump’: It’s now 2 ½ minutes to “midnight,” according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which warned Thursday that the end of humanity may be near.”

Their mission statement : “The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change.”

In essence, it’s sort of like the Farmer’s Almanac, only much less useful.


So, I went and read the report titles, “How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze”

The report is written by Hans M. Kristensen, a director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in Washington, DC.

Matthew McKinzie, a director of the Nuclear Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Washington, DC.

Theodore A. Postol, a physicist and a professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.

The following are excerpts from the report

“that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing—boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three—and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”

“improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos.

“US submarine-based missiles can carry multiple warheads, so hundreds of others, now in storage, could be added to the submarine-based missile force, making it all the more lethal.”

The revolutionary increase in the lethality of submarine-borne US nuclear forces comes from a “super-fuze” device that since 2009 has been incorporated into the Navy’s W76-1/Mk4A warheads.

“Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact.

Aha… Now, we are getting somewhere.

Here comes the punchline:

“The result of this fuzing scheme is a significant increase in the probability that a warhead will explode close enough to destroy the target even though the accuracy of the missile-warhead system has itself not improved.”

So, they make it clear that “the accuracy won’t improve,”  it’s a “probability” that will increase.

Why do they publish this?

“This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.”

Translating into English,  this propaganda piece intends to improve the perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intention.

What reaction do they want to get from Russia?

“Russian planners (?) will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures.”

Clearly, before this “analysis” the US missiles had no targeting capability, now they have “an increased probability,” so those mystical “Russian planners” will have to scramble for “countermeasures!!!”

A casual observer would ask,Why would Russia be required to undertake countermeasures now? Doesn’t it have a anti-missile systems like the Don-2N, a stationary multi-purpose all-round surveillance centimeter-range radar station capable to capable of detecting an ICBM warhead at a distance of 3,700 km and at an altitude of 40,000 km.?”

“The Russian Space Surveillance System (SSS) employs a variety of ground-based radars and electro-optical sensors in and outside of the Russian Federation and maintains a satellite database similar to that of the United States.


But the three “experts” seems to know better. They agree that Russia has radars, but…

Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attacs, these radars cannot see over the horizon,”

“The inability of Russia to globally monitor missile launches from space means that Russian military and political leaders would have no “situational awareness”

So, let’s see how the new accuracy-enhancing fuze works.

“The significant increase in the ability of the W76-1/Mk4A warhead to destroy hardened targets—including Russian silo-based ICBMs—derives from a simple physical fact: Explosions that occur near and above the ground over a target can be lethal to it.”

This fuse program goes way back, April 1997, Strategic Systems Program director Rear Adm. George P. Nanos publicly explained that “just by changing the fuze in the Mk4 reentry body, you get a significant improvement.”

By 1998, the fuze modernization effort became a formal project, with five SLBM flight tests planned for 2001-2008.

Full-scale production of the super-fuze equipped W76-1/Mk4A began in September 2008, with the first warhead delivered to the Navy in February 2009.

By the end of 2016, roughly 1,200 of an estimated 1,600 planned W76-1/Mk4As had been produced, of which about 506 are currently deployed on ballistic missile submarines.

Let’s take a look at the article written by the same Hans M. Kristensen and titled Administration Increases Submarine Nuclear Warhead Production Plan

The W76-1/Mk4A

Approximately 3,250 W76 warheads were produced between 1978 and 1988. The weapons armed the Poseidon C3 and Trident I C4 and currently the Trident II D5 missiles (together with about 400 W88 warheads). A modified W76 also arms Trident II missiles on British submarines. With the service life limit of the oldest units approaching, the Clinton administration in the late 1990s ordered a W76 Life Extension Program (LEP) to extend the service life for another 30 years. Major milestones for the program are:

 W76-1/Mk4A Production Milestones

  • Aug 1998: W76-1/Mk4A Phase 6.2/2A Study authorized by Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC).
  • Oct 1998: Joint DOD/DOE W76-1/Mk4A Phase 6.2/2A Study initiated.
  • FY 1999: W76 hydro-dynamic tests conducted.
  • Mar 1999: NWC approves entry into W76-1/Mk4A Phase 6.3.
  • Feb 2000: W76-1/Mk4A Phase 6.2 warhead design options developed.
  • Mar 2000: NWC approves Block 1 refurbishment plan for W76 LEP.
  • Apr 2000: W76-1/Mk4A cost estimates developed.
  • Jul 2000: W76-1/Mk4A Phase 6.3 DOD/DOE Kickoff.
  • Dec 11, 2002: First test flight of the W76-1/Mk4A RV on Trident II D5 launched from USS Nevada.
  • Apr 2003: W76-1/Mk4A with new arming/fusing subsystem (AFS) test flown on Trident II from USS Maine.
  • Nov 10, 2004: First development test of W76-1 JTA1 AF&F (Arming, Fuzing & Firing) and telemetry launched from USS Nevada.
  • 2005: The DOD Strategic Capabilities Assessment sets a W76 LEP requirement of 63 percent of W76 stockpile.
  • Dec 9, 2005: Second development test of W76-1 JTA1 AF&F and telemetry launched from USS Rhode Island.
  • Nov 21, 2006: Third and final development test of W76-1 JTA1 AF&F and telemetry launched from USS Maryland.
  • Sep 2007: First production unit of W76-1/Mk4A to be delivered.
  • FY 2012: W76-1/Mk4A Block 1 production scheduled for completion.
  • FY 2021: W76-1/Mk4A LEP scheduled for completion.


The US dosn’t just makes this “super-fuze,”  it sells it to the UK, according to the  modernisation of UK nuclear forces

The UK has purchased three W76 components—the Arming, Fuzing and Firing System, Gas Transfer System and Neutron Generator—from the US. Hansard, 4 December 2009.

The US official confirms Trident missile failure in the UK

Where the UK gets those fuzes? Who makes them?

“Kansas City Plant is supporting UK work on new surety components,”  according to the 2006 Labs Accomplishments., Sandia National Laboratories(SNL).…/_assets/…/lab_accomplish_2006.pdf

Looks like this leader in nuclear technology, it’s trying to keep its head over the water,  the year they launched production of the heralded fuse in 2007, Sandia National Laboratories were facing a cut in funding and a reduction of workforce.

This super-fuze” device saved them from extinction.  


Sandia budget cuts history

·        Feb 10, 2005 – Sandia National Laboratories is facing a potential $121 million budget cut if Congress follows through on the Department of Energy’s 2006;

·        Sep 8, 2007 – Sandia Told To Prepare For Worst: Congressional budget cuts could cost lab more jobs than anticipated in June. (Albuquerque Journal (NM)

·        Apr 28, 2015 – A $2 million tax hike is coming to one of Albuquerque’s biggest … Sandia will not talk about its budget decisions or say if any job cuts will occur

·        Oct 31, 2013 – Nuclear Labs Leader Concerned About Budget Cuts . Sandia President and Laboratories Director Paul Hommert // Sandia … of “sequestration” budget cuts and other crimps on federal spending;

·        January 30, 2017.  Anxiety Mounts at National Labs Over Future of Climate Research. “Nothing saves you if the budget is cut,” Foster said. … whose district includes Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

·        A Glimpse At New Mexico’s Economic Future Under Trump

“The anticipated cuts in the Trump proposal would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over ten years. The proposal recommends funding reductions in “nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research”, exactly the kind of research both LANL and Sandia specialize in. It is worth noting that federal spending cuts to New Mexico labs would primarily affect people represented by Democrats.”


I rest my case.

Featured image: Nothing that the US super-fuze duck tape cannot fix, from nukes to erection.

Scott Humor

Follow me on Twitter

Read me book

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world