![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ryanwilliamson5,
Love meg91,
Simath,
Ryandcrist,
Pownism,
Jerrodcwatson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
094 had its nuclear deterrent patrols commenced in December 2015. [1]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I found some sources:
1.
http://www.stripes.com/news/on-land-and-sea-china-s-nuclear-capability-growing-1.299381
2.
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/
3.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/china-will-become-nuclear-triad-power.html
All these sources back up your claim.
Most importantly, China currently had 1 092 SSBN and 4 094 SSBN in active service, its missiles the JL-1 and JL-2 are all operational. This means that China already had the minminum sea based deterrent operational. The source is: [2]
This source is as reliable as it gets. It is from Richard Fisher.
-- 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) 79.180.54.157 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
China already had its SSBN operational since the 1970s, it maintained a bomber fleet of H-6 since the 1980s and it has a land based missile force since the 1960s. Also, recently India considered itself a triad power because its first SSBN with a missile range of mere 750KM entered service. China had its first SSBN the 092 with JL-1 missile (Range exceed 3000KM) since the 1970s. Now there are already 4 094 SSBN as of 2015 and nuclear deterrent patrol commenced in 2015.
-- 174.97.23.238 ( talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
--
174.97.23.238 (
talk)
10:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This was, I thought, pretty weakly constructed when I got here. I think its' better now, but even what I did was half-ass. It could use quite a bit more work. Unschool ( talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.
Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
India launched its Nuclear submarine on July 26, 2009, and is hence eligible to be included in the list of countries which have a nuclear triad. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Arihant] [1] Swaroop 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
But India has formerly used Nuclear Submarines like INS Chakra. [2] Swaroop 11:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
India is still far form a nuclear triad power because:
1. India does not have any valid air leg. All India's air leg consist of short range tactical fighters not bombers specifically designed for bombing. 2. India only has one SSBN, a country must have at least 4 SSBN to have minimum sea based deterrent. UK, France each has four SSBN and China currently have 5 SSBN.
-- 50.207.191.155 ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
China is not considered a nuclear triad power because it does not maintain a modern strategic bomber fleet. Provide sources or I will remove it.-- Mr nonono ( talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1: The sources mentioned there in any moment say that China possess a nuclear triad, they only talk about their nuclear weapons. So provide reliable sources. 2: To possess a nuclear triad, a country must have components on ground, air and sea capable of delivering a first or a second strike against another nuclear power. Neither the chinese so called strategic bomber fleet nor they nuclear submarines are capable of that, making their ground based ICBMs the only effective nuclear deterrent. 3: As I said above, China is not considered to have a modern bomber fleet, and many sources say that ( http://sp.rian.ru/analysis/20091225/124506164.html for example).-- Mr nonono ( talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack.
YLee ( talk) 07:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the position that "China has no nuclear triad" by fiat claim of nonconformance is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, since it requires WP:SYNTHESIS of the conditions needed to qualify for "nuclear triad". There are actual sources that document the claim that China has a nuclear triad. I do see that someone provided one reference that claims that China no longer has a nuclear triad. So with that, there a competing sources and claims. Just leave the article with the three countries listed, but put an asterisk next to China, and a footnote saying that there are conflicting sources that say it does or does not have a triad.
As for my personal opinion on the matter; China has an SSBN, China seems to have nuclear cruise missiles, China has more than short-range-tactical nuclear bombers, China has ICBMs, therefore China has a nuclear triad; whether that nuclear triad is effective or not, it will survive a war against India, Pakistan and North Korea with that kind of triad, all nuclear powers, so yes, it does seem like it is effective. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
While the advantages of submarines with nuclear weapons are evident, other naval vessels seem to be treated here as more irrelevant then they truly are. Nuclear deterrent isn't just going to be directed at other nuclear powers and therefore at striking land assets. A lot of Cold War era hardware was designed around the battlefield use of nuclear weapons at sea. Indeed, also in the air and on the land, but in the sea is where the hardware is still available. Many modern navies operate ships, submarines and I'm betting helicopters capable of delivering nuclear weapons in ways that aren't covered in this article. For example, torpedoes, depth charges and surface launched guided missiles often had optional nuclear warheads, as did the larger guns on legacy ships. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the context of the lesser nuclear powers, that they may fit the bill or have the capacity to, even if in a less glamorous way then space based launches.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Dekker451 that Israel does not have a nuclear triad because it is not suspected of having sea based nuclear weapons. A nuclear triad means possessing land, air and sea based nuclear delivery systems. Israel is suspected of having only land based nuclear missiles and nuclear capable fighter aircraft. Israel is not suspected of having any ballistic missile submarines. You need to provide sources stating otherwise if you wish to include Israel as a nuclear triad power. Please understand that a nuclear triad means possessing all 3 types of nuclear delivery systems; land, air and sea. A country is not a nuclear triad power if it possesses only 1 or 2 of these. Please note the United Kingdom, France, India and Pakistan are not nuclear triad powers either for this reason. Unionin ( talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Pakistan must be moved from Emerging Nuclear Triads to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers. There are many reasons to support this.
Therefore, I'm moving Pakistan to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers.
If anyone wants to revert it, please come with suitable and neutral references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.249.80 ( talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (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://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/
Usman47 ( talk) 07:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the land and air based delivery capabilities. But I understand that the INS Chakra 2 that has been leased from Russia is non-nuclear capable as Russia is an NPT signatory. So I'd think India will achieve Nuclear Triad status only on the commissioning of the INS Arihant. Maybe we should hold on moving India to Triad status till December end when the Arihant is commissioned so that it is undisputed. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
References
China already have a very matured land base ICBM systems with MIRV capabilities. China also have the H-6 boomer which has greater range than any fighter aircraft in India air force, not to mention all the tactical aircraft such as Su-30, J-16, J-10, JH-7A which could all be used to carry nuclear weapons.
On top of that, the 092 was in service decades ago while India's SSBN is not even in commission not forget to mention its missile has a very short range, less that 2000 km. The 094 is already China's second generation SSBN and it will most likely begin deterrent patrol this year according to credible source: http://www.janes.com/article/50761/us-upgrades-assessment-of-china-s-type-094-ssbn-fleet -- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 20:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
China already is a triad power because; with H-6K, Su-30, J-16, JH-7A as air leg. DF-5, DF-31, DF-41, DF-21 as land based leg. Active 092 SSBN plus JL-1 already operational and 094 SSBN with JL-2 soon to be operational." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear triad's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cmpr2013":
Reference named "globalsecurity":
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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I have added the official definition of a nuclear triad.
The true definition of nuclear should have three legs: 1. Strategic Submarine Ballistic Nuclear (SSBN)s and the SLBMs they carry represent the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. 2. Single or MIRV warhead ICBMs contribute to stability, and like SLBMs, have low vulnerability to air defenses, however land based ICBM can be carried by TEL vehicles to give them maneuverability which enhance their survivalist. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, bombers can be visibly deployed forward as a signal in crisis to strengthen deterrence against potential adversaries and assurance of allies and partners; it is also possible to recall a manned bomber after launch or takeoff toward a target.
http://sdc-usa.org/the-us-nuclear-triad/
Please see the source.
-- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force. [1] 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. [2] Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad. [3]
-- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
References
According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force. [1] 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. [2] Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad. [3]
The source highlighted that China has all three legs. Which "Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD ( talk) 23:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
China is a triad power.
1. 5 094 SSBN active and deterrence patrol started in 2015.
2. H-6K strategic bomber active since 2009.
3. Highly advanced land base missiles.
End of discussion.
--
50.76.189.25 (
talk)
13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
References
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. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
"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".
188.29.164.65 ( talk) 20:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
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 Series, Ghauri series, Ababeel
Air: Ra'ad and Babur nuclear capable ALCM
Sea: 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/
Usman47 ( talk) 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Inverted Hourglass ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ryanwilliamson5,
Love meg91,
Simath,
Ryandcrist,
Pownism,
Jerrodcwatson.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
094 had its nuclear deterrent patrols commenced in December 2015. [1]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I found some sources:
1.
http://www.stripes.com/news/on-land-and-sea-china-s-nuclear-capability-growing-1.299381
2.
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/
3.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/china-will-become-nuclear-triad-power.html
All these sources back up your claim.
Most importantly, China currently had 1 092 SSBN and 4 094 SSBN in active service, its missiles the JL-1 and JL-2 are all operational. This means that China already had the minminum sea based deterrent operational. The source is: [2]
This source is as reliable as it gets. It is from Richard Fisher.
-- 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) 79.180.54.157 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
China already had its SSBN operational since the 1970s, it maintained a bomber fleet of H-6 since the 1980s and it has a land based missile force since the 1960s. Also, recently India considered itself a triad power because its first SSBN with a missile range of mere 750KM entered service. China had its first SSBN the 092 with JL-1 missile (Range exceed 3000KM) since the 1970s. Now there are already 4 094 SSBN as of 2015 and nuclear deterrent patrol commenced in 2015.
-- 174.97.23.238 ( talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
--
174.97.23.238 (
talk)
10:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This was, I thought, pretty weakly constructed when I got here. I think its' better now, but even what I did was half-ass. It could use quite a bit more work. Unschool ( talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.
Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul ( talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
India launched its Nuclear submarine on July 26, 2009, and is hence eligible to be included in the list of countries which have a nuclear triad. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Arihant] [1] Swaroop 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
But India has formerly used Nuclear Submarines like INS Chakra. [2] Swaroop 11:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
India is still far form a nuclear triad power because:
1. India does not have any valid air leg. All India's air leg consist of short range tactical fighters not bombers specifically designed for bombing. 2. India only has one SSBN, a country must have at least 4 SSBN to have minimum sea based deterrent. UK, France each has four SSBN and China currently have 5 SSBN.
-- 50.207.191.155 ( talk) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
China is not considered a nuclear triad power because it does not maintain a modern strategic bomber fleet. Provide sources or I will remove it.-- Mr nonono ( talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1: The sources mentioned there in any moment say that China possess a nuclear triad, they only talk about their nuclear weapons. So provide reliable sources. 2: To possess a nuclear triad, a country must have components on ground, air and sea capable of delivering a first or a second strike against another nuclear power. Neither the chinese so called strategic bomber fleet nor they nuclear submarines are capable of that, making their ground based ICBMs the only effective nuclear deterrent. 3: As I said above, China is not considered to have a modern bomber fleet, and many sources say that ( http://sp.rian.ru/analysis/20091225/124506164.html for example).-- Mr nonono ( talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack.
YLee ( talk) 07:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the position that "China has no nuclear triad" by fiat claim of nonconformance is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, since it requires WP:SYNTHESIS of the conditions needed to qualify for "nuclear triad". There are actual sources that document the claim that China has a nuclear triad. I do see that someone provided one reference that claims that China no longer has a nuclear triad. So with that, there a competing sources and claims. Just leave the article with the three countries listed, but put an asterisk next to China, and a footnote saying that there are conflicting sources that say it does or does not have a triad.
As for my personal opinion on the matter; China has an SSBN, China seems to have nuclear cruise missiles, China has more than short-range-tactical nuclear bombers, China has ICBMs, therefore China has a nuclear triad; whether that nuclear triad is effective or not, it will survive a war against India, Pakistan and North Korea with that kind of triad, all nuclear powers, so yes, it does seem like it is effective. 70.29.212.131 ( talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
While the advantages of submarines with nuclear weapons are evident, other naval vessels seem to be treated here as more irrelevant then they truly are. Nuclear deterrent isn't just going to be directed at other nuclear powers and therefore at striking land assets. A lot of Cold War era hardware was designed around the battlefield use of nuclear weapons at sea. Indeed, also in the air and on the land, but in the sea is where the hardware is still available. Many modern navies operate ships, submarines and I'm betting helicopters capable of delivering nuclear weapons in ways that aren't covered in this article. For example, torpedoes, depth charges and surface launched guided missiles often had optional nuclear warheads, as did the larger guns on legacy ships. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the context of the lesser nuclear powers, that they may fit the bill or have the capacity to, even if in a less glamorous way then space based launches.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Dekker451 that Israel does not have a nuclear triad because it is not suspected of having sea based nuclear weapons. A nuclear triad means possessing land, air and sea based nuclear delivery systems. Israel is suspected of having only land based nuclear missiles and nuclear capable fighter aircraft. Israel is not suspected of having any ballistic missile submarines. You need to provide sources stating otherwise if you wish to include Israel as a nuclear triad power. Please understand that a nuclear triad means possessing all 3 types of nuclear delivery systems; land, air and sea. A country is not a nuclear triad power if it possesses only 1 or 2 of these. Please note the United Kingdom, France, India and Pakistan are not nuclear triad powers either for this reason. Unionin ( talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Pakistan must be moved from Emerging Nuclear Triads to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers. There are many reasons to support this.
Therefore, I'm moving Pakistan to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers.
If anyone wants to revert it, please come with suitable and neutral references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.249.80 ( talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (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://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/
Usman47 ( talk) 07:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the land and air based delivery capabilities. But I understand that the INS Chakra 2 that has been leased from Russia is non-nuclear capable as Russia is an NPT signatory. So I'd think India will achieve Nuclear Triad status only on the commissioning of the INS Arihant. Maybe we should hold on moving India to Triad status till December end when the Arihant is commissioned so that it is undisputed. Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
References
China already have a very matured land base ICBM systems with MIRV capabilities. China also have the H-6 boomer which has greater range than any fighter aircraft in India air force, not to mention all the tactical aircraft such as Su-30, J-16, J-10, JH-7A which could all be used to carry nuclear weapons.
On top of that, the 092 was in service decades ago while India's SSBN is not even in commission not forget to mention its missile has a very short range, less that 2000 km. The 094 is already China's second generation SSBN and it will most likely begin deterrent patrol this year according to credible source: http://www.janes.com/article/50761/us-upgrades-assessment-of-china-s-type-094-ssbn-fleet -- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 20:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
China already is a triad power because; with H-6K, Su-30, J-16, JH-7A as air leg. DF-5, DF-31, DF-41, DF-21 as land based leg. Active 092 SSBN plus JL-1 already operational and 094 SSBN with JL-2 soon to be operational." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear triad's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cmpr2013":
Reference named "globalsecurity":
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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I have added the official definition of a nuclear triad.
The true definition of nuclear should have three legs: 1. Strategic Submarine Ballistic Nuclear (SSBN)s and the SLBMs they carry represent the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. 2. Single or MIRV warhead ICBMs contribute to stability, and like SLBMs, have low vulnerability to air defenses, however land based ICBM can be carried by TEL vehicles to give them maneuverability which enhance their survivalist. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, bombers can be visibly deployed forward as a signal in crisis to strengthen deterrence against potential adversaries and assurance of allies and partners; it is also possible to recall a manned bomber after launch or takeoff toward a target.
http://sdc-usa.org/the-us-nuclear-triad/
Please see the source.
-- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force. [1] 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. [2] Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad. [3]
-- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
References
According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force. [1] 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. [2] Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad. [3]
The source highlighted that China has all three legs. Which "Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD ( talk) 23:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
China is a triad power.
1. 5 094 SSBN active and deterrence patrol started in 2015.
2. H-6K strategic bomber active since 2009.
3. Highly advanced land base missiles.
End of discussion.
--
50.76.189.25 (
talk)
13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
References
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. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
"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".
188.29.164.65 ( talk) 20:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
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 Series, Ghauri series, Ababeel
Air: Ra'ad and Babur nuclear capable ALCM
Sea: 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/
Usman47 ( talk) 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Inverted Hourglass ( talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)