Talk:Nuclear triad

message: 094 had its nuclear deterrent patrols commenced in December 2015.
:To be an international Triad power, one must have a WP:RS specifically state that; not merely that it has a boat on patrol.  Triad powers have FLEETS, not merely a single boat on patrol.  Find a SOURCE calling China an actively recognized triad power, not your own personal interpretation of the "meaning" of triad. Scr★pIronIV 15:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  094 SSBN is operational 

message: 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)
thread_title:  China now must be considered a triad power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  clean up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The mythical Indian Strategic Bomber 

message: 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]  Swaroop 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Arihant is not operational yet, and won't be for a few more years. (At least you asked before making the change; the flood of inaccurate edits over at SSBN has only just stopped.) YLee (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: INS Chakra is an SSN, not an SSBN. YLee (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch of India's INS Arihant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naval nuclear weapons 

message: I think Pakistan must be moved from Emerging Nuclear Triads to Non-Triad Nuclear Powers. There are many reasons to support this.
#. Pakistan has no ICBM in development. Without this, it it not an emerging nuclear triad.
#.The article states that Pakistan is developing an SLBM. But the reference given does not give any information about this.
#.It says PAF practiced "Toss Bombing" but no reference is given for that.
#.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 unsigned comment added by 110.225.249.80 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Pakistan has successfully tested Submarine launched Nuclear-capable Cruise Missile according to CNN, the Diplomat and 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. A3g0n (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan, An Emerging Nuclear Triad Nation??..How??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Anir1uph (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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." 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.79.177.192.210 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  India as a nuclear triad. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  China is a nuclear triad  

message: 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":
From JL-2: 
From Type 094 submarine: 
Reference named "globalsecurity":
From North Korea and weapons of mass destruction: 
From Pakistan Navy: Pakistan Navy 
From JL-2: 
From HAL Tejas: "Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)." Global Security, 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012. 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Nuclear triad]] 

message: According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force.http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/china/nuclear/ 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. Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad.
--162.74.52.147 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Scr★pIronIV 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  China is indeed a nuclear triad power, adding source from NTI and stripes 

message: According to NTI, China is an established nuclear triad power since the mid 2000s and is further modernizing its nuclear force.http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/china/nuclear/ 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. Collectively, it represents a nuclear triad.
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)
replies: text: "Represents a nuclear triad" does not mean the same thing as "Is considered a Triad power" - find a source that states that China is accepted internationally as a Triad power.  Having the elements does NOT mean it is a fielded force. Until then, it is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and purely speculative. Scr★pIronIV 14:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  China is indeed a nuclear triad power, disagree with ScrapIronIV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the definition of a Nuclear Triad

message: "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)
thread_title:  What does this mean!? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan is a Nuclear Triad nation. Here's why? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redefining the nuclear triad section