Talk:Nuclear triad

094 had its nuclear deterrent patrols commenced in December 2015.^[1]

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★pIron^IV 15:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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)

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.

^[1]

--174.97.23.238 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

--174.97.23.238 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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] Swaroop 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

But India has formerly used Nuclear Submarines like INS Chakra. Swaroop 11:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

INS Chakra is an SSN, not an SSBN. YLee (talk) 19:39, 28 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)

Source provided. Yes, the H-6 is old. Age alone does not disqualify a bomber fleet from being part of a viable nuclear system; the B-52 is older, after all. YLee (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It´s not only about it´s age, it´s about it´s characteristics. the H-6 does not reunite the criteria to be considered a modern strategic bomber (range, for example). It can not effectively deliver a first strike or a second strike deterrence against another nuclear power (the US). That´s why China is not considered to have a modern strategic bomber fleet.--Mr nonono (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We need expert outside opinion on this question. I admit to having difficulty in locating reliable sources that describe China as *today* possessing a viable nuclear triad. The FAS/NRDC 2006 report only mentions the word "triad" regarding Chinese forces once, and that for the status quo in 1984 when Russia was still operating the Tu-16, the H-6's progenitor. China today has a fair number of ICBMs, but exactly one SSBN and 50 years-old nuclear bombers that everyone agrees are pretty antiquated. (As I state above the B-52 is even older, but the airframes are in pretty good shape and they've received a lot of work over the years.) Can we really call that a triad? I honestly don't know. Or, to put another way, is it appropriate for Wikipedia to judge whether a country's air, land, and sea-based nuclear weapons systems qualify as a "real" triad or not? YLee (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested help from the Wikipedia Military science and technology and Military history task forces. YLee (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What are your sources that the bomber leg must be "modern". Please cite RS not rely on your original research. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Il´l better explain why China shouldn´t be in that list.

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)

Again, I am asking you to provide reliable sources that according to you says that a nuclear triad suggests that "a country must have components on ground, air and sea capable of delivering a first or a second strike against another nuclear power". This seems like a personal opinion rather than based on scholarly sources.

Even if this is true, the sources provided clearly state that China has a nuclear triad. From "EVOLUTION OF CHINA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY": "China has the third largest nuclear arsenal consisting of triad of nuclear forces: land based missiles, bombers, and submarine launched missiles." and "To achieve the aforementioned objectives, the Chinese are attempting to improve all three legs of their nuclear triad by continuing to fund their nuclear program and by acquiring the technological assistance of other countries, specifically the cash strapped former Soviet Union." In "Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning" published by the authoritative FAS/NRDC, the authors state that, in 1984, "DIA also suggested that China had managed to build a nuclear Triad where the “warheads can be delivered by both land- and sea-based missiles, as well as by conventional bomber aircraft." Hopefully, this addresses your questions and why you were reverted a number of times. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned above the FAS/NRDC report's single use of the word "triad". As you acknowledge, it occurred in 1984, and quotes a DIA source as doing so. The report itself never calls today's Chinese nuclear forces a triad, which is odd for a publication of more than 200 pages.

And yes, the definition of a nuclear triad implies more than "three ways to deliver nuclear weapons"; as the article discusses it includes survivability and the ability to launch a second strike. If a Russian first strike today could plausibly knock out all or most US bombers, SSBNs, and ICBMs the US would no longer possess a triad; it is each delivery method's ability to survive different forms of attacks that is important, and I don't know whether China's single SSBN and pretty old H-6s qualify. But how do we determine this without violating WP:OR? I don't know. As I state above, we need reliable sources to decide one way or another. YLee (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I found this 2006 article from Foreign Policy. It only calls the US and Russian nuclear forces as being part of a triad, and says about China:

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)

Okay, Il´l provide sources: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100415/158597505.html by the START definition, "heavy bomber" means a bomber of any type that satisfies either of the following criteria: (a) its range is greater than 8,000 kilometers; or (b) it is equipped for long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) with a range in excess of 600 kilometers. The H-6 does not satisfies that criteria.--Mr nonono (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. I think we can all agree that the US and Russia clearly have a more developed and survivable nuclear triad if nothing else because they have thousands of warheads each on high alert where as China has only a few hundred. Nevertheless, I do not think we should discount the many sources that infer that China has a nuclear triad even though more emphasis is placed on its land-based ICBM leg. And yes, when these sources mention "nuclear triad" in the context of China, they seem to define it as "three ways to deliver nuclear weapons" as the FAS/NRDC report suggests for instance. There are a number of other recent sources I can glean from a quick search on Google Books/Scholar. Other authors may define a triad in different terms and may not include China in such cases. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We should read that 1984 statement in context. China had launched its first Type 092 SSBN in 1981 and, presumably, planned to launch more. The USSR was still operating the Tupolev Tu-16, the original version of the Chinese Xian H-6. In other words, it was plausible to call China a developing nuclear triad power.

26 years later, the circumstances have changed. China still only has one Type 092, the Russians retired the Tu-16 in 1993, and reliable sources agree that the H-6 is quite antiquated and probably unable to accomplish its mission. However, we still risk WP:SYN and WP:OR if we say that China today has a triad just because it has three different ways of delivering nuclear weapons, whether they are viable or not...but we risk WP:SYN and WP:OR if we say that China does not have a triad because we take it upon ourselves to decide that viability matters in the triad definition. Without reliable sources we are stuck. YLee (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would agree that the PRC's "nuclear triad" is certainly not as survivable or developed as those possessed by the U.S. and even Russia. The question, is whether this means it does not possess a nuclear triad at all. As you suggest the best way is to use reliable sources that address this directly. I will see what I can find for now and may dig deeper. Also from what I am able to glean in addition to the Type 092, they have several new Type 094 SSBNs which I am unable to confirm have entered service yet.

• From NTI updated in 2003: "China is modernizing all legs of its nuclear triad".
• From Chinese nuclear doctrine, 2000 "Within China's nuclear triad, its airforce is the weakest element

Both at least acknowledge that a triad exists notwithstanding its limitations. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:51, 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)

For the purposes of not introducing OR, could someone find a credible source that suggests the US and Russia have a "true" triad and the PRC does not before we add a footnote? Nirvana888 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 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)

So it's okay to say they're "suspected of possessing nuclear-capable fighter aircraft (likely to be the F-15E Strike Eagle) and land-based ballistic missiles" with no sources saying so but saying it's suspected of having nuclear-capable submarines has suddenly violated some arbitrary standard? That's ridiculous. Why don't the other two items need to be sourced?

I do not wish to include Israel as a nuclear triad power in fact and you know that. You're trying to oversimplify the issue in order to force the article to read the way you want it to read. Considering Israel's policy is one of "nuclear ambiguity" it should either be described as being suspected to have a triad (and it was described that way) or it shouldn't be in the article at all and nor should the other non-triad countries. You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, if your claim that Israel is not suspected of possessing any such submarines is true then Wikipedia's own article Nuclear weapons and Israel should be edited to omit this sentence: "Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in the late 1960s, it was not publicly confirmed from the inside until Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician, revealed details of the program to the British press in 1986. Israel is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intermediate-range ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine", its source and suchlike.

If "ballistic [aka surface-to-surface] missile, aircraft, and submarine" doesn't mean land, air and sea then I don't know what does.--Dekker451 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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 unsigned comment added by 110.225.249.80 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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/

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)

I agree. 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."^[1] 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)

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":

• From JL-2: United States Department of Defense (May 2013). Annual Report To Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013 (PDF) (Report). p. 31. Retrieved 24 January 2015.
• From Type 094 submarine: United States Department of Defense (May 2013). Annual Report To Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013 (PDF) (Report). pp. 6 (pp14 of PDF). Retrieved 24 January 2015.

Reference named "globalsecurity":

• From North Korea and weapons of mass destruction: John Pike. "Nuclear Weapons Program". globalsecurity.org.
• From Pakistan Navy: Pakistan Navy ^{[dead link]}
• From JL-2: "JL-2 (CSS-NX-14)". Globalsecurity.org. 20 April 2014. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
• From HAL Tejas: "Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)." Global Security, 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012. Archived 10 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine

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)

This is one biased source's political marketing puff (assuming it is a correct quotation as the site is being ridiculous and blocking un-American visitors as a security precaution - and it's not even running https! Is it my UK IP address, my Linux host or my mistrust of javascript? Who cares, it's asinine.). Oh, I nearly forgot - please see WP:RELIABLESOURCE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it a biased source?? It is from http://sdc-usa.org/ which is even better.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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, 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)79.181.226.248 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2017 (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)

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★pIron^IV 20:05, 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]

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)

"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★pIron^IV 14:45, 16 March 2016 (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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

@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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:57, 5 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)