Obama scraps BMD in Czech Republic & Poland

You can’t really asses their founding capabilities by only looking at their official budget figures, so far they were able to run 4 large exercises this year, they are continuing military buildup in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and they are reforming their army to put in place up-to-date combat brigades, but their army is still very large.

Well, compared to what they were before I would not call this very impressive. They need to reform to a smaller, better organized army for totally different purposes that they were once – rolling over Europe and back. For the next to decades I would not expect Russians to intervene anywhere outside their near region (especially Caspian area and North pole)

Yeah, so does Putin. And they didn’t rejoined the CFE treaty when Obama abandoned the GBI in Poland, instead, they made tougher their nuclear policy, and Europe is the first to be threatened, US don’t have to worry that much, but Europe has to do so, the problem is that the contrary happens.

Europe does not have to worry at all. Russians need Europe just like Europe needs Russia. We might not sleep together but you don’t nuke your prime customer, do you?

Topol-M aren’t the latest models.

RS-24?

They are listed in docs that I’ve provided so far.

Sure. I have seen docs which listed over 400 Fulcrums in service, as well. I wonder how many of those are still flyable/serviceable.

Do you have any info on the motors? I’d read some time ago that they had been regrained with lower ISP fuel for environmental/safety reasons thus reducing their range. Also that originally it had been planned to replace the guidance systems with something based on Peacekeeper’s “floating ball” system. Did they do that or change to something different? (And yeah, I stretched it with the “new coat of paint” comment but new fuel in old steel motor casings is still a far cry from modern CRP and the performance increases the reduced weight would bring.)

There was a plan to use the Peacekeeper inertial measurement unit (IMU) but this was dropped. The Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) upgrade retained the current Minuteman III IMU, but replaced the guidance computer, signal converters, and power distribution components. The new electronics used faster low-powered microprocessors with improved hardening against nuclear effects.

The entire guidance package was reworked and delivered back to the USAF as the NS-50, so I’d imagine that any life-extension work needed on the IMU was carried out at that time. The USAF didn’t see any problems with keeping the IMU in service, but faced problems with the rest of the guidance system due to aging electronic components and unavailable replacement parts.

Replacing the IMU would have increased the accuracy of the missile, but this was not done to minimise the cost of the upgrade. The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and evaluation criteria for the GRP were derived from the performance and specification of the older NS-20 guidance system which the new NS-50 would replace.

There was some concern over missile accuracy following the first few flight tests of missiles fitted with the NS-50. The Director Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) recommended that further flight trials be conducted to demonstrate the accuracy of the NS-50, and these were carried out starting in September 2000.

The Propulsion Replacement Program replaces aging solid propellant by refilling the existing motor cases. The first Minuteman III ICBMs were deployed in the early 1970s, and the missiles had received new propellant several times since then. But this is the first time propellant was replaced in all three stages at the same time.

In the absence of any demand for increased range, it would not have been worthwhile to develop new lighter-weight casings.

Changes were also made to the motors to replace unavailable or environmentally unacceptable materials, components, and processes; and to correct known hardware problems.

I can’t recall any suggestions that the new propellant does not match the Isp of the original filling. According to Thoikol, early examples of the refurbished motors were tested to ensure that replaced materials did not affect motor performance.

Pretty much. Russia has no money to cope with the rest of the world on the conventional level, so they at least keep up in the nuclear capability. If I were them, I’d do the same.

You can’t really asses their founding capabilities by only looking at their official budget figures, so far they were able to run 4 large exercises this year, they are continuing military buildup in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and they are reforming their army to put in place up-to-date combat brigades, but their army is still very large.

I’d say that you have never quit your Cold War mentality in the first place.

Yeah, so does Putin. And they didn’t rejoined the CFE treaty when Obama abandoned the GBI in Poland, instead, they made tougher their nuclear policy, and Europe is the first to be threatened, US don’t have to worry that much, but Europe has to do so, the problem is that the contrary happens.

As I said, the START limits enable to get along even with the *old Dodge* pretty well.. The final effect of your updated Minuteman III and Topol-M would be the same.. You are just obsessed with d!ck comparison contests and cannot stand if Russia has something better than you do. Get a life.

Topol-M aren’t the latest models.

Yes it’s pretty fine, assumed the old ones still work properly. Do you know in what condition those SS-18s and SS-25s are in?

They are listed in docs that I’ve provided so far.

Sferrin, I have decided a bit whether to respond on this stockpile of sour grapes at all because I don’t think this leads to any meaningful discussion but anyway, you will need to solve your problem with current US politics on your own, I definitely will NOT do that for you an I am not to blame for it.

Is this a serious question? Surely you can’t be that dense..

BS that does not answer anything. Ignored.

A new coat of paint on the old POS and a tune up is hardly the same as new.

I have specifically listed out at least two Minuteman III UPGRADE programs (not refurbishment programs). Thanks to Mercurius for shedding more light into these.. That is closer to a new missile than to just a *new coat of paint*.

Yeah, like I was saying. :rolleyes:

Like what? :confused:

Funny how you think 550 warheads are sufficient for the US but 1200+ and counting for Russia isn’t. Hypocrite much?

I have no idea whether 550 is sufficient for you and don’t care. What part of *I only was talking about Russia, it’s you who is constantly dragging USA into the debate* don’t you understand?

WTF do any of those have to do with nuclear forces? :rolleyes: Besides, Russia has the uber Superflanker, S-400, and Granit so none of those would stand a chance.

Pretty much. Russia has no money to cope with the rest of the world on the conventional level, so they at least keep up in the nuclear capability. If I were them, I’d do the same.

Who said it was Russia’s problem? I merely pointed out that Russia has gone back to the old Cold War mentality. You’re the one bending over backwards in denial.

I’d say that you have never quit your Cold War mentality in the first place.

Looks to me like you’re a good little Putin sycophant. Exactly which part of “Russia is building new nuclear delivery systems while the US is not” isn’t penetrating your cranium?

Which part of *building new missiles makes more sense than to invest into legacy systems left a decade without proper maintenance* isn’t penetrating yours?

Yeah because buying a new Ferrari is just like keeping the old ’72 Dodge. :rolleyes:

As I said, the START limits enable to get along even with the *old Dodge* pretty well.. The final effect of your updated Minuteman III and Topol-M would be the same.. You are just obsessed with d!ck comparison contests and cannot stand if Russia has something better than you do. Get a life.

What? I thought you said START meant keeping old was plenty fine? :rolleyes:

Yes it’s pretty fine, assumed the old ones still work properly. Do you know in what condition those SS-18s and SS-25s are in?

Sounds like you need to get your story straight.

My story is perfectly straight. I don’t share your paranoia, sorry.

Tiptoed back after almost a month to see if the political ranting had died out, and this thread had returned to sanity. Some hope….

But there is one bit of ‘density’ that cannot go unchallenged:

The subject under discussion here is the age of the USAF Minuteman force.

I’ve been keeping track of the long-running MM3 modernisation programme for a professional client, and this rebuild amounts to a lot more than a ‘new coat of paint’.

For a start, the Guidance Replacement Programme delivered the final set of new hardware last winter, and the oldest guidance package is less than 10 years old.

The Propulsion Replacement Programme was run to a similar timescale, and final deliveries of new rocket motors was due to end a couple of months ago.

And of course there was also a warhead-replacement programme…

So there is not a lot of the original MM3 left in the silos other than mechanical structures such as re-used motor casings. The system has effectively been re-lifed to near-new condition.

Do you have any info on the motors? I’d read some time ago that they had been regrained with lower ISP fuel for environmental/safety reasons thus reducing their range. Also that originally it had been planned to replace the guidance systems with something based on Peacekeeper’s “floating ball” system. Did they do that or change to something different? (And yeah, I stretched it with the “new coat of paint” comment but new fuel in old steel motor casings is still a far cry from modern CRP and the performance increases the reduced weight would bring.)

Tiptoed back after almost a month to see if the political ranting had died out, and this thread had returned to sanity. Some hope….

But there is one bit of ‘density’ that cannot go unchallenged:

A new coat of paint on the old POS and a tune up is hardly the same as new.

The subject under discussion here is the age of the USAF Minuteman force.

I’ve been keeping track of the long-running MM3 modernisation programme for a professional client, and this rebuild amounts to a lot more than a ‘new coat of paint’.

For a start, the Guidance Replacement Programme delivered the final set of new hardware last winter, and the oldest guidance package is less than 10 years old.

The Propulsion Replacement Programme was run to a similar timescale, and final deliveries of new rocket motors was due to end a couple of months ago.

And of course there was also a warhead-replacement programme…

So there is not a lot of the original MM3 left in the silos other than mechanical structures such as re-used motor casings. The system has effectively been re-lifed to near-new condition.

One important thing it that you can notice a lot of transparency on US Side compaired to Russians, they only rely on statements made by a foreign minister years ago, and this is really not good news. I’m sorry to say that but try to find that many data on Russian arsenal, stockpiles, dismantling, you won’t be able to find them.

That’s where the .pdfs that Pif linked to come from, look at them and you’ll find the estimates to be based on some dangerous assumptions. Why do they count TLAM-N and Granat for example (both were voluntarily withdrawn from service) – sure, they are probably stored somewhere but then so are a number of old B53s in the US which are not mentioned. They also include retired warheads awaiting dismantlement in Russia’s total, while the US has simply disposed of all its unwanted devices already (the Russian weapons do exist in some shape or form, but they are unlikely to be even remotely functional). Then there’s the Tu-95MS, some of which they list as being able to carry 16 ALCMs (actual capability is now almost certainly 6), the Gazelle ABMs are possibly armed with HE warheads today…

B53s are long gone as are TLAM-Ns (they count warheads that have nothing to put them on). No new nuclear warheads are in production in the US of any kind. No new nuclear delivery systems are in production or developement of any kind in the US. I’m not concerned as things sit right now. Ten years from now the situation will be VASTLY different as all the Russian systems currently in developement (which apparently also includes an SS-18 replacement) will be in serial production and the US won’t have $hit. The real pi$$er is that it will be because of political stupidity.

On a different note, does anyone has data/info on the expected range/altitude of the SM-3 Block II?

I can’t find it any more but am wondering to what extent we will not be facing the same problem further down the road, that is with a larger number of interceptors (than was foreseen in Poland) of the SM-3 variety that would have capabilities not far from the mid-course system.

As long as there are Democrats in the White House I wouldn’t worry about it. Barry is proving to be an epic dumba$$ and I’m sure it will only get worse.

1. Russia has less carriers than the US, what’s your problem with building new missiles, then?

Is this a serious question? Surely you can’t be that dense.

2. You conveniently forgot upgrades. Rivet MILE (Minuteman Integrated Life Extension) program in 1985 and Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) in 1993. Maybe some more, there are whole loads of other three letter codes I got no idea what they mean.

A new coat of paint on the old POS and a tune up is hardly the same as new.

Take your pick:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.png
http://www.truthproduct.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/608px-us_and_ussr_nuclear_stockpilessvg.png
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/art/stockpiles.gif
http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/4/b/4b503fbaf595eadc43f93d67318b332317f92788.jpg
http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/figures/ussr-nuclear-warheads-graph.png

Yeah, like I was saying. :rolleyes:

Yes, you have already mentioned this lame argument before. In the ICBM’s world this makes little difference, especially if START treaties put limitations to use which make even the mentioned ’72 Chrysler more than sufficient..

Funny how you think 550 warheads are sufficient for the US but 1200+ and counting for Russia isn’t. Hypocrite much?

Makes me wonder, why do you build F-22s or F-35s, then? Finally, you got far more aircraft than Russia even now.. Are you planning a WW3, eh?

WTF do any of those have to do with nuclear forces? :rolleyes: Besides, Russia has the uber Superflanker, S-400, and Granit so none of those would stand a chance.

Why is that a Russian problem? Should Russians scrap their designs now because you were unable to make some as counterweight?

Who said it was Russia’s problem? I merely pointed out that Russia has gone back to the old Cold War mentality. You’re the one bending over backwards in denial.

What’s the problem, then? All you’re doing is SUPPORTING my claim about Russian stockpiles being the same, only the transportation/delivery methods are different. It looks to me like you want to troll at all cost but don’t exactly know where to start.

Looks to me like you’re a good little Putin sycophant. Exactly which part of “Russia is building new nuclear delivery systems while the US is not” isn’t penetrating your cranium?

Looks more like retaining the present capability.

Yeah because buying a new Ferrari is just like keeping the old ’72 Dodge. :rolleyes:

Finally, do you build F-22s to increase the number of aircraft? Hardly.

What? I thought you said START meant keeping old was plenty fine? :rolleyes: Sounds like you need to get your story straight.

On a different note, does anyone has data/info on the expected range/altitude of the SM-3 Block II?

I can’t find it any more but am wondering to what extent we will not be facing the same problem further down the road, that is with a larger number of interceptors (than was foreseen in Poland) of the SM-3 variety that would have capabilities not far from the mid-course system.

Again PRC’s sole SSBN for many years was that single 092 carrying 12 JL-1 missiles (single warhead, max range 1800km). The modernization in the past 10 – 20 years have brought the 094 but the status of the JL-2 is unclear unlike the DF-31/31A which were publicly displayed and acknowledged. Their technology cannot be compared to Ohio, Borei, Triomphant, etc, etc class SSBN. One Ohio class can carry 24 Trident SLBM each carrying how many warheads exactly? You do the math. I wouldn’t be surprised if it out numbers the entire PRC nuke-arsenal. What PRC is going through is a much needed modernization of it armed forces. Its big country and have a large amount of obsolete equipment to be replaced. Problem is their traditional secrecy, but they are slowly opening up.

That’s all fine, but my argument is not about the absolute size of China’s stockpile (which certainly does not compare to Russia or the US at the moment), just that it is growing. Trident missiles in US and UK service used to carry 6 – 8 RVs but are being downloaded to 4 (or only 1 on some UK missiles, for tactical missions formerly performed by airdropped free-fall bombs).

Of course, China’s arsenal is still much smaller, but part of the problem is that nobody is quite sure how big it really is. Those 150-400 estimates (which represent a 150+% margin of error for a kick off!) have been around for ages, and in the meantime they have quadrupled their SSBN fleet alone.

For all the ambiguities in the counting rules, the US and Russia are at least bound by arms control agreements that include inspection and verification procedures which result in publishing a rough picture of what’s going on.

Again PRC’s sole SSBN for many years was that single 092 carrying 12 JL-1 missiles (single warhead, max range 1800km). The modernization in the past 10 – 20 years have brought the 094 but the status of the JL-2 is unclear unlike the DF-31/31A which were publicly displayed and acknowledged. Their technology cannot be compared to Ohio, Borei, Triomphant, etc, etc class SSBN. One Ohio class can carry 24 Trident SLBM each carrying how many warheads exactly? You do the math. I wouldn’t be surprised if it out numbers the entire PRC nuke-arsenal. What PRC is going through is a much needed modernization of it armed forces. Its big country and have a large amount of obsolete equipment to be replaced. Problem is their traditional secrecy, but they are slowly opening up.

Here’s something : Dennis J. Blasko Speaks at Whittier College

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOGW0HC0v44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DQ1_ldLBGk

That’s where the .pdfs that Pif linked to come from, look at them and you’ll find the estimates to be based on some dangerous assumptions. Why do they count TLAM-N and Granat for example (both were voluntarily withdrawn from service) – sure, they are probably stored somewhere but then so are a number of old B53s in the US which are not mentioned. They also include retired warheads awaiting dismantlement in Russia’s total, while the US has simply disposed of all its unwanted devices already (the Russian weapons do exist in some shape or form, but they are unlikely to be even remotely functional). Then there’s the Tu-95MS, some of which they list as being able to carry 16 ALCMs (actual capability is now almost certainly 6), the Gazelle ABMs are possibly armed with HE warheads today…

As for the US dismantled arsenal, it is said that the Pantex Plant is storing about 5,000 Plutonium pits as strategic reserve officially to dispose of spare part for first stage fission trigger of Hydrogen bombs the others are converted into MOX fuel for civilian use, take a look a this paper for more details:

Dismantling of US Nuclear Weapons

Also, location of the actual stockpile:

Nuclear Stockpile location in United States

Based on what? Nothing apparently.

http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analysis/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

That’s where the .pdfs that Pif linked to come from, look at them and you’ll find the estimates to be based on some dangerous assumptions. Why do they count TLAM-N and Granat for example (both were voluntarily withdrawn from service) – sure, they are probably stored somewhere but then so are a number of old B53s in the US which are not mentioned. They also include retired warheads awaiting dismantlement in Russia’s total, while the US has simply disposed of all its unwanted devices already (the Russian weapons do exist in some shape or form, but they are unlikely to be even remotely functional). Then there’s the Tu-95MS, some of which they list as being able to carry 16 ALCMs (actual capability is now almost certainly 6), the Gazelle ABMs are possibly armed with HE warheads today…

Increasing? Think its still quite tiny compared to the 2 big boys. Only in the past 10 years have the nuke-delivery systems begun to modernize. And even then the number of DF-31/31A numbers are small (DF-21/21C was stated as conventionally armed). Plus, has the PRC nuke stockpile increased over the past decade? (Numbers vary from 150 – 400 but NOT more). So is it an increase or a much needed modernization? At one time their ICBMs were limited to 20 aging DF-5/5A missiles.

Of course, China’s arsenal is still much smaller, but part of the problem is that nobody is quite sure how big it really is. Those 150-400 estimates (which represent a 150+% margin of error for a kick off!) have been around for ages, and in the meantime they have quadrupled their SSBN fleet alone.

For all the ambiguities in the counting rules, the US and Russia are at least bound by arms control agreements that include inspection and verification procedures which result in publishing a rough picture of what’s going on.

For the visually impared:

As of right now Russia has:

…..

Newest ICBM: Production of the Minuteman III ENDED in 1977. The line was shut down before Russia’s OLDEST missile even entered service.

1. Russia has less carriers than the US, what’s your problem with building new missiles, then?
2. You conveniently forgot upgrades. Rivet MILE (Minuteman Integrated Life Extension) program in 1985 and Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) in 1993. Maybe some more, there are whole loads of other three letter codes I got no idea what they mean.

Based on what? Nothing apparently.

Take your pick:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.png
http://www.truthproduct.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/608px-us_and_ussr_nuclear_stockpilessvg.png
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/art/stockpiles.gif
http://www.stratfor.com/files/mmf/4/b/4b503fbaf595eadc43f93d67318b332317f92788.jpg
http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/figures/ussr-nuclear-warheads-graph.png

Excuses, excuses. Slapping a coat of paint on a ’72 Chysler ain’t the same as buying a brand new Ferrari no matter how you want to twist it.

Yes, you have already mentioned this lame argument before. In the ICBM’s world this makes little difference, especially if START treaties put limitations to use which make even the mentioned ’72 Chrysler more than sufficient..

What is the urgent requirment other than “we want new stuff”? They’ve got 5 Delta IIIs, 6 Delta IVs, and a Typhoon left. Same number as the Ohios.

Makes me wonder, why do you build F-22s or F-35s, then? Finally, you got far more aircraft than Russia even now.. Are you planning a WW3, eh?

There is more to it than that. Russia is training a new generation of SSBN designers and builders. The US is not. It hasn’t built an SSBN in 13 years. The design was frozen over 30 years ago. That is a HUGE problem.

Why is that a Russian problem? Should Russians scrap their designs now because you were unable to make some as counterweight?

Most US SLBMs have been downloaded to 4 warheads. You could say in numbers US SLBM warheads roughly equal Russian ICBM warheads and Russian SLBM warheads roughly number US ICBM warheads.

What’s the problem, then? All you’re doing is SUPPORTING my claim about Russian stockpiles being the same, only the transportation/delivery methods are different. It looks to me like you want to troll at all cost but don’t exactly know where to start.

That really tells the tale of who is rearming and who isn’t.

Looks more like retaining the present capability. Finally, do you build F-22s to increase the number of aircraft? Hardly.

Add to that Russia’s recent announcement of an official nuclear first strike policy and it would raise red flags with anybody.

Then you better make sure you got enough stock in your bunker.. 😉

All you’re doing is SUPPORTING my claim by excusing Russian nuclear rearmament. 😉

Correct. Nothing is wrong about that. All in Europe are intrested in a stable Russia as we do not have a problem with a nuclear France, Britain or USA. 😉

.
.
.
With China (who ARE increasing their stockpile and NOT subject to current arms control treaties) as a direct neighbour I’d not want to be complacent in Russia’s place
.
.
.

Increasing? Think its still quite tiny compared to the 2 big boys. Only in the past 10 years have the nuke-delivery systems begun to modernize. And even then the number of DF-31/31A numbers are small (DF-21/21C was stated as conventionally armed). Plus, has the PRC nuke stockpile increased over the past decade? (Numbers vary from 150 – 400 but NOT more). So is it an increase or a much needed modernization? At one time their ICBMs were limited to 20 aging DF-5/5A missiles.

What is the urgent requirment other than “we want new stuff”?

“We want stuff that is built 100% in-country and has not been subject to two decades of neglect”, for example. The former is mostly a concern with respect to the missiles, namely the R-39 with its Ukrainian first stage.

They’ve got 5 Delta IIIs,

Very old, and of questionable survivability given their acoustic signature.

6 Delta IVs,

Good subs, but armed with a liquid-propellant missile (which in terms of pure performance is superb, granted).

and a Typhoon left.

Only in service as a trials platform for Bulava right now, the last time that sub sailed on a real deterrence patrol with operational missiles and warheads aboard was a long time ago. Not sure if there are even any unexpended R-39s left at this point. I suppose it is only kept on the books because there are considerations of rearming it with Bulavas once testing is complete, but even that is far from definite.

Same number as the Ohios.

Not quite 😉

There is more to it than that. Russia is training a new generation of SSBN designers and builders. The US is not. It hasn’t built an SSBN in 13 years. The design was frozen over 30 years ago. That is a HUGE problem.

Is that a Russian problem or an American one, though? With China (who ARE increasing their stockpile and NOT subject to current arms control treaties) as a direct neighbour I’d not want to be complacent in Russia’s place.

I’ll admit the D-5 with W88s is a bad mofo but W88 production was cut FAR short when their manufacturing facility was shut down by the FBI (don’t recall the particulars). Most D-5s carry 100kt POS W76s.

IIRC there were still 400 W88s built, which represents the better part of Russia’s complete SLBM warhead stockpile, comprising warheads of 100 to 150kt.

Most US SLBM warheads are 100kt. All the AGM-129s have been withdrawn from service and most AGM-86s are getting converted to conventional cruise missiles. The nuclear capable ones carry a W-80-1 of 5-150kt. Unlike Russia, the US isn’t even producing any nuclear capable cruise missiles these days.

Russia’s are a mix of 100 and 150kt warheads, so the US aggregate yield on SLBMs is certainly going to be noticably larger.

Can’t find squat on Russian nuclear bombs. I think the B83 is probably the only US weapon left over 1 MT.

AFAIK, there used to be a handful of B53s in extended readiness (stored without tritium and separate from the exterior bomb casing), although whether they’d count is a matter of accounting rules, again.

Most US SLBMs have been downloaded to 4 warheads. You could say in numbers US SLBM warheads roughly equal Russian ICBM warheads and Russian SLBM warheads roughly number US ICBM warheads.

Which was kinda the point, right? Arsenals of similar size, but different emphasis on the various delivery methods. Keep in mind that Russia is retiring old liquid fuel ICBMs faster than they are deploying new Topol-Ms, with each of the old missiles usually taking several warheads with it while only a fraction of the replacements is MIRVed (RS-24). Despite the modernisation effort, their stockpile will keep shrinking for some time to come.

The fact remains Russia has SSBNs, ICBMs, nuclear armed cruise missiles, and (supposedly) strategic bombers IN PRODUCTION. The US has none of these in production. In fact the only nuclear capable weapon OF ANY KIND the US has in production is a few D-5s they buy each year (and I think even that ended last year) to replace missiles fired during training. That really tells the tale of who is rearming and who isn’t.

No, it tells the tale of who has been able to maintain their arsenal well in the past.

Add to that Russia’s recent announcement of an official nuclear first strike policy and it would raise red flags with anybody.

I think the US has only a partial no-first-use policy (none against non-nuclear opponents only, right to strike preemptively reserved otherwise), so apart from the fact that it is a lamentable decision in its own right, that does not change much about the balance between both countries.