Minuteman ICBM Launch Tests Triple Warheads

On November 5th, the United States launched an LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. Roughly 30 minutes later the three warheads onboard struck their targets 4,200 miles (6,759 km) away at the Reagan Test Site in the Marshall Islands. What is remarkable about this test is not that one of these ICBMs was fired — as this is regularly done to test the readiness of the US’ ICBMs — but rather that it carried three warheads instead of a single one.

Originally the Minuteman III ICBMs were equipped with three warheads, but in 2014 this was reduced to just one as a result of arms control limits agreed upon with Russia. This New Start Treaty expires in 2026 and the plan is to put three warheads back in the 400 operational Minuteman III ICBMs in the US’ arsenal. To this end a validation test had to be performed, yet a 2023 launch failed. So far it appears that this new launch has succeeded.

Although the three warheads in this November 5 launch were not nuclear warheads but rather Joint Test Assemblies, one of them contained more than just instrumentation to provide flight telemetry. In order to test the delivery vehicle more fully a so-called ‘high-fidelity’ JTA was also used which is assembled much like a real warhead, including explosives. The only difference being that no nuclear material is present, just surrogate materials to create a similar balance as the full warhead.

Assuming the many gigabytes of test data checks out these Minuteman III ICBMs should be ready to serve well into the 2030s at which point the much-delayed LGM-35 Sentinel should take over.

75 thoughts on “Minuteman ICBM Launch Tests Triple Warheads

  1. I wish we could use all that money we spend every year on preparing to murder other people to instead improve lives of poor people in Africa. If we could give everyone there $2000 it would take less than 4% of yearly Pentagon budget and people would buy computers, laptops, smartphones, bicycles and other goods which actually help them develop and live better. Our economy would profit from that too.

    1. I think it’s cool that you cannot “un-invent” anything and it was a major plot in literature.
      Stanislaw Lem: Lyphater’s formula
      Friedrich Dürrenmatt: The Physicists
      Read them if you find the time, you will enjoy them. Deterrence works because we fear consequence. Kahn and game theory, the escalation ladder. Nothing will happen.

    2. I see lots of posts like this on social media.

      The US annual defence budget is $824.3bn, 4% of this is $32.972bn. There are around 450 million people in Africa living in “extreme poverty”. 32972000000/450000000 = $73.27 per person. If you want to give everybody in Africa 5% of the annual US defence budget, that reduces to $21.98 per person (approx 1.5bn people).

      1. Cool, now wait forty years and there are 4.5 billion people there in extreme poverty. What now?

        You do not permanently solve a problem with this BS. It is not a single isolated moment with 450 million people you can just pay off and then poverty is gone forever. It is a trend through time you have to focus on, fix the myopia.

      1. USA invaded about dozen countries in the last 30+ years, since the Cold War ended. Russia just decided that they want to do the same thing. “Security for all, or security for none”, as “The Day When Earth Stood Still” nicely explained.

        1. So what country has canada invaded? Or belgium? Or switserland?

          I don’t quite get your argument, or you mean to suggest its our turn now and we sbould start onvading cointires? Fine, then I voted we anex russia, they dont seem to think its good/big enough, I’ll happily take it off their hands.

          1. So what country has canada invaded? Or belgium? Or switserland?”

            Canada invaded the U.S. How do you not know this?
            Belgium: Congo, Rwanda/Burundi, Southern Sudan. How do you not know this?
            Switzerland: One other country but it was by accident and not very far.

          2. So what country has canada invaded? Or belgium? Or switserland?”

            Canada invaded the U.S. How do you not know this?
            Belgium: Congo, Rwanda/Burundi, Southern Sudan. How do you not know this?
            Switzerland: One other country but it was by accident and not very far.

        2. Abstract: No. In full: No. I see this a lot on social media, thanks to Russian troll farms and historically illiterate westerners. Countries the US sent more than token military forces into since the Cold War without the invitation of the recognized government and/or a UN mandate: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Serbia, Syria.

          Counties the US still stations forces in without invitation: Syria.

          Countries the US has invaded for territorial incorporation into the US in the last 100 years: None.

          Russia placing forces into Georgia and Moldova might pass the smell test of comparative military intervention. Carving away portions of Ukraine doesn’t even come close. Save the rationalization for the useful idiots.

          1. Pakistan gave consent which is effectively an invitation. Serbia was a UN joint. But your basic point stands.

            Syria is problematic. They need borders. But it’s not polite to just walk in.

          2. Pakistan gave consent which is effectively an invitation. Serbia was a UN joint. But your basic point stands.

            Syria is problematic. They need borders. But it’s not polite to just walk in.

      1. We should help the rest of the wildlife in Africa by not assisting in the expansion of human biomass anymore. It’s gotten to where when they have a famine they just slaughter and eat all the elephants

    3. Not sure why we’re talking about this on HaD but i think you’re doing a lot of countries a disservice by just assuming all of Africa is poor.

      Having said that a lot is being done to help African countries (that still need it) already, it’s just not as easy as it seems (“throw money at” isnt the quick fix) & it’s a long process, that has gone successfully in some countries over the past decades, but just not yet in others.. 🤷‍♂️

      Finally, for what it’s worth, in surprisingly many of the remaining native tribes etc (all over the world) they do already have smartphones and computers, that doesn’t mean they have to ‘develop’ as you call it, it’s completely up to them what to use or not from our societies? If people want to live in a straw hut and hunt/gather for food, let them 😉👍

    4. I always thought it’d be an interesting experiment to let people define their tax dollar distributions, where they set the values for Social Services, Defense, Education, Infrastructure, and a few others. Then make it so Congress has to use those as guidelines (from the population values) for their budget.

      Suddenly the defense contractor has to try to convince you why they’re a necessity and not something else.

      It’d be interesting to see it play out from a socio-economic view.

      1. You want direct democracy to define the budget? You are going to want to take that one back almost immediately after it is implemented, trust me. It’s not going to play out the way you think it will

    5. Giving everyone in those area’s 2000 Dollars would only devaluate the Dollar and make America poor. It doesn’t help anyone. The money spend on the war machine isn’t just given away, it’s going into a system, it’s being given to companies who then use it to develop new technology, who pay employees, who eventually put it back into the system. The money isn’t lost. I fully agree with spending a lot less on war if it was possible as in an ideal situation it shouldn’t exist and taxes could be lowered. What you are advocating for however, is called trade displacement which only makes people in those African areas poorer. Like how large area’s turned from poverty to extreme poverty due to foreign aid with charity dumping. They used to put those clothing boxes everywhere where you could put your old clothing in and they would send all the clothing to parts of Africa and other poor area’s, which disrupted economies of entire countries which resulted in starvation. A few countries in Africa had a large part of their income from making clothing, which became worthless as a result of charities. Nowadays they shred it and turn it into cleaning rags for garages. If you want to help them, teach them how to generate wealth by becoming a mechanic, drill for water or oil, how to design products others will buy, or other useful jobs. The moment you can make a large portion of society function and contribute, you progress society. Just giving them money and expecting the economy to run takes away peoples initiative, self reliance, dignity and responsibility. It only hurts them. The old “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime” saying. It’s basic economics.

    6. We have spent more than fifty Marshall plans on Africa. Not five, or fifteen, but fifty. Fifty times the amount needed to rebuild Europe after the two most destructive wars in human history. The place has less usable roads and water wells than it did in the 1960s. The money is not the problem.

      Feeding them so that they 10x again and you have ten times the strife and hunger is NOT kind to the African people. It is all done to stroke western Pharisaism and guilt. You could spend all the fortunes of the world feeding Africa and all that would result is that you would need to raise and spend ten times that for the next generation to avoid a collapse into famine, civil war, and genocide. Our economy would not profit one bit, that’s absurd. This is all a stupid fantasy to assuage your own ego, not to help a continent of real people. Africa was self-sufficient for EONS until people decided it was their destination to nurse their psychic wounds and dirty conscience about everything.

      Spend the money on rockets and nukes and space stations or whatever. Let Africa exist at the comfortable equilibrium it has had for over seventy thousand years. The place is literally a garden of Eden. Dumping laptops and smartphones and US corn all over it has not improved it at all.

      People who talk this way about Africa should be forced to be shipped over there for mission work so you can actually learn something real about the continent and its people.

    7. Computers and smartphones rather than livelihood is so typical- what about things like food, water, medicine, transportation, education, or even more simply, the means and opportunity to make a living?
      Plus, if you actually do arithmetic, it would be more like 40 percent not 4, and only if you use the entire federal budget rather than however much of it you consider war-related.

      1. Problem is people in these countries gotta want a change to happen. Look at Afghanistan and how it fell apart when we left. None of the Afghan Army wanted to risk their life or stand up to the Taliban because they only care about regional issues. Their tribe might be on the other side of the country. While there are roads with blacktop, some villages are only accessible thru dried up river beds or by helicopter. They could care less to gunfight and possibly die for land hundreds of miles away, even if it were still a part of Afghanistan. It just wasn’t the part of Afghanistan that person cared much for

    8. I’m ready to bet bank that with their $2000 check everybody would run to buy their favorite vice. Not because they’re africans but because they’re people.

      I’m such a geezer. I’ve seen a lot. Mothers leaving their babies behind to go on vacation or to the casino or whatever.

    1. “MAD is back on the menu!”

      It never left the menu. I was amused back when everyone was crowing about the cold war ending after the USSR broke up as if human nature had somehow changed and oligarchies had disbanded.

    1. I believe it was around the same time as North Korea’s tests.

      It seems like the more you look into this stuff the more you realise someone is testing something all the time and perhaps we’re reading into it more than necessary.

      I’m sure it’s secret and confidential to high heaven (hehe) but how do you know where the warheads land or is it a case of it not mattering since it’s a nuke.

      1. There’s a tracking station on Kwajalin (sp) Island. I knew a guy who worked for Raytheon who went there. They know precisely where the warheads land. Look up Pacific Missile Test Range. There are several sites in the Hawaiian Islands that have mid-course tracking, and a tracking radar platform that goes to sea.

      1. 2 years .. the shift has already started to focus on the mid-terms. Since one particular group, the “election season” cycle went from 3-9 months to 18-24 months. You can’t be constantly raising money from your followers if you don’t give them a fear.

    2. If you read any of the articles about it you’ll see that they do these tests regularly and that the timing is a coincidence. Honestly it would be much sketchier if these weapons were just collecting dust in the silo instead of being tested periodically.

      1. Isn’t testing these thing not similar to testing a box of matches?
        When you are done testing, you know they worked, but you can’t use them again. And during testing there always a chance something goes horribly wrong… (in case of these big firecrackers it might even trigger the one thing of which they were trying to avoid)

        1. There are many matches in the box. They are all made the same way. You only have to test one to be pretty sure the rest will light. There are many other non-destructive tests and sensors that reliably indicate the status of the other matches.

          As for “something” going wrong: The people who design, build, maintain, and administer these matches are all very serious people who understand the magnitude and consequences of their work. They plan for the unplanned. They have a so-far unbroken 80-year record of not triggering the other matches.

          You might want to study some history, specifically about General Curtis LeMay and Strategic Air Command.

    1. No. It’s good news for those who don’t have them.

      If one side disarms the other has no deterrent not to fire. I know that sucks but it’s reality. Go ahead, think up a better strategy. Let the world know when you figure it out. Good luck!

      1. As sad as it sounds, this is correct. The majority of our (US) defense technology is built for the purpose of never having to use it. If you can project such overwhelming power you end up in less wars because no-one wants to take you on. It’s why NATO/USSR never escalated past blockades.

        A more offensive country (one arming and building up for the purpose of invading someone); like Germany in the 1930’s; that advances tech for the purpose of expansion is another thing.

    2. Those billionaire bunker complexes always make me laugh a tad. I’m pretty sure many are just grifters playing off of the fear in those with more money than they know what to do with.

      Those facilities are going to become target number one for raiding/looting if there is ever a situation that calls for the bunker to be used.

      1. All them rich asshats are gonna get to their bunkers to find them all locked up safe and sound with some broke dick living in there all comfortably with his broke buddies. 😂 Or the people that made and sold thems friends or family. In that unlikely situation there isnt much they could do about it either.

        1. I’m sure the massive billionaire bunkers are run like any other business, likely as a deep underground data center as a front, maintained, and audited just like any other business. I bet the policy when the nukes launch, security is to escort all the employees out to the top, including security themselves for a front row seat in the parking lot to watch the fireworks above ground.

    1. Fun fact Carl Sagan actually exaggerated and made up evidence for the nuclear winter phenomenon unscientifically because he thought that pushing nuclear disarmament was so morally important that it justified lying.

        1. “In a 1990 article in Science, Sagan and his original coauthors admitted that their initial temperature estimates were wrong. They concluded that an all-out nuclear war could reduce average temperatures at most by 36 degrees Fahrenheit in northern climes. The chilling effect, in other words, would be more of a nuclear autumn.”

          https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years

          The specific article in January 12, 1990 issue of Science:
          https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.11538069

    1. If we did not do a good job you would not be sitting there commenting on the internet, you’d be a pile of glow in the dark bones in a crater somewhere. Or never born. I don’t know how old you are

  2. In 1876 in Vienna, Baroness Von Suttner, seeking to break up the romance between her son, Arthur, and her daughters’ governess, an intelligent, talented, and beautiful woman, but not of high enough social/financial standing for her son, showed the governess, Bertha, a want ad from a wealthy, cultured, elderly gentleman, living in Paris, looking for a lady to act as his secretary and household manager.

    Bertha, taking the hint and needing a job, meets the gentleman, one Alfred Nobel, and agrees to work for him. However just as Nobel is starting to have possibly a more romantic interest in Bertha, she elopes with Arthur and they go to what is present-day Georgia. Arthur and Bertha become famous and wealthy from writing books against war and promoting the peace movement. They return to Europe, no longer estranged from Arthur’s family, and Bertha and Alfred Nobel continue to exchange letters – her letters pushing the peace movement, his including financial support for her peace organization more out of friendship for her than as a devotee to her peace groups.

    Nobel does oppose the wars fought increasingly with his invention in Europe and elsewhere, but he thinks peace can be accomplished more effectively with practical treaties between governments rather the propaganda of peace societies in which Bertha is involved. In 1892 Nobel wrote in a letter to Bertha :

    “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your congresses; on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops.”

    At another time, Nobel realized that the mutual annihilation of armies would not be enough to stop war and wrote:

    “A mere intensification of the deadly precision of war weapons will not secure peace for us. The limited effect of explosives is a big obstacle to this. To remedy this defect war must be made as death dealing to the civil population at home as to the troops at the front. Let a sword of Damocles hang over every head, and you will witness a miracle – all war will stop instantly.” (see Alfred Nobel: the man and his work, Erik Bergengren, 1960, p. 194, or Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov 1980, p. 10)

    The reader can determine whether these claims proved to be correct. Nevertheless, Nobel continued to support Bertha and her peace movement and encourage her – “Inform me, convince me, and then I will do something great for the movement.”

    And before he died in 1896, Nobel did set up in his will the plans for the awarding of a Peace Prize. In 1905 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Bertha.

    For more information, see Irwin Abram’s Alfred Nobel, Bertha Von Suttner and the Nobel Prize”, published as “The Odd Couple” in Scanorama Vol. 23 no. 11 (November 1993), pp. 52-56 and “Bertha Von Suttner and the Nobel Peace Prize” (http://www.irwinabrams.com/articles/bvs.html).

  3. I think its about time we leave marshall islands alone. Theyve done far more than anyone could/should ask of them. Snd for everyone else arguing about africa. I think africa would turn out just fine if the world would let them be. Sure theyve needed as hand a number of times but as far as thus century goes, america has done little to stabilize and enrich the continent. Sure the wat on terror blah blah extremist blah……. Say what u will about oppressive regimes, libya was doin great before we dug our hands in. And lets forego mention of the at least half dozen coups weve arranged just this century. Im willing to bet most africans just want America to stay away at this point.

  4. Given the United States history with the islands in the Pacific, I can’t believe anyone would think it would be a good idea to shoot anything akin to a missile in that direction. I’ve met individuals affected by the nuclear fallout from tests of the past.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.