Nuclear Arsenals of the world.

[F-15 Eagle]

I thought this was interesting, how big of a nuclear arsenal do you think the nuclear powers should have in order to maintain nuclear deterence?
I read that by 2012 the U.S. will have 4600 warheads in service with 1700-2200 on bombers, missiles, and submarines, well the rest will be in storge. I don't know how big of an arsenal Russia will have but it will probably be close to that of the U.S. China has anyware from 150-400 nukes in the Second Artillery Corps, India around 120, Pakistain 50-75, France 350, U.K. 200, Isreal 200, and North korea 3(?). Please correct me if I am wrong on those numbers.

So back to the original question, what do you think about this? Do think it should be bigger, smaller, or just about right? I thought this would have an interesting conversation.

[f-22fan12]

In my view, about 5,000 nuclear warheads will do for the U.S. Russia will only maintain about 1,500-2,000 on advanced missiles and submarines because the Russians won't have the money America does to put all the nukes on advanced platforms. You're right about China having 150-400 nukes. But that's not as important as looking at the number of warheads they have on ICBMs. China has about 20 missiles right now that can hit the continental U.S. The other nukes China has are on short range missiles and some on bombers. India will increase the number of nukes it has greatly. It is a rising power and will put nuclear warheads on the ICBMs it is building. The French and British are likley to maintain those numbers.

[alexycyap]

I reckon about enough nukes to trigger global nuclear winter should be enough deterrence for any of the major powers, any more is just overkill. I'm not sure what the latest research says is the nuclear firepower needed to acheive this.

[F-15 Eagle]

In my view, about 5,000 nuclear warheads will do for the U.S. Russia will only maintain about 1,500-2,000 on advanced missiles and submarines because the Russians won't have the money America does to put all the nukes on advanced platforms. You're right about China having 150-400 nukes. But that's not as important as looking at the number of warheads they have on ICBMs. China has about 20 missiles right now that can hit the continental U.S. The other nukes China has are on short range missiles and some on bombers. India will increase the number of nukes it has greatly. It is a rising power and will put nuclear warheads on the ICBMs it is building. The French and British are likely to maintain those numbers.

I agree with you on everything, but I thought Russia will have more nukes because the Russian Military is getting a lot of funding now a days, but still 1500-2000 nukes is a lot, and defiantly enough to maintain nuclear deterrence against the U.S. I read from some ware though I don't remember the site saying around 1350 nukes can trigger global nuclear winter. China is increasing their stock pile, and your right on the spot with China, France, India, and Britain.

[Chrom]

The treaty between USA and Russia restricts the number of strategic nukes at about 2200 for both sides. The number of tactical nukes are not restricted and believed to be in 20.000+ for both sides.

[XaNDeR]

The treaty between USA and Russia restricts the number of strategic nukes at about 2200 for both sides. The number of tactical nukes are not restricted and believed to be in 20.000+ for both sides.

Completly true , not to mention over 10.000 strategic nukes that can be pulled out if a crisis would emerge , allthough 2200 would do to destroy any country.

[eaf-f16]

I thought this was interesting, how big of a nuclear arsenal do you think the nuclear powers should have in order to maintain nuclear deterence?
I read that by 2012 the U.S. will have 4600 warheads in service with 1700-2200 on bombers, missiles, and submarines, well the rest will be in storge. I don't know how big of an arsenal Russia will have but it will probably be close to that of the U.S. China has anyware from 150-400 nukes in the Second Artillery Corps, India around 120, Pakistain 50-75, France 350, U.K. 200, Isreal 200, and North korea 3(?). Please correct me if I am wrong on those numbers.

So back to the original question, what do you think about this? Do think it should be bigger, smaller, or just about right? I thought this would have an interesting conversation.

North Korea has 12 nukes none of which are mounted onto delivery systems.

[kato]

Iirc there was analysis in the 80s that some 150-200 strategic nukes delivered to just the right places would be enough to "take out" either the US or the Soviet Union militarily (MAD scenario).

I'd suggest an upper limit somewhere around 3-5 times that for strategic warheads on first-strike delivery systems in the US and Russia (this number would allow for MIRV targeting considerations).

Tactical nukes, quite seriously, have an extremely limited application field.

[F-15 Eagle]

The treaty between USA and Russia restricts the number of strategic nukes at about 2200 for both sides. The number of tactical nukes are not restricted and believed to be in 20.000+ for both sides.

Not quite, the U.S. only has around 800 tactical nukes well Russia has around 4000 according to unofficial sources. The treaty also does not affect nukes in reserve ether, even though the U.S. will reduce its total arsenal to around 4600.

[F-15 Eagle]

North Korea has 12 nukes none of which are mounted onto delivery systems.

Really? huh...I wounder how powerful they are. Their last nuclear test was not that powerful, like only 800 tons I think.

[F-15 Eagle]

Tactical nukes, quite seriously, have an extremely limited application field.

They were built when the threat of a million soviet troops would come over to NATO from eastern Europe and the tactical nukes would destroy the Russians, the Russians built tactical nukes for the same reason against NATO. Today they can still have there uses such as if a hot war between NATO and Russia start up again.

[eaf-f16]

Really? huh...I wounder how powerful they are. Their last nuclear test was not that powerful, like only 800 tons I think.

I don't know how powerful they are but, I think all 12 are dismantled now.

[Chrom]

Not quite, the U.S. only has around 800 tactical nukes well Russia has around 4000 according to unofficial sources. The treaty also does not affect nukes in reserve ether, even though the U.S. will reduce its total arsenal to around 4600. This low number is achieved by playing with definition about what is "nuke in service". Well, i formulate it differently: In reality, as i said, about 20.000 nukes could be armed within few days.

[F-15 Eagle]

This low number is achieved by playing with definition about what is "nuke in service". Well, i formulate it differently: In reality, as i said, about 20.000 nukes could be armed within few days.

20,000??? can you give me a link? What I meant was 400 active and 400 reserve tactical nukes for the U.S., and some sources that I read, though I'll have to find them if I can say Russia has 4000 active/reserve tactical nukes. Maybe they used to have 20,000 but most must have been dismantled.

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't know how powerful they are but, I think all 12 are dismantled now.

When and why did the North Koreans dismantle their nuclear bombs? They were just saying they needed them to deter the U.S. and South Koreans.

[Grand Danois]

This low number is achieved by playing with definition about what is "nuke in service". Well, i formulate it differently: In reality, as i said, about 20.000 nukes could be armed within few days.

"Armed within a few days" would translate into "deployed or in active reserve" of which Russia has c. 4-5000. The rest are inactive or dismantled and would take years upon years to get ready.

The cost of maintaining warheads in active reserve is great, and there is simply not room for 20k nukes in active reserve inside the Russian def budget.

[F-15 Eagle]

The rest are inactive or dismantled and would take years upon years to get ready.

So even the dismantled warheads that were dismantled at the end of the Cold War could still be used again, within years they can be operational again?

[Grand Danois]

So even the dismantled warheads that were dismantled at the end of the Cold War could still be used again, within years they can be operational again?

Well, they'd probably be newbuilds...

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, they'd probably be new builds...

So they can just reuse the plutonium or uranium or whatever it is that they use in nuclear bombs over again. Thats kinda cool. Of course the plutonium or uranium has a half life of 10,000 years so they can last for quit a while.

[Chrom]

Tactical nukes are not subject to any threaty, thus it is impossible to obtain official number.

In the March/April issue year 2000 of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated - 20.000 nukes for Russia, 10.000 for USA.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab11.asp is a good explaining of various states of readness for nukes in USA arsenal.

Relevant quote :

Currently we estimate that there are almost 8,000 active/operational nuclear warheads, with nearly 2,700 additional warheads kept in inactive status for a total of over 10,600 warheads in the stockpile (see table). In addition to these intact warheads, there are in storage at Pantex and Oak Ridge, respectively, approximately 5,000 plutonium pits and approximately the same number of canned subassemblies, i.e., thermonuclear secondaries, which are retained as a "strategic reserve." There are another 7,000 pits at Pantex that have been declared excess from warheads dismantled during the first Bush and Clinton administrations. The more than 10,600 intact warheads, and the 5,000 "strategic reserve" pits, so far have not been included in the Bush administration plans for nuclear reductions. What will change is how they are categorized and counted.

==================================
The Bush administration's proposed "reductions" are to be implemented in two phases, the first by FY 2007 with "operationally deployed" warheads reduced to ~3,800, and a second step by 2012 to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. The main actions to reach these levels are the retirement of the MX/Peacekeeper, removal of four Trident submarines from strategic service, and the downloading of warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs.

Unlike the counting rules agreed to in past SALT and START treaties, warheads removed from weapon systems in overhaul are not included in the projected levels of ~3,800 and 1,700 to 2,000. Only operationally deployed strategic warheads are counted.========================================== ====

[Grand Danois]

But no quote on the Russian? ;)

[Chrom]

But no quote on the Russian? ;) If you want references - you'll find a lot of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

[Grand Danois]

If you want references - you'll find a lot of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

IIRC The Bulletin figures are stockpiles*. The US is keeping a very high proportion of their nukes in operational or active reserve state (80-90%).

That costs a bundle: 35 billion 1998 Dollars.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/curspend.aspx

You are suggesting the Russians are keeping twice as many in that state on a smaller budget (the entire Russian defence budget is smaller than this)?

The reason why the US is comfortable reducing its arsenal is because the Russians is incapable of maintaning the same numbers as the US.

If you look at this table you have ballpark numbers for op & aa numbers for Russia:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

* Oh! I see the Wiki article actually says stockpiles. And uses The Bulletin for its reference. Too bad The Bulletin went exclusive some time ago.

[F-15 Eagle]

If you want references - you'll find a lot of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

Wikipedia is really not the best sources of information, anybody can just go on and put random crap for any reason. I would use other sites where nobody can edit them.

[Grand Danois]

Wikipedia is really not the best sources of information, anybody can just go on and put random crap for any reason. I would use other sites where nobody can edit them.

Yes, but it can give you some initial links and a list of phrases/terminology to Google. ;)

[Chrom]

Wikipedia is really not the best sources of information, anybody can just go on and put random crap for any reason. I would use other sites where nobody can edit them. I do not advice you to believe wiki. I said there are lot of references there. You can read all these referred sources youself.

[Chrom]

IIRC The Bulletin figures are stockpiles*. The US is keeping a very high proportion of their nukes in operational or active reserve state (80-90%).

That costs a bundle: 35 billion 1998 Dollars.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/curspend.aspx

You are suggesting the Russians are keeping twice as many in that state on a smaller budget (the entire Russian defence budget is smaller than this)?

The reason why the US is comfortable reducing its arsenal is because the Russians is incapable of maintaning the same numbers as the US.

If you look at this table you have ballpark numbers for op & aa numbers for Russia:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

* Oh! I see the Wiki article actually says stockpiles. And uses The Bulletin for its reference. Too bad The Bulletin went exclusive some time ago. Maintaining nukes are much cheaper than you might think. After all, Russia and USA have very comparable armies (in size), and Russian defence spending is less than 1/10 of USA ones. I cant see particular reason why Russia CAN maaintain comparable number of tanks or SAM's for 1/10 money but cant do the same with nuclear warheads.

Besides, relevant quote from your link "Tactical nuclear and dual-capable forces — $1.0 b"

[Grand Danois]

Maintaining nukes are much cheaper than you might think. After all, Russia and USA have very comparable armies (in size), and Russian defence spending is less than 1/10 of USA ones. I cant see particular reason why Russia CAN maaintain comparable number of tanks or SAM's for 1/10 money but cant do the same with nuclear warheads.

Ah there it is... you actually believe Russia has parity with 7-8% of the defence spending of the US? And twice the number of warheads with perhaps 10% of the budget?

You are suggesting that producing and maintaining a warhead in Russia costs something like 1/20th of what it costs to the US? The US stockpile cost the US 44.4 billion 2007 US Dollars in 1998. That is much more than the current Russian defence budget (31 billion Dollars, 2007).

You underestimate what it costs to maintain warheads. And that on top of tanks SAMs and whatnot.

Besides, relevant quote from your link "Tactical nuclear and dual-capable forces — $1.0 b"

US has put more emphasis on stratnukes. And I don't think you can derive tac nuke spending from that figure alone.

[Chrom]

Ah there it is... you actually believe Russia has parity with 7-8% of the defence spending of the US? And twice the number of warheads with perhaps 10% of the budget?
More or less yes. See number of strategic warheads (for these we have officiall numbers) - they are equal, yet Russia spend again 1/10 of USA for strategic forces.


You are suggesting that producing and maintaining a warhead in Russia costs something like 1/20th of what it costs to the US? The US stockpile cost the US 44.4 billion 2007 US Dollars in 1998. That is much more than the current Russian defence budget (31 billion Dollars, 2007).
This is a good question however - is it Russia spend too few, or USA spend much too much? My opinion - USA spend the money in a very ineffective way.
You underestimate what it costs to maintain warheads. And that on top of tanks SAMs and whatnot.

Well, lets better look at cost of maintaining tanks and aircrafts - i'm 100% sure what you will come to same figure - USA spend 5 to 10 times more money for same amount of tanks and aircrafts than Russia.



US has put more emphasis on stratnukes. And I don't think you can derive tac nuke spending from that figure alone.
Again, the number of strategic nukes are equal on both sides. USA spend more money on strategic nukes than ENTIRE RUSSIAN DEFENCE BUDGET.

[Chrom]

Also, i fail to see your logic - you are now willing to accept 10.000 nukes on USA side, but unwilling to admit 10.000+ (15.000+) nukes on russian side from the same source.

P.S. You greatly overestimate the cost to maintain tactical nukes. They cost almost nothing.

[Grand Danois]

Also, i fail to see your logic - you are now willing to accept 10.000 nukes on USA side, but unwilling to admit 10.000+ (15.000+) nukes on russian side from the same source.
nothing.

You have to elaborate... :confused:

[Chrom]

You have to elaborate... :confused:

What elaborate? Tactical nukes by they nature do not require expencive specialised platforms like strategic nukes. They just use general purpose platfroms like guns and bombs. Warhead itself is very cheap to maintain.

[Grand Danois]

What elaborate? Tactical nukes by they nature do not require expencive specialised platforms like strategic nukes. They just use general purpose platfroms like guns and bombs. Warhead itself is very cheap to maintain.

Elaborate on this:

Also, i fail to see your logic - you are now willing to accept 10.000 nukes on USA side, but unwilling to admit 10.000+ (15.000+) nukes on russian side from the same source.
nothing.

You have to elaborate... :confused:

[Chrom]

Elaborate on this:



You have to elaborate... :confused: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp and Atomic Bulletin. I mean the source give figures for both USA and Russia. If you believe one figure, then logically you should believe another too.

[Grand Danois]

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp and Atomic Bulletin. I mean the source give figures for both USA and Russia. If you believe one figure, then logically you should believe another too.

8,600 Russian nukes in 2002 is in the ballpark, with 18,000 including inactive reserve (de facto unusable as a weapon). This I have argued all along. No contradiction.

[Chrom]

8,600 Russian nukes in 2002 is in the ballpark, with 18,000 including inactive reserve (de facto unusable as a weapon). This I have argued all along. No contradiction.
Unusable in the very moment. In case of need they could be restored to usable status within days. They called "reserve" not for nothing.

[Grand Danois]

Unusable in the very moment. In case of need they could be restored to usable status within days. They called "reserve" not for nothing.

There is a reason why something is called "active reserve". ;)

[Chrom]

There is a reason why something is called "active reserve". ;)
Active reserve is warheads (or even complete weapon) ready to be installed within weapon (bomb, cruise missile, etc) and used. Rest is either dissasmbled warheads or warheads needed repair/check/etc. This can be made within days if it is really needed. As i said, they are called reserve for a reason. Just radiactive material reserve(plutonium, uranium, etc) measured in tons and Russia have it enouth to arm hundreds thousands warheads.

[F-15 Eagle]

Active reserve is warheads (or even complete weapon) ready to be installed within weapon (bomb, cruise missile, etc) and used. Rest is either dissasmbled warheads or warheads needed repair/check/etc. This can be made within days if it is really needed. As i said, they are called reserve for a reason. Just radiactive material reserve(plutonium, uranium, etc) measured in tons and Russia have it enouth to arm hundreds thousands warheads.

The U.S. has enough for hundreds of thousands of warheads too, though no one needs quit that many. 4000-15000 nukes is good enough in my opinion.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The U.S. has enough for hundreds of thousands of warheads too, though no one needs quit that many. 4000-15000 nukes is good enough in my opinion.

None would be perfect in my opinion!!!

As far as strategic , Kato' estimate was on the money, 5/600 warheads ready to rock is plenty. More than enough death and sufficient redundency. Tactical nukes, well they dont play much of a part in deturrent so it depends on your doctrine.

[Chrom]

None would be perfect in my opinion!!!

As far as strategic , Kato' estimate was on the money, 5/600 warheads ready to rock is plenty. More than enough death and sufficient redundency. Tactical nukes, well they dont play much of a part in deturrent so it depends on your doctrine.
No, if you have significally less warheads than your main adversary this lead to very weak "second-strike" capabilty. As such weaker side become much more trigger-happy and will not be able to wait till the last moment, relying mostly on EW system to decide. The stronger side on the other hand suffers strong incetive to carry "first strike" and decapitate weaker side. One-sided ABM system further pronounce such disbalance - and this is very bad for overall Earth security.

[F-15 Eagle]

None would be perfect in my opinion!!!

As far as strategic , Kato' estimate was on the money, 5/600 warheads ready to rock is plenty. More than enough death and sufficient redundency. Tactical nukes, well they dont play much of a part in deturrent so it depends on your doctrine.

What 500 or 600??? Why thats not even threating enough to the enemy for nuclear deterrence they will just keep on doing what their doing! If the enemy is not threatened, then the definition of deterrence is lost. Plus there is more strategic targets in the would than just 600, both Russia and China have more than 2000 cities and more than 500 military bases on average.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What 500 or 600??? Why thats not even threating enough to the enemy for nuclear deterrence they will just keep on doing what their doing! If the enemy is not threatened, then the definition of deterrence is lost. Plus there is more strategic targets in the would than just 600, both Russia and China have more than 2000 cities and more than 500 military bases on average.

200 ~1mt nukes will effectively destroy any nation as an entity, china included. What do you think deturrence is, if its not the spectre of the wholesale distruction of 200 cities and the resulting collapse of the nation as a whole???? What would you consider deturrent then?

You dont have to destroy every single city and every single military base for a second strike to be sucsessfull, that the whole idea behind SSBN's i.e. even if one survives you have 200 odd warheads incoming, which is too heavy a price to pay. You need 2000+ warheads for a first strike, because you need to take out everything to ensure there is no counter strike, and thats why russia and the US have that many (in addition to haveing a stupid amount of redundency). Deturrent in effect works by maintaining a capability that lethal enough to make any nuclear action unthinkable, and the destruction of 200 cities achieves that. Haveing 600 active warheads on capable and contemporary platforms, spread throughout missile, SSBN and aircraft, is plenty for the purposes dettering any nuclear action on yourself, which is what the question was.

[F-15 Eagle]

200 ~1mt nukes will effectively destroy any nation as an entity, china included. What do you think deterrence is, if its not the specter of the wholesale destruction of 200 cities and the resulting collapse of the nation as a whole???? What would you consider deterrent then?

You don't have to destroy every single city and every single military base for a second strike to be successful, that the whole idea behind SSBN's i.e. even if one survives you have 200 odd warheads incoming, which is too heavy a price to pay. You need 2000+ warheads for a first strike, because you need to take out everything to ensure there is no counter strike, and thats why Russia and the US have that many (in addition to having a stupid amount of redundancy). Deterrent in effect works by maintaining a capability that lethal enough to make any nuclear action unthinkable, and the destruction of 200 cities achieves that. Having 600 active warheads on capable and contemporary platforms, spread throughout missile, SSBN and aircraft, is plenty for the purposes deterring any nuclear action on yourself, which is what the question was.

Yeah thats if they have 1mt-50mt yields on the warheads, but the biggest yield the U.S. has is 475KT, Russia it is 550 KT. China on the other hand has a small arsenal around 150-400 because the yields are anywhere from 5-20MT, not in KT. And what source do you have that says 600 warheads is enough for deterrence, or is that based of opinion?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yeah thats if they have 1mt-50mt yields on the warheads, but the biggest yield the U.S. has is 475KT, Russia it is 550 KT. China on the other hand has a small arsenal around 150-400 because the yields are anywhere from 5-20MT, not in KT. And what source do you have that says 600 warheads is enough for deterrence, or is that based of opinion?

That is based on common sence! The notion of deturrence is relative, i.e. its a concept. In fact Kato stated earlier in this thread that analysis had shown than 200 strategic nukes well delivered could render the US or Soviet union militarilly useless:

Iirc there was analysis in the 80s that some 150-200 strategic nukes delivered to just the right places would be enough to "take out" either the US or the Soviet Union militarily (MAD scenario).

I'd suggest an upper limit somewhere around 3-5 times that for strategic warheads on first-strike delivery systems in the US and Russia (this number would allow for MIRV targeting considerations).

Note the fact that MIRV considerations were taken into account i.e. no 2Mt+ yealds (yeild to weight ratio). Perhaps you should ask him for a source? I was simply stating that this made sence.

Anyway 2 475kt MIRV's will do alot more damage than a single 1MT impact, so make it 400.

By its very notion deturrence is a is a relative term because it is in fact psycological. You are intending to detur someone from doing something by making the cost of an action too high to pay. Would you be willing to pay the price of the wholesale destruction of your largest 200 population centres? If the human cost is not high enough, such an attack on any nation would realisticaly mean its distruction as an entity. You would think such a notion would be enough to stop anyone form initiating a nuclear exchange.

[F-15 Eagle]

That is based on common sence! The notion of deturrence is relative, i.e. its a concept. In fact Kato stated earlier in this thread that analysis had shown than 200 strategic nukes well delivered could render the US or Soviet union militarilly useless:

That may seam like common sense to you, but more nukes are needed like 2000 or more to wipe out the whole county. Not to mention you need more in reserve. You cant just destroy part of it, it has to be the whole country. How are you going to put 200 nukes on bombers, subs, and ICBMs? All 3 have their usefulness. A credible nuclear deterrent has to be large not small in order to be effective, especially if the enemy has a good Ballistic Missile defense.

[SABRE]

That may seam like common sense to you, but more nukes are needed like 2000 or more to wipe out the whole county. Not to mention you need more in reserve. You cant just destroy part of it, it has to be the whole country. How are you going to put 200 nukes on bombers, subs, and ICBMs? All 3 have their usefulness. A credible nuclear deterrent has to be large not small in order to be effective, especially if the enemy has a good Ballistic Missile defense.

This is not 1945 & what was seen in 1945 was just a demo of atomic bomb's power. Many strategist say it is a peanut compared to today's nuclear bomb. You need on one bomb to wipe out a country today. For countries size of Russian Federation perhaps 3 or 4. For countries size of USA, Canada, Brazil you probably need no more than 2 bombs.

However, this depends on the weight of the atomic/nuclear explosive. Which means you don't have to put 200 bombs into action but rather 2, 3 or 4 of them with the weight enough to destroy a country (depending on the size).

Anyways, 2000 atomic bombs will wipe out entire world several times over.

[kato]

Perhaps you should ask him for a source? I was simply stating that this made sence.

There is a very tight number of targets to take out in either nation. You of course do not "wipe out the whole country", you take out: missile launch complexes, C3 centers, select airbases, select political-military command sites, select naval bases, select miscellaneous sites, select cities starting with any containing the above. The target list for the US beyond Washington wouldn't start with New York or Los Angeles, but with Denver, Houston or San Diego.
If you got a couple left over, dump particularly dirty stuff into the greater Los Angeles and New York area. Remember, about 25% of the US population lives just in those two metropolitan areas.

Source, offhand, not sure, but the "UNO Report on Nuclear Weapons" (book released in... 1983 iirc) would make a good start. Iirc that above is in there, as well as contamination spread examples for select targets, which in an applied spread pattern with 150 warheads or so in the right way would have affected 60-70% of the population.
Too lazy to go downstairs and look the book up right now though.

[metro]

There is a very tight number of targets to take out in either nation. You of course do not "wipe out the whole country", you take out: missile launch complexes, C3 centers, select airbases, select political-military command sites, select naval bases, select miscellaneous sites, select cities starting with any containing the above. The target list for the US beyond Washington wouldn't start with New York or Los Angeles, but with Denver, Houston or San Diego.
If you got a couple left over, dump particularly dirty stuff into the greater Los Angeles and New York area. Remember, about 25% of the US population lives just in those two metropolitan areas.

Source, offhand, not sure, but the "UNO Report on Nuclear Weapons" (book released in... 1983 iirc) would make a good start. Iirc that above is in there, as well as contamination spread examples for select targets, which in an applied spread pattern with 150 warheads or so in the right way would have affected 60-70% of the population.
Too lazy to go downstairs and look the book up right now though.

I am also too tired to search for the original article which, I believe has to do with what you're discussing. I believe the following link includes the 1983-84 thinking (with ABM) to now...

-A shift in strategic thinking from "MAD vs. Surrender or Suicide":

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1990/KRM.htm

[eaf-f16]

This is not 1945 & what was seen in 1945 was just a demo of atomic bomb's power. Many strategist say it is a peanut compared to today's nuclear bomb. You need on one bomb to wipe out a country today. For countries size of Russian Federation perhaps 3 or 4. For countries size of USA, Canada, Brazil you probably need no more than 2 bombs.

However, this depends on the weight of the atomic/nuclear explosive. Which means you don't have to put 200 bombs into action but rather 2, 3 or 4 of them with the weight enough to destroy a country (depending on the size).

Anyways, 2000 atomic bombs will wipe out entire world several times over.

I don't disagree with you. I think the Soviet Union made 100 Megaton A-bombs before.

[Chrom]

There is a very tight number of targets to take out in either nation. You of course do not "wipe out the whole country", you take out: missile launch complexes, C3 centers, select airbases, select political-military command sites, select naval bases, select miscellaneous sites, select cities starting with any containing the above. The target list for the US beyond Washington wouldn't start with New York or Los Angeles, but with Denver, Houston or San Diego.
If you got a couple left over, dump particularly dirty stuff into the greater Los Angeles and New York area. Remember, about 25% of the US population lives just in those two metropolitan areas.

Source, offhand, not sure, but the "UNO Report on Nuclear Weapons" (book released in... 1983 iirc) would make a good start. Iirc that above is in there, as well as contamination spread examples for select targets, which in an applied spread pattern with 150 warheads or so in the right way would have affected 60-70% of the population.
Too lazy to go downstairs and look the book up right now though.
You are bit wrong about target priorities. For first strike priorities indeed as you described - ICBM sites and c3 sites are priority. For second "answer" strike major cities and industrial areas are priority. Military sites are secondary.

[kato]

You are bit wrong about target priorities. For first strike priorities indeed as you described - ICBM sites and c3 sites are priority. For second "answer" strike major cities and industrial areas are priority. Military sites are secondary.

I wasn't talking about second strike, but first strike targets only. And a certain number of airbases and naval bases that would contribute to an enemy second strike definitely go on that list. For example, Denver would be on the list for NORAD, San Diego for the SSBNs and so on.

[F-15 Eagle]

What ever the size of the worlds nuclear arsenals, there will never be a world free of nuclear weapons. There will always be nukes, you can't get rid of them even though many people think they can.

[vedang]

Some interesting details about nuclear arsenals in the Indian Subcontinent..

India's nuclear forces, 2007
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/hm378jxpm12u4342/fulltext.pdf

China's nuclear forces, 2006
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/1w035m8u644p864u/fulltext.pdf

Pakistan's nuclear forces, 2007
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/k4q43h2104032426/fulltext.pdf

and 1 very interesting doc regarding France

Nuclear Policy: France Stands Alone
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f81x51w723j70458/fulltext.pdf

NUKES ROCK!! :D

[Black Legion]

Well stockpiles of nuclear bombs is one thing, but who has the most active nuclear delivery systems?:confused:

[SABRE]

Well stockpiles of nuclear bombs is one thing, but who has the most active nuclear delivery systems?:confused:

That would be the USA & they still keep their delivery system to 'launch on alert' level.

[Black Legion]

That would be the USA & they still keep their delivery system to 'launch on alert' level.

Is there an approximate number?

[SABRE]

Is there an approximate number?

There should be "estimated" number. Approximate numbers are next to impossible to find since its an operational information. Search google for the estimated number.

[F-15 Eagle]

That would be the USA & they still keep their delivery system to 'launch on alert' level.

Don't forget Russia. They have the same number of warheads on high alert as the U.S. does or at least close to it.

[Black Legion]

Don't forget Russia. They have the same number of warheads on high alert as the U.S. does or at least close to it.

hmmmm last I checked on globalsecurity.org it says US has by far the most active nuclear delivery systems:confused:

[mysterious]

Yes, the U.S. has more of the 'active' warheads that is, they're sitting atop missiles [which themselves on hair-trigger alert].

[mysterious]

Some interesting details about nuclear arsenals in the Indian Subcontinent..

India's nuclear forces, 2007
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/hm378jxpm12u4342/fulltext.pdf

China's nuclear forces, 2006
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/1w035m8u644p864u/fulltext.pdf

Pakistan's nuclear forces, 2007
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/k4q43h2104032426/fulltext.pdf

and 1 very interesting doc regarding France

Nuclear Policy: France Stands Alone
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f81x51w723j70458/fulltext.pdf

NUKES ROCK!! :D


I was taking a look at the Report on Pakistan and from what I know thus far, is that Shaheen-1 Ballistic Missile has a range of 700Km while the report claims 450Kms - factual error or ... ? Also the article only mentions Ghaznavi while leaving out the Abdali missile. And it now appears a bit out-of-date since the Babur has already been tested with 500Km & 700Km range, as well as the new Ra'ad [Hatf-VIII] ALCM.

[Firehorse]

France Adds Nuclear Sub and Vows to Cut Warheads
By STEVEN ERLANGER
PARIS — Dedicating France’s fourth nuclear-armed submarine, President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday defended his country’s arsenal as vital to deter a range of new threats, including the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran with intercontinental missiles.
“The security of Europe is at stake,” he said, conflating the Continent’s interests with those of France.
“Countries in Asia and the Middle East are rapidly developing ballistic capacities,” he said. “I am thinking in particular of Iran,” which is “increasing the range of its missiles while serious suspicions weigh on its nuclear program.”
Mr. Sarkozy, stung by defeats in local elections in some large French cities, stuck to traditional presidential themes of national security and defense. His sudden divorce and remarriage, and his tendency to flit from one scheme to another, have made him seem slightly unserious, contributing to his party’s losses.
His mood on Friday was somber, as he inaugurated a new generation of nuclear submarine of the “Triomphant” class, this one named Le Terrible, which could be best translated as The Fearsome. It will be equipped with a new, nuclear-tipped missile, the M-51, whose range is secret but is understood, according to Le Monde, to be some 4,970 miles, able to reach Asia.
Clearly trying to balance nuclear modernization with gestures toward a European population more interested in eliminating nuclear weapons than improving them, Mr. Sarkozy said France would continue to reduce the number of warheads on airplanes, bringing its total nuclear force to fewer than 300 warheads, half the number during the cold war.
The actual number of warheads France possesses is secret. This year, the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks nuclear arsenals, said France had 348 warheads — 288 on submarines, 50 on air-launched cruise missiles and 10 bombs.
Mr. Sarkozy also called for all nuclear powers to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, as France had done, and he proposed talks on a treaty banning nuclear-armed short- and medium-range ground-to-ground missiles, a category that includes Scud-type missiles, and an idea likely to go nowhere in a world of Hezbollah, Hamas and the like. He also called for an immediate moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and a treaty banning its production, similar to an American proposal of 2006.
Mr. Sarkozy has been criticized, especially by Germany, for leaping ahead without consultation with European allies on major initiatives, like the “Mediterranean Union,” a looser grouping than the European Union and modified after Berlin’s protests. On Friday, he offered a “dialogue” on the role of French nuclear weapons in Europe’s collective defense.
“Regarding Europe, it is a fact that France’s nuclear forces by their very existence are a key element in its security,” he said. “Let’s together draw the logical conclusions: I propose to begin, with those of our European partners who wish to, an open dialogue on the role of deterrence and its contribution to our common security.”
Britain also has nuclear weapons, the main reason that Britain and France remain permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Neither country has been willing to cede its seat to the European Union. The United States provides most of Europe’s nuclear deterrence through NATO and its doctrine of collective defense.
At the same time, Mr. Sarkozy described the French “force de frappe” as a weapon of self-defense. He was vaguer about France’s national interests than his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, who made a similar speech in January 2006, in which he appeared to broaden the list.
Then, Mr. Chirac delivered an unexpected and controversial warning to “rogue” states sponsoring terrorism by threatening to use nuclear weapons against any state that supported attacks on his country or considered using unconventional weapons.
“The leaders of states who use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part,” Mr. Chirac said. “This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.”
Mr. Sarkozy, an aide told Le Monde, wanted to “return to the ‘fundamentals’ ” of deterrence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/world/europe/22france.html?ref=europe&pagewanted=print

"It is a significant reduction. Mr Sarkozy is showing that France is maintaining the level of deterrence that is absolutely necessary, and that it is disarming whenever possible," said French defence expert Bruno Tertrais.
"It is also a message of transparency sent to the Americans and the British to say 'Look, we are being open about our arsenal' when this is perhaps not the case with them," he added.
Sarkozy said he wanted to break with a tradition of secrecy surrounding the number of warheads owned by France, calling on the five major nuclear powers recognised by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- France, Britain, United States, Russia and China -- to agree on ways to promote transparency.
The president called for talks on a new international treaty banning short and medium range ground-to-ground missiles and another treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
The United States in 2006 proposed a similar treaty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080321/wl_afp/francedefencenuclearpoliticsiran


I wonder if this step was also taken to save $?

[SABRE]

I was taking a look at the Report on Pakistan and from what I know thus far, is that Shaheen-1 Ballistic Missile has a range of 700Km while the report claims 450Kms - factual error or ... ?

Much of the articles on the net regarding Pakistan's missile program are either in circular reference (meaning taking info from each other) or from a single source. What ever the choice of the writers they have it wrong. Guess someone should do serious work on Pakistan Missile Program under the supervision of NESCOM & SPD (NCA).

The error of 450Km is made because almost all the websites claim Shaheen to be a variant of Chinese M-11 missiles which are SRBMs ranging around 400+Km. So when writing about Shaheen they actually look into info on M-11 missiles. Careful study between the two shows significant differences. I.e.: the Range.

[shaunx]

Hello there,
This could happen after sometime.I fear about enough nuclear to trigger global nuclear winter should be enough to provoke any of the major powers.

[kato]

I wonder if this step was also taken to save $?

Nah, to save money they'd have to decomission the entire system pretty much (like they did with the SRBMs).

I don't know about the dispersal of French ASMPs, but on a hunch, if this'd be about saving money, it'd be about concentrating nuclear warheads for ASMP/ASMP-A in a singular site with a limited number of vaults. Would presumably save an 8-digit figure per year, mostly due to cuts in the necessary manpower.
Interestingly, Sarkozy offered Germany a share of ASMP missiles and nukes a while ago - and there are just about enough (rebuildable) nuclear vaults at Büchel for a second such site.

[Dutch Nico]

Yeah thats if they have 1mt-50mt yields on the warheads, but the biggest yield the U.S. has is 475KT, Russia it is 550 KT. China on the other hand has a small arsenal around 150-400 because the yields are anywhere from 5-20MT, not in KT. And what source do you have that says 600 warheads is enough for deterrence, or is that based of opinion?

Acctually i think that having a nucliare arsenal could have it positif effects upon a possible enemy because a fist strike option will have a huge impact on the table when the high leaders talk with each other.
There is no leader in the world how like a million dead people and there is hopefully no madman how uses these things to get the job done.
But in my opinion ICBM's in general keep rogue states from going crazy so its actually contibuting to world security so that things keep in balance.
But enough about the effects of having a huge stockpile of rockets and bombs that can wipe out a hole country with a push on a button.
A real smart man would never seek his victory by using atomic weapons because it will not matter in the very end if by any reason a nucliare power uses his nucliare might than we all could share the same faith and that is a global kill.
For example if russia or china would attack the US or the EU for any reason and when they use ICBM's to get the job done then there will be nothing left to fight or win for anymore.
Because the power of these weapons are so huge that it will haunt the earth for a very long time and eventially wipe out the human race, perhaps when you detonate 1 or 10 nukes it might not a big deal or a global kill but when for example russia uses 25 nukes or more to destroy the US or the EU and in the end the US or the EU ( What left of it) wil use there ICBM's to bomb russia back to the stoneage than you would have 25 US/EU nukes and 25 Russian nukes flying around and killing millions, and the overall power of these weapons together will have a devestating effect on the world and will probably kill more than just the enemy or kill even all that lives.

My grand daddy said: after serving 30 years in the dutch military you do not need to worry about a million nukes you just need to worry about the one guy with that tiny little lost nuke in his car or plane.

Sorry for my bad english put i do get the point here and i think that most of you are right but try to get my opinion?

Greetz Nico

[Firehorse]

If there was to be a large strategic nuclear exchange, IMO, the space aliens (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1206/gorbachev.html)will stop it (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/ufoniagarafalls.html). I know many on this forum will not agree with it, but that's a fact of life- for an advanced civilization to survive, it must avoid destroying itself; the aliens have the means for their & our preservation and destruction!
On numerous occasions, UFOs have been reported over nuclear power plants as well as nuclear research facilities and nuclear weapons storage bunkers at military bases.[1]A good percentage of these reports occurred at highly restricted government research and production facilities, such as Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford AEC, and Savannah River AEC. Highly trained government scientists and military personnel, who had been granted top-secret military clearances, made many of these reports.
In a well-documented series of incidents in early November 1975, nocturnal lights and unidentified “mystery helicopters” visited a wide spectrum of American military bases and missile sites across the northern tier of this country. Between October 27 and November 10, reports of UFOs over nuclear weapons storage sites were repeatedly made at Loring AFB in northern Maine, Wurtsmith AFB in Michigan, Grand Forks and Minot Air Force Bases in North Dakota, and Malmstrom AFB in Montana. F-106 interceptors were scrambled out of Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana in response to multiple reports of UFO visits to nearby missile sites near Moore, Harlowton, Lewistown, and several missile sites around Malmstrom AFB.[2]
A similar rash of incursions occurred in December 1948 (Los Alamos), December 1950 (Oak Ridge), July 1952 (Hanford AEC, Savannah River AEC, and Los Alamos), August 1965 (Warren AFB near Cheyenne, WY), March 1967 (Minot AFB, Malmstrom AFB, and Los Alamos), August 1968 (Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota), August 1980 (Warren AFB, Sandia Labs and Kirtland AFB, NM), December 1980 (Benwaters RAFB, Suffolk, England), and October 1991 (Chernobyl, Ukraine and Arkhangel’sk Missile Base, Russia).
These reports led some to speculate that the intelligences behind UFOs have an interest in nuclear weapons and nuclear power. One feature of these reports suggesting a direct link deals with light rays or energy beams being focused on nuclear materials.[3] Multiple independent accounts state that beams of light were directed downward from the UFOs onto the nuclear storage bunkers and underground missile silos, perhaps penetrating them beneath the surface.[4][5]In addition, there have been unsubstantiated rumors from enlisted men that the telemetry of the weapons at some sites had been changed or that other weapons had been rendered inoperative.[6]
Some researchers have suggested that the occupants of UFOs have a deep concern about the safety of nuclear power, and our proliferation of nuclear weapons, and are therefore keeping a close scrutiny of these sites.During the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster on April 26, 1986, technicians reported that they observed a fiery sphere, similar in color to brass, within 1,000 feet of the damaged Unit 4 reactor during the height of the fire, about three hours after the initial explosion. Two bright red rays shot out from the UFO and were directed at the reactor. It hovered in the area for about three minutes, then the rays vanished and the UFO moved slowly away to the northwest. Radiation levels taken just before the UFO appeared read 3,000 milliroentgens/hour, and after the rays the readings showed 800 milliroentgens/hour. Apparently the UFO had brought down the radiation level (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/UFOdonukesattractufos.html).


It is no wonder that UK & USA deny (http://comecarpentier.com/world_public_forum.htm) the alien UFO's existence- both .. have no eternal allies and ..no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow. Lord Palmerston, 1848

China continues nuclear armament buildup (http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Security/2008/04/12/china_continues_nuclear_armament_buildup/9975/)

[Dutch Nico]

So you are saying that UFO really exist? according to this report?:shudder
I find myself in a reall strugle to believe actually what is written here in the report....
Is there a way to find some proof that this report is based on a real story's?
If yes than perhaps we should watch out to not piss someone off because we are pretty good at pissing someone off right?
And IF ufo's exist and if there would be a population of aliens around here somewhere than ill guess the last problem we need is war with these so called little green man:onfloorl: :onfloorl:
Anyway if they really exist than ill gues they really do not need our stoneage technicks we use to make our bombs and other stuff.
Anyway did enjoy reading this but i do not believe anything that is written in the report, but i do maintain the way of thinking that if they exist, than i think that we really must watch our steps and count our day's because pissing someone off is acttually the specialty of mankind hahahahaha

Greetz Dutch Nico

[Firehorse]

THE CASE OF THE EVIL WIND (http://www.sitchin.com/evilwind.htm)

THE CASE OF THE LURKING PLANET (http://www.sitchin.com/lurkingplanet.htm)

Not all of them (http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=7)are "little green men"! In fact, "green men" are products of the SCIFI industry, as far as I'm concerned.

Zecharia Sitchin's intriguing theory (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/sitchin.htm)

The Wars of Gods and Men
The End of Days: Armageddon and Prophecies of the Return