Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





WMD Stockpiles

This is a discussion on WMD Stockpiles within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I was checking the site when i came accros this article (From the Defencetalk home page) London: Britain's new government ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 30th, 2010   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
Beatmaster's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 499
Threads:
WMD Stockpiles

I was checking the site when i came accros this article (From the Defencetalk home page)

London: Britain's new government revealed Wednesday the planned size of its nuclear weapons stockpile, saying it will not exceed 225 warheads -- a move cautiously welcomed by anti-nuclear campaigners.

In an announcement coinciding with the end of a United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York, Britain said it will retain up to 160 operationally available warheads.

"We believe that the time is now right to be more open about the weapons we hold," Foreign Secretary William Hague told parliament.

"We judge that this will assist in building a climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and contribute therefore to future efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide."

The statement makes public for the first time the maximum number of warheads Britain will stockpile.

Hague said the move reflected the new coalition government's commitment to play a full part in the UN conference, which is due to close on Friday.

He said the announcement posed no threat to British security, with the United States and France having made similar announcements -- Paris said in 2008 that its arsenal will include fewer than 300 nuclear warheads, while the US announced earlier this month that it has 5,113 warheads, said the FCO.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) cautiously welcomed the announcement.

"Publishing this number is a welcome step that can help build trust between states and open the way for disarmament," said CND chief Kate Hudson. "But Britain's commitment under the NPT is not to be transparent, but to disarm.

The number "gives a baseline against which further disarmament can be measured, but it is the reduction and then elimination of the UK and other countries' nuclear weapons that will deliver real security," she added.

Britain's nuclear deterrent is one of the points where Britain's governing coalition parties, the Conservatives and the smaller Liberal Democrats, differ drastically.

The Conservatives believe the Trident missile programme must be renewed, while the Lib Dems think it is outdated and too costly.

The British minister said the government would re-examine the circumstances under which Britain might consider using its nuclear weapons.

"The purpose of our nuclear weapons is to deter attack and the United Kingdom has long been clear that we would only consider using them in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO allies.

"This country has been deliberately ambiguous over the precise circumstances of use, although we have offered some assurances to non-nuclear weapons states," he said.

"However we have decided that the time is right to look again at our policy, as the US has done in their recent nuclear posture review, to ensure that it is fully appropriate for the political and security context in 2010 and beyond."

CND chief Hudson said: "The figures reveal that Britain has almost half as many warheads again as the previously published number of 'operationally available' -- higher than many had estimated.

"This very large number of 'spares' kept by Britain is similar to the supposed size of the entire nuclear arsenals of India or Pakistan," she added.


Now i was wondering about the fact that:

Britain's arsenal will not exeed 225 warhead while France has rougly 300 warheads
China is believed to have around 240 nuclear warheads
Israel is believed to have nearly 200 warheads
India and Pakistan got several warheads but assumed a lower number then the UK or France.
Russia has 3,909 nuclear warheads accoording to online sources

I personally can accept that Britain has 200+ nukes as it seem to be a legit number i mean morally speaking.
The US has always been known as a nation that seeks a worldwide ban on WMD's and they are putting alot of effort in this.
However if iam doing the math then there is roughly said noone that even comes close to the amount of N-Warheads that the US has.
They hammer down nations around the world to stop the WMD programs wich is morally speaking correct however i was wondering how the US can judge other nations for having WMD's as the US has more warheads then the whole world combined.
And here i fail to see the logic of having such a large stock.
Just for the record this is not a one line story or a anti US topic but this is more theoretical / morally speaking.
IMO you cannot point at someones garden and say: He look its dirty as you fail to keep a clean house yourself.
I can imagine that if the US would have alot less warheads in stock themselfs that they still have a credible stock to scare off any future agressor.
I also like to point out that for example russia has a serious big stock and they mostly maintain this number of warheads due the fact that the US in this case would be seen as the biggest WMD keeping nation, let me explain this:

The US does put in alot of efforts to make the world warhead free however who are the US to claim other nations would have to lower or even disband their stock as the US itself has more nukes then the rest of the world.
So basicly its their own doing that other nations are not that eager to lower their stocks as they are technically rivals of the US and they have a own strategy doctrine wich probably do not rule out that the US might go bogus some day.
So theoretical speaking the US forces other nations to keep a large stock of warheads.
Sure most nations are alied to eachother and the risk of a war between allies is nihil.
However a good written strategy doctrine will have probably a good portion devoted to the US warhead danger.
Then again most WMD armed nations keep a stock because they see US as a bigger danger (Stock size wise) So morally speaking if the US would seriously lower their stock numbers then they would have more right to speak at the table to convince other nations to do the same.
Most WMD strategies are based upon Mutual Destruction and then my question is who does the US see as such a huge danger to have 5k warheads, again i fail to see the logic.
Iam sure that coldwar standards have left a heavy footprint but morally speaking and theoretical as the US deserves the right to arm itself against a agressor this same applies for other nations who have their own legit reasons to keep a good stock.
However imo if US would downgrade its stock with serious numbers then it would be more likly and acceptable by other nations to follow suit as most of those nations have WMD's for mostly one reason: The US and its stock.

Keep in mind its not a bash topic or any of that but i would like a good discussion about this.
Beatmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2010   #2
Junior Member
Private First Class
ltdanjuly10's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Posts: 54
Threads:
US Peak Weapons Stockpile: 31,225 (1967)
Current US Weapons Stockpile: 5113 (Including 500-800 TNWs)

Thus the US has decommissioned 26,112 Nuclear Devices since 1967, about 13,000 since the end of the cold war.

That is In addition to the Billions the US has wasted on paying the former Bloc to destroy significant parts of there stockpiles, Promote Anti-Proliferation and in support International weapons verification and inspection.

Whilst I personally believe that the Non-proliferation is both a waste of resources and counter-productive, I would state that in terms of numbers of weapons eliminated that the US has earned the right to promote the reduction of the other nations stockpiles, but does the US have the moral right to promote Non-proliferation?

Morals vary from person to person, culture to culture. One might believe that the US being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another and being the nation with the largest stockpile that the US has no "moral right" to be the leader in non-proliferation. Conversely you may believe that with the US being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another and being the nation with the largest stockpile that the US has a "Moral Obligation" to bear the burden of promoting Non-proliferation.

Whilst having a neutral nation that has no nuclear technology overseeing NPT would be "Fair", as I am reminded every day, the world is not a fair place
ltdanjuly10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2010   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
Beatmaster's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 499
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltdanjuly10 View Post
US Peak Weapons Stockpile: 31,225 (1967)
Current US Weapons Stockpile: 5113 (Including 500-800 TNWs)

Thus the US has decommissioned 26,112 Nuclear Devices since 1967, about 13,000 since the end of the cold war.

That is In addition to the Billions the US has wasted on paying the former Bloc to destroy significant parts of there stockpiles, Promote Anti-Proliferation and in support International weapons verification and inspection.

Whilst I personally believe that the Non-proliferation is both a waste of resources and counter-productive, I would state that in terms of numbers of weapons eliminated that the US has earned the right to promote the reduction of the other nations stockpiles, but does the US have the moral right to promote Non-proliferation?

Morals vary from person to person, culture to culture. One might believe that the US being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another and being the nation with the largest stockpile that the US has no "moral right" to be the leader in non-proliferation. Conversely you may believe that with the US being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another and being the nation with the largest stockpile that the US has a "Moral Obligation" to bear the burden of promoting Non-proliferation.

Whilst having a neutral nation that has no nuclear technology overseeing NPT would be "Fair", as I am reminded every day, the world is not a fair place
Yeah i share the same opinion on this, however moral duty or not, having a huge stockpile demands that rival nations (If capable) will have to maintain a huge stockpile as well based upon MD Protocols (Mutual Destruction) wich will force either parties to deny requests to cut down seriously.

And that the US is promoting non-proliferation is a good thing imo, however the additude that the US reflect upon the world is not exactly "friendly" wich will slow down any serious talk and actions to cut down numbers.
The US and its allies do that for a reason so iam not going to judge if this is good or bad, but personally i think that exept for the waist of cash and resources the world itself is not ready to abandon those large warhead stockpiles.
Also there is a danger of other WMD's like chemicals and bio agents wich are nearly equally destructive.
So my question is: How would the US and its allies be able to cut down WMD's within reason wich is acceptable by other WMD giants?
What reason would be valid for WMD powers to maintain a large stock? or produce WMD's
Some of them are being sanctioned by NATO for not following the rules, and mostly because they do not have a proper goverment that is capable to carry the responsibility of having WMD's but the biggest reason is: The fear that they might us them as they made statements that they for example are going to wipe Israel or S-korea.
Is fear enough and legit to pressure them to stop producing?
I mean this pure morally, as they actually produce those weapons with the aim to maintain a Mutual Destruction or status quo between their enemies.
For example Iran is believed to build WMD's (Lets say the do for this one) their arch enemy is Israel wich has WMD's (And iam not talking who is right or wrong iam talking morally) So Iran builds a few themself to maintain that Status Quo.

India and Pakistan is the same story one builds WMD to counter the other.
N-Korea does similair thing as they see the US presence as a major danger.
So regardless if those regimes and goverments are solid or not and regardless if they every going to use WMD's their moral reasons are right.
If you take this pov then my question is: Would sanction them help the situation? And is it legit?
As fear alone and some wild talks are just not enough to convict a nation.
For example: US. France, UK, Russia, China and Israel do have a solid goverment and they have moral values wich will prevent them from ever using WMD's however is there a guarantee?
So would it morally just to forcefully sanction them as well to cut down numbers?

Sorry english is not my native speak and i having a hard time explaining what i actually do mean.
However i hope that you see what iam trying to say.

Cheers
Beatmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 AM.