Nuclear Arsenals of the world.

[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!!

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 And it now appears a bit out-of-date since the Babur has already been tested with 500Km & 700Km range, as well as the new Ra'ad [Hatf-VIII] ALCM.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]

Provoking other major powers

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 will stop it. 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.

It is no wonder that UK & USA deny 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

 

[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 mannfloorl: nfloorl:
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

THE CASE OF THE LURKING PLANET

Not all of them 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

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Gods-Men-Earth-Chronicles/dp/0061379271/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208292016&sr=1-4"]The Wars of Gods and Men[/ame]
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/End-Days-Armageddon-Prophecies-Chronicles/dp/0061239216/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208291676&sr=1-2"]The End of Days: Armageddon and Prophecies of the Return[/ame]

 

[om prakash]

an eye on INDIA, PAKISTHAN

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.[/QUOTE


Donot follow unofficial sources. UNITED STATES has 2600, RUSSIA has 4493 NUCLEAR warheads. As they have signed NPT they started DEACTIVATING thier weapons. an eye must be kept on INDIA, PAKISTHAN,NORTH KOREA, ISREAL.

 

[om prakash]

for information

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.

thanks for the information. can u send me information about pakisthan missile launchs.