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.==============================================