Nuclear Arsenals of the world.

[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!!

 

[Black Legion]

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

 

[SABRE]

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

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