Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons
towgunner1960    10/29/2003 12:27:14 PM
Does anyone know how many strategic nuclear weapons are employed in the world at this time? U.S., Russia, China, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HunterSThompson    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/3/2003 3:31:27 PM
I recently just read that the US has about 5000 weapons in active service. over 3000 are on missiles and the rest are on cruise missiles and various other delivery systems. Another 3000 missiles are in the process of being dismantled. The US is actually building new weapons. They say they are just building parts for old weapons, but I wouldn't be be surprised if a few brand new ones get put together.
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/4/2003 9:08:46 PM
I saw the article after I made this post too. Any info on what Russia and China have by way of numbers?
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/4/2003 10:02:14 PM
I'm not sure this is the post to reply to on this, but there is something I've been wondering about for awhile now. Why do we need so many? I understand it from a cold war perspective, but not now. There has to be a considerable cost involved maintaining, securing, and manning those weapons systems. Money that could be spent on defence needs that are fairly crucial right now. Like Infantry slots. What would be the bare minimum to get by? Two or three hundred seems like they could go a very long way. I don't pretend to have a whole lot of knowledge in this area, I look at this purely as a financial question. To me theres a need for spending our tax dollars wisely.
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/6/2003 6:33:59 PM
ChdNorm, both Russia and the U.S. believed that they could fight and win a nuclear war. Each believed that their countries could handle a strike by several hundred nuclear weapons and survive. Therefore They had to have several hundred or thousand in reserve, just in case several of their missles were destroyed in a first strike. Plus our good buddies the Russians and Chinese, have several thousand weapons still pointed at us. If we had only 200-300 almost all could be wiped out in a first strike, and they would still have several thousand in reserve in case we wouldn't surrender..
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/26/2003 6:35:18 PM
Think about this as well. The number of targets requiring a nuclear warhead to destroy them is going up, not down. More countries that forsee conflict with the United States are building facilities to make them fully survivable in the event of a precision conventional weapons strike by the US. We see this everywhere - in Libya, where the world's largest chemical weapons facility is carved beneath a mountain. The same for a number of nuclear facilities in North Korea. The Chinese have taken this strategy very much to heart. It has built underground bunkers for its Su-27/30/MKK wings, for its mobile short range ballistic missile squadrons, and surrounded these and other high-value targets along the Pacific Rim with upgraded S-300 SAMS. This robust air defense network has placed a great emphasis on being able to detect and bring down US cruise missiles. The modern S-300 is well-suited to this task. The Chinese have helped the Iranians prepare a similar defense around its nuclear facilities. If these targest HAD to be taken out immediately, it might only be possible with a strategic nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the US is now having to target hundreds of new targets in China as it emerges as a global superpower, and certainly the dominant power in the Asian-Pacific, in addition to the targets in Russia that remain. Let us also not forget about the EU, which is desperately seeking to subdue the national governments and develop a European military that I assure you will not be pro-American. It is also likely that Brazil will deploy nuclear weapons in the near future, and they are part of an emerging Brazilian-Cuban-Venezuelan axis that is quite Marxist in my opinion but undeniably hostile to the United States. America must also contend with the nuclear weapons that now reside in Saudi Arabia. A "possible" Pakistan-Saudi Arabian nuclear agreement was recently floated in the mainstream media, but the Mossad revealed long ago that in exchange for bankrolling the Pakistani nuclear program the Saudis were supplied with a number of turn-key mobile IRBMs. Not to mention the Egypt-Libya joint nuclear program. Despite all of this, President Bush has decided that it would be wise to destroy our MX missiles and retain our Minuteman IIIs. Yes, these are the same missiles that, after receiving recent block upgrades, are inexplicably less accurate than before the upgrade. It makes sense. When you want to sell one of your cars, it would be only logical to sell your brand new one and keep the 30+ year-old clunker. Who needs those fancy fangle-dangled whatchamajiggers anyway?
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons   11/26/2003 11:11:26 PM
Those are both very good posts stating the reasons why the numbers are needed. I guess I just look at it like they are more than likely never going to be used and just looking at the burden of carrying around that big stick. With your posts in mind, do y'all think that nuclear exchange is more or less likely now versus at the height of the cold war? I'll be the first to admit I'm about 0 and 50 when it comes to predicting the future, but I can't forsee the situation where we would premptively strike a target (such as the Iranian nuclear instilations) with nukes. What would be the probability of that, versus the use of conventional weapons?
 
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons- Chdnorm   11/27/2003 6:08:18 PM
I suspect the Russians and Chinese will attempt to launch a nuclear weapons attack on us some time in the future. If the Russians are our buddies, then why have several thousand nuclear weapons still pointed at us? People tend to overlook Russia as the most deadly threat, But no other nation could utterly destroy us in one suprise sneak attack. I also think we are in the most deadliest time in our nations history. During the cold war we were prepared to launch several thousand weapons at the Russians on 15 minute notice. Remember the B52's on flight line standby, already loaded with nuclear weapons. They knew we couldn't be taken in one suprise attack, and after any attempt to do so we would probably lauch several thousand weapons in retaliation. We were very much safer then, then now. Chdnorm aren't you an ex 5,0h. I used to be, 17 years uniform patrol division....
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    RE:Probability of nuclear war   11/27/2003 8:00:21 PM
We must always remember one thing - the United States signs arms control agreements with countries that do not keep their part of the bargain. We never verified the destruction of the Soviet SS-20 3-MIRV IRBM, and yet we destroyed the excellent Pershing II. Also, the Russians have continued development of modern ICBMs (and indeed ALL of their missile programs are in full R&D) such as the road-mobile Topol-M, while the US has almost completed the total destruction of its MX missiles. Consider this situation - we send billions of dollars each year to Russia so they can 'destroy' their stockpiles of surplus nuclear warheads. We then purchase the nuclear material from these warheads that provides 78 percent of the fuel our nation uses to power American nuclear power plants. Billions more go into "securing" the vast stockpile of Russian nuclear warheads and undeployed missile systems. If you go today to the CIA World Factbook, they will not provide you with the current Russian military budget, even though this is easily determined by the intelligence services of any nation. They don't want the American public to know. How can we justify sending scores of billions of dollars to the Russians since this program began, dismantle our own nuclear systems, and then watch the Russians build and deploy brand new and ever more capable strategic nuclear weapons systems? Not to mention their overt transfers of nuclear weapons technologies to terrorist-sponsoring nations? Because all is not as it appears in our government and it does not matter which party is in control. And now Bush, who "can see right through his [Mr. Putin's] eyes down to his soul," has decided that we shall also cast our lot with the Russians when it comes to precuring more reliable sources of foreign oil. Yes, at this moment the Russians are moving ahead with a plan to pipe oil to Murmansk where it can be loaded directly onto supertankers. The entire war on terror is also resting on an alliance that Bush has made with Russia. Remember the recent arrest of the Russian oil barron and the subsequent state seizure of his 44 percent stake in one of Russias largest oil companies? All part of the plans the annointed in our country do not think we are sophisticated enough to understand. Bush thinks it is better for our country to lay our energy security in the hands of the Russians than to develop our own sources? Do you know that during the early 1990's a stop was put to oil exploration off the coast of the Southeastern United States after it was discovered that this was perhaps the most oil-rich region on earth? Global architects of the New World Order would not be served for the US to be independent in its supply of the most strategic resource on the planet. The point of the above explanation is to show that we cannot trust the Russians. While the US has destroyed ALL - ALL - ALL of its tactical nuclear weapons, the Russians retain thousands. So, the probability of a future nuclear conflict is absolutely certain. The United States must be removed as a global power so that world government can be fully realized. Powers behind the throne in certain Western nations, especially in the US, are directing military and foreign policies that reduce the American strategic nuclear forces to dangerously low levels. Meanwhile, many nations are encouraged to challenge the US as they see a weak and inconsistent American foreign policy that exposes tempting vulnerabilities. Consider North Korea - they have successfully blackmailed us by saying - "give us money, ensure the continuance of our regime, shore-up our economy or you will face a nuclear strike on the continental United States." Well, we have given in. We only JUST stopped the construction on the two reactors there. So the PRK has steadily accumulated ever more technology and construction techniques from this ridiculous arrangement. And certainly all here are aware that we are TO THIS DAY shipping thousands of tons of food to the Koreans who are sending it straight to their military and selling the surplus on the black market. Bush has now proposed to the PRK what I would describe as The Agreed Framework + Verification. Now considering all that we have seen from 1950 through this treasonous Agreed Framework treaty of the Clinton Administration to this very hour, are we to believe that THIS time the North Koreans will keep their word and give up their nuclear weapons? Especially considering that the possession of these weapons has successfully forced drastic concessions from the United States? Do you have to be an "expert" to answer this question? The only response possible to such a blackmail threat as the one above is this: "Okay, you say you will launch a nuclear weapon against us unless we pay you enough money to keep you in power? Go ahead - launch when ready. But when you do, you will not need to worry how you will hold on to power in your country. You
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Numbers of strategic nuclear weapons- Chdnorm   11/29/2003 2:27:14 PM
"I suspect the Russians and Chinese will attempt to launch a nuclear weapons attack on us some time in the future. If the Russians are our buddies, then why have several thousand nuclear weapons still pointed at us? People tend to overlook Russia as the most deadly threat, But no other nation could utterly destroy us in one suprise sneak attack. I also think we are in the most deadliest time in our nations history. During the cold war we were prepared to launch several thousand weapons at the Russians on 15 minute notice. Remember the B52's on flight line standby, already loaded with nuclear weapons. They knew we couldn't be taken in one suprise attack, and after any attempt to do so we would probably lauch several thousand weapons in retaliation. We were very much safer then, then now." I see your point pretty clearly now. The numbers arent needed so much for overkill, as they are continueing MAD and giving more options of delivery/counterattack? something like that? For quite some time now, I've thought I wouldnt be suprised at one or two being lobbed at us by rogues are something like that. I guess I bought into more of end of the cold war and those threats than I realized. After thinking about it (outside of just dollars), it does make me wonder with SAC standing down and ,from what I understand, OHIO class subs reconfiguring ... how our arsenal in totality is set up to deal with first strikes against us. "Chdnorm aren't you an ex 5,0h. I used to be, 17 years uniform patrol division..." still am, till I finish up my masters and find a real job! 9 years here so far. first four in patrol, then three in CID, a year stuck in admin, and now back in patrol but assigned to the training division. I do FTO and teach practicles in the basic academy. I've got to say, I've about had my fill of it. One hint "Tyrell Bolton".
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics