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: World top 5 nuclear powers
Military Strength    4/20/2004 12:32:54 PM
Considering the number,range,delivery systems,accuracy,payload destructive power and counter measure systems i will put the top 5 as follows: 1.United States 2.Russia 3.France 4.China 5.United Kingdom what so u think guys?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Alexis    Ranking depend on criteria ! But here is a backed-up ranking   7/15/2004 11:22:04 AM
Nuclear powers can be "ranked" on several criteria. Among them are : number of weapons, their range, their invulnerability (and hence the second strike ability), precision, different available attack options, operational availability, freedom of action. Ranking nuclear powers will depend on which criteria you choose : - As far are numbers are concerned, America and Russia are giant citadels compared to France's, Britain's and China's little dungeons. But then, since we're speaking mostly about deterrence, numbers are not that important. Though quantity has a quality of itself, as is well known. - One way to look at range is to check range of SLBMs and ICBMs. Then US, UK, China and Russia (ranges in excess of 12,000 km) will appear to be ahead of France (maximum range 6,000 km). But this is misleading : all countries with SSBNs have global reach since their submarines may be located anywhere in the world, and could be relocated in the course of a few weeks were the international situation to warrant it. In practice, the French SSBN maintained on patrol is most probably in the Northern Indian Ocean, from where it can maintain all of the Eastern Hemisphere within missile range. China also has global reach because of its very long range DF-5, in spite of her not yet having fielded an operational SSBN. Outside of these "Global 5", all nuclear forces to date are local. Israeli subs are limited in range because of their classical propulsion, and so are the Indian subs that will be armed with nuclear cruise missiles. - Four countries have a secure second strike ability : those are US, Russia, UK and France. China does not have it yet if it was to come to war against the US : its DF-5 are vulnerable to nuclear first strike, its mobile DF-31 cannot reach the US mainland. Only when DF-41 and SSBNs will be fielded will she have that secure second strike ability vis-a-vis the US. Not that it matters that much : it is hard to picture the US striking China all of a sudden with nuclear weapons ... - US, UK and Russia clearly lead the pack when it comes to precision : with the Trident II D5 SLBM for the two first, with ICBMs for the third. France's SLBMs are not just as precise (they may become in the future when the Galileo navigation system becomes operational), China's ICBMs are probably the least precise. - Attack options are most varied for US, UK, France and Russia. SLBMs or ICBMs may be fired with several weapons, with a single weapon, either on targets designated in advance or on targets chosen in "hot mode". It is not known whether China's DF-5 have that kind of ability. In addition, those latter ICBMs are liquid-fueled, which forbide them a quick launch mode option (delay before launch would be several hours). As for the option to fire a classical weapon atop a SLBM, it would be a HUGE waste of resources ... I doubt any nuclear power has really implemented it. - Availability of UK's and France's nuclear SLBMs is very high. Just as US's, but the fact is that for the US as well as for Russia, the number of deployed weapons is so great that availability could be very low without imperiling the deterrent. The idea that ALL of Russia's THOUSANDS of strategic nuclear weapons, deployed on top of HUNDREDS of ICBMs and SLBMs could be unavailable because the Russian Army (whose budget has been skyrocketed during recent years) would not maintain them is just laughable, sorry El Cid. As for China, I don't have any idea, but I can't think of a reason why the Chinese would not maintain their deterrent. - Freedom of action seems to go without saying. Yet Britain is the only nation in the world whose sole nuclear strike vector is not only built, but also maintained in the US. Even if America does not hold some kind of "double key" to Britain's weapons (she may not have that kind of power), the US ability to shut down the UK's nuclear deterrent in quite short a time (just stop maintaining the missiles) would give them quite a leverage to exert immense pressure over the UK if the latter was planning to strike with nuclear weapons in a way the US disagreed with. Overall, it seems clear to me that the Global 5 stand above the rest (that is Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, in that order). It's clear that the two first nuclear powers are America, closely followed by Russia (which has smaller availability and less performant SSBNs). I would say that China is the 5th (imperfect second strike, lesser precision). As for ranking France and UK, this one is harder : rank the UK first if you value range and precision higher, rank France first if you value freedom of action and also the availability of an alternate air-launched supersonic missile higher. Which gives : 1.America 2.Russia 3.&4.France and UK, choose in what order 5.China 6.Israel 7.India 8.Pakistan 9.North Korea
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    Israeli subs are limited in range because of their classical propulsion, and so are the Indian subs    7/16/2004 4:03:34 AM
Actually India plans to use an SSCN - that is a Nuclear powered ship. There is a lengthy open source academic study on it if anyone is up to reading a vast amount of material. India has had nuclear submarines before - the only country to lease them - and wants its own rather than a purchased one.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    China's ICBMs are probably the least precise.   7/16/2004 4:12:42 AM
Historically maybe. Given China's focus on precision guided missiles for shorter range systems - so precise it no longer fields nuclear warheads for most of them - it may be unwise to assume they have let the ICBM force go. The research on multiple warheads and smaller warheads probably implies greater accuracy is in the offing even to the extent it is not present tense. But there is another pattern you might wish to consider: It appears PRC has never accepted Russian standards for any missiles. It always has sought to improve performance in technical ways. So called "copies" are either marginal or significant improvements. Either way, they are in constant development, and on a competative basis, with a significant number being rejected. This creates a focus on effective design - if your missiles do not beat the competition your company does not get the production contract. To use a very old example, from an era when Chinese technology was not impressive, the SS-N-2 Styx was not built per se by PRC (although we thought it was). China did not like its aneroid barometer type altimeter. Instead they insisted on a radio altimeter so it could reliably fly lower than the Russian model. [I use this ancient example for security reasons: it is characteristic of over a hundred other systems, but it is one safe to talk about.] If this pattern applies to CEP it may be PRC CEPs were always better than Russian.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:Worcester   7/16/2004 10:17:22 AM
Alexis- Do you even revise this thread before commenting on Britain's independent nuclear strike capability, your claims are completely unfounded. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/23-687.asp
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    US leverage on UK freedom of action - to Rule Britannia   7/16/2004 6:30:34 PM
The post of yours you pointed to is actually not in contradiction with my claim that the US could have a most great leverage over UK freedom of action if Britain intended to use her atomic weapons in a way the US would strongly object to. You said that : "The Trident D-5 was jointly developed with AWE, British Aerospace and GEC Marconi (now BAE) working with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space in Sunnyvale, Calif. Both parties have the necessary technical details to fully produce Trident missile units independently. " I didn't know that the complete plans for the Trident II D5 were in possession of the British side. I suppose you know what you're saying (even if I would be curious to read an open literature source stating that, but you may have access to better information) so I will take your word on it. But I'm sure to have read that the Trident missiles actually on board of Vanguard SSBNs were built AND ARE MAINTAINED in the US. They may actually be boarded on an US SSBN after a maintenance cycle, while a Trident II on board a Vanguard may have armed a Ohio before that, because they are interchangeable. Nuclear warheads, which as you underline are produced in the UK, are placed atop a missile after it is returned from maintenance period. If the US all of a sudden refused to continue maintenance on Trident II D5, sure Britain could use the blueprints in her possession and maintain them, building new parts. With what kind of delays, BTW ? Having blueprints is a good thing, now tell me if I'm wrong, but I think there is no factory in the UK able to produce the very special kind of solid propellant used by a modern SLBM in the right quantity ? How many other kinds of materials / highly specialized parts are not produced in the UK because not duplicating that capability in Britain appeared like a saving of money ? No question that Britain COULD build such factories, such specialized parts. Well, Germany or Italy too could do that, actually. The question is : what would be the delay ? The US ability to create havoc in the British nuclear deterrent by stopping cooperation with the UK on Trident will obviously never be used outside of a crisis situation. But if, God forbids, such a situation was to come to pass when Britain saw fit to use some of her nuclear weapons, be assured that everybody in this world would be most interested in the specifics of the attack decided by the UK ! The US obviously would be very interested, and if they were to disagree strongly with Britain's decisions, they could bring enormous leverage to bear by threatening to create a (rather long : we're speaking years) period when the British deterrent would at most be the shadow of its actual self. This constitutes a real limitation on British freedom of action as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Complete, or alternately limited freedom of action seems to me an important element of a nuclear deterrent's strength. That's why I included it as one of the seven criteria I used to rank the present nuclear powers. You see, be it for the way Britain chose, or the way France chose as for the development of nuclear deterrence, there is a price to be paid. No question that France has invested more money in her deterrent than Britain, and yet our SLBMs have less range. The price paid by Britain for her choice is just in a different currency.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    US leverage on UK freedom of action - a correction   7/16/2004 6:34:25 PM
I wrote : "when the British deterrent would at most be the shadow of its actual self." Sorry, I meant in fact : "when the British deterrent would at most be the shadow of its present self."
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    About Indian subs - to El Cid   7/16/2004 6:46:28 PM
You're right India plans to build her own class of nuclear-propelled submarine. I was speaking about present capability rather than future, but maybe I did not make it clear enough. I don't know when this will come to pass, though. Delay before development of ship nuclear propulsion could be long (it has been long for the other countries possessing this kind of submarine). Also, it is quite hard to picture India jumping directly to most modern kind of submarine technology, as a consequence her nuclear subs will probably not be very stealthy, which could make it possible to find and destroy them (at least for the US). Well, why US and India would war against one another in the first place is beyond me ... Still, the present Global 5 will in fact one day be the Global 6.
 
Quote    Reply

Crystal Phallus    RE:US leverage on UK freedom of action - a correction   7/16/2004 7:01:27 PM
Hmm, I see what you are getting at Alexis and, in my opinion, your point is not without merit, but I think it is stretching things a little. IIRC UK/US Tridnets are indeed drawn from a shared pool, with all the missile bodies being maintained and prepped in the US, however I believe 'Rule' is correct in stating that the UK has all the info needed to build them if necessary. Now you are correct that this would take a fair amount of time in the event that the US decided to end cooperation with the UK, however I have no doubt that the UK MOD has contingency plans in place to deal with the (extremely unlikely) event of this happening. The industrial capabilities will already have been identified, and whilst it wouldn't be simply a case of waking up one morning and saying "let's start producing the missiles tomorrow", the UK will know exactly how to set the wheels in motion if necessary. I would suggest that in reality the number of weapons that the UK has in it's possesion is more than enough to maintain an effective deterance until such time as UK built missiles could be brought into service. Additionally, it is difficult to envisage any situation where US/UK relations would deteriorate so rapidly so as not to enable the UK to implement contingency plans within a reasonable timescale. For example if the US cut off all support tomorrow, would this really have any effect on the UK missile force within the next 2-3 years? Would all of the missiles currently on UK boats suddenly become unserviceable? I suggest not. (Please nobody start one of these stupid 'logic bomb' replies so beloved of other less sensible websites) Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks for your time.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    I didn't know that the complete plans for the Trident II D5 were in possession of the British side   7/17/2004 5:29:33 AM
This is not unprecedented. The US actually made a deal with the UK that use of nuclear weapons required consultation and consent. We have gone through several stages of being close and backing off since the 1940s. But the British always insisted on retaining separate capability. So, originally, did Canada. Canada, however, decided not to make weapons, but only reactors, with its technology. It had a lot of leverage because it was the primary source of uranium during the war.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:About Indian subs - to El Cid   7/17/2004 5:35:43 AM
The Indian SSCN (not SSBN) is not targeted on the USA. In fact, the USA formally REQUESTED India become a nuclear power!!!!! [When Clinton went ballistic about the Indian test, I reminded him of our request, and we backed off. The request was made by President Johnson, as a counter to China. India's Defense Minister (at the time of the test) said the focus was mainly China.] The missiles lack the range to reach the USA. As to noise, no one is designing a noisy SSN any more. India will likely adopt the French solution, which results in a quieter boat than even we use. [Think of it as a diesel electric boat - only it is nuclear electric. Nuclear power is only used when not in combat.] This is an economical solution and available literature indicates India has been very systematic about this project. I agree this is a future thing. And I said so originally. But it won't be very long. India wants to counter the 094 of China, which may put missiles to sea (unlike the Xia).
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics