News Arms Treaty Debate - What's a Good Target Number

[mugaliens]

I had some concerns in response to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101220/pl_nm/us_nuclear_usa_start" .

Ok, time for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg" (approximate, but within 10%):

1945:
US: 0 (we'd used the only two we had at the time)
Russia: 0

1965:
US: 32,500
Russia: 7,500

1985:
US: 24,500
Russia: 45,000

2005:
US: 10,200
Russia: 16,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Statistics"(May 10, 2010):
US: 2,468 active / 9,600 total
Russia: 4,650 active / 12,000 total

France is running a distant third, with 300 active/total.

Personally, I think we're headed in the right direction, but am unsure how low we need to, or should go. The agreement signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Mdvedev was to reach 1,550 for each side in 7 years. Bear in mind that's an agreement, and not yet a treaty, which still requires Senate ratification.

Is 1,550 a low enough number? When I first started working with nukes in the military, the total numbers were in excess of 60,000, but they'd already begun dropping rapidly. I don't think it takes 10,000 of them to get the world's attention, either, but I suspect 1,550 might be a little on the low side. I know a lot of people would like to see the numbers drop to zero, but the trick is to get them out of the hands of the other guys, first. When the criminals/terrorists are either armed or have the capability of becoming armed, that's not the time to lay down one's arms with a smile as a show of goodwill, as they'll simply smile back, please at their good fortune, before using their arms to wipe out the "infidels."

No, we need to have some. But how much?

 

[Hepth]

Do we even need 100? Imagine the destruction you could wreak with just 50. You could take out pretty much every major nation's capital, or center of commerce. Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[drankin]

I don't have an opinion. As long as no one ever launches any then our current numbers are fine.

Are we just talking ICBMs? I'm curious as to the difference, if there is any, between what a submarine carries versus those we have on mainland soil. Are nuclear artillery shells counted in these numbers as well?

I imagine we want an inventory for spares to be rotated for maintenance etc.

 

[drankin]

I've always wondered how we know if the numbers are even correct. How many of these are official and how many are off the books.

 

[Hepth]

I'd be more interested in how many anti-ICBM defenses we have vs other countries.

 

[drankin]

I've always wondered how we know if the numbers are even correct. How many of these are official and how many are off the books.

I also wonder if the nukes that are decommissioned weren't going to be anyway and it's all just a bunch of political BS.

 

[mheslep]

One of the problems with dropping the number low is that it puts a great deal of pressure on the restoration of nuclear testing, since with a low number the US has to know, and possible adversaries should be made to know, that they all work. There is a publicly documented case from back in the 1950's of 3 ... 2 ... 1... Hello? Um Fred, can you go out there and check the battery cables?

 

[mheslep]

Do we even need 100? Imagine the destruction you could wreak with just 50. You could take out pretty much every major nation's capital, or center of commerce. Or is there something I'm missing?

Taking out the other guy's well protected nuclear weapons, not his cities.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I don't have an opinion. As long as no one ever launches any then our current numbers are fine.

Are we just talking ICBMs? I'm curious as to the difference, if there is any, between what a submarine carries versus those we have on mainland soil. Are nuclear artillery shells counted in these numbers as well?

I imagine we want an inventory for spares to be rotated for maintenance etc.

The USA only has ICBM, SLBM, gravity (free fall) bombs, air launched cruse missiles (ALCM), and a small amount of warheads for tomahawk missiles left in service.

The last of the artillery shells were the W48 (155mm) and the W79 (203mm), both were retired in 1992.

In response to the OP, in a perfect world we would not need a single one of the damm things. In reality we need to have some around. Keep the ICBM, SLBM, and ALCM numbers the same, get rid of the rest.

 

[mugaliens]

Taking out the other guy's well protected nuclear weapons, not his cities.

I'm with you. I don't think it's against any restrictions to reveal our intent was to minimize a retalitory strike, or perhaps minimize any effect of reconstitutionary forces.

I don't think their response was much different.

Times have changed, and we are in changed times.

At this point, our decisions involve what's considered a minimal number, and to be honest, I haven't a clue, as I'm no longer plugged into that world! I hope it's the 1,550 for which Obama is asking, but I think 2,000 would be a more prudent number.

My ultimate goal? To see my 96th sunrise free and void of any further incident involving nuclear war.

My second goal? To see the same with governments pocketing their ridiculous bickering and figuring out ways to WORK TOGETHER.

Gah, get over it, people!

Just freaking do it. We're all humans on this planet of ours, and we're all in it for the long haul.

Just get on with it.

 

[russ_watters]

I think a handful (100 or so) SLBMs is all we really need because they are essentially impervious to a first strike.

 

[JaredJames]

I'd be interested to see the reaction if say, America nuked Iraq (just choosing random countries) over great distance.

How would the other countries in between know they weren't going to be hit? Would they launch any defence or even an offence. (I think you see where I'm going with this - does everyone start firing nukes?)

Personally, I'd say they are a deterrent weapon and not something I can see ever being useful in a war (WW2 aside, but purely because no one else had them). Their use creates a no win situation.

 

[WhoWee]

I think we should offer to deply all but around 250 to the countries (like Syria, North Korea, Iran) that so badly want them. As long as we keep the controls - everyone wins. (sorry)

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I think a handful (100 or so) SLBMs is all we really need because they are essentially impervious to a first strike.

To keep the remaining 14 Ohio class subs (SSBN) armed with a full complement of Trident II missiles (24 per sub), the USA would have to maintain 4032 warheads (no treaty reductions), 2688 warheads (START 1 reductions), or 1680 to 1344 warheads (SORT reductions depending on MIRV numbers)

These above numbers don't cover the 4 Ohio class subs that were changed to SSGN. It would require 616 BGM-109A Tomahawk missiles (154 per ship) to get each ship of the series to full complement. However with the signing of START II the W80 warheads needed to arm the tomahawk missiles were entered into the "enduring stockpile" with an inactive reserve tag. However with the failure of START II the classification (keep them where they are or reinstate them) of these warheads are now in question.

+1 to what Russ said, an Ohio that doesn't want to be found is next to imposable to find.

 

[nismaratwork]

AFAIK Russ is correct, although I'd keep a few ICBMs and bombers just in case, although in case of what?...

Really, this is a game-theory question, because if major cities are burning from nuclear strikes, civilization is going to end or change drastically. It's not as though a certain number gets us 'the win'. Our deterrence lies in our boomers' ability to strike anytime, anywhere, even if communications are utterly severed. That is unlikely to change anytime soon.

I'm more concerned about the 100 or so Pakistan and India have between them, and the soot from their burning cities causing a major climate event.

 

[mheslep]

Just from the US's own viewpoint, is there a reason requiring a full population of Trident II's on an Ohio, or even full MIRV population of each Trident?

 

[nismaratwork]

To keep the remaining 14 Ohio class subs (SSBN) armed with a full complement of Trident II missiles (24 per sub), the USA would have to maintain 4032 warheads (no treaty reductions), 2688 warheads (START 1 reductions), or 1680 to 1344 warheads (SORT reductions depending on MIRV numbers)

These above numbers don't cover the 4 Ohio class subs that were changed to SSGN. It would require 616 BGM-109A Tomahawk missiles (154 per ship) to get each ship of the series to full complement. However with the signing of START II the W80 warheads needed to arm the tomahawk missiles were entered into the "enduring stockpile" with an inactive reserve tag. However with the failure of START II the classification (keep them where they are or reinstate them) of these warheads are now in question.

+1 to what Russ said, an Ohio that doesn't want to be found is next to imposable to find.

As you point out... we could halve that number and assign 1 per continent with 1 unknown and it would still be 8 essentially undetectable engines of apocalypse.
Lets say 7 MIRVs per warhead as well, so that you get that even coverage and interfering shock-waves that really takes out a major metropolitan area. God this is depressing...

edit: @mheslp: Not in my view... 14 could end the world many many MANY times over, but you do need to be able to threaten multiple regions at once or the threat could be called by nations in cooperation.

 

[mheslep]

I think a handful (100 or so) SLBMs is all we really need because they are essentially impervious to a first strike.

How about the ground based command side of their VLW communication system that would tell them to launch? Is it impervious?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

How about the ground based command side of their VLW communication system that would tell them to launch? Is it impervious?

If someone could intercept and break the one time cypher pads of the ELF shore to ship communication system that the US navy uses, go immediately to the NAS and get well payed very secure job. If in the same vein if someone could intercept the pads and plant false ones undetected, go immediately to the CIA and get a well payed very plush job.

The security measures that the USA puts into all C&C concerning nuclear weapons is well just god like.

Loosely @ nismaratwork, the Trident II was originally designed to carry 12 MIRV nuclear warheads, it carried 8 under START I, and could carry 4 to 5 under SORT. Each of the Ohio class subs carries 24 Trident II missiles.

 

[russ_watters]

How about the ground based command side of their VLW communication system that would tell them to launch? Is it impervious?

No, but I'd much perfer to have 10,000 communication systems (isn't that ULF?) spread throughout the country (of course, all still linked to one central command authority) than 10,000 nuclear warheads.

 

[Newai]

Can I hope that within a few decades nukes will become obsolete, replaced by less fatal yet more efficient weapons? I may be a dreamer, but I look for a future when we can actually conduct non-casualty warfare using stun weapons such as electro-shock projectiles. The DoD is already on at least that much. Why not expand research into that sector?

 

[russ_watters]

What does "less fatal" mean?

 

[Newai]

Not turning everyone in the blast radius into ash.

 

[nismaratwork]

What does "less fatal" mean?

You know, they make you a little dead... a kind of petit mort.

 

[Newai]

I think Russ has a point in his question.

 

[JaredJames]

"Less fatal" or to put it another way, "less dead". (Not deadly, but dead. Newai, it's either fatal or it's not.)

There are two types of weapon if we keep it simple, those designed to kill and those designed to disable. Both, if used correctly can switch places (a rubber bullet at close range can kill, a .22 round to the foot can disable).

A bomb is a bomb, the only difference is the kill range. A nuke happens to have a fantastic kill range (not fantastic in a good way) in comparison to other weapons.

Newai, what other means would you suggest to replace bombs? Other bombs (so we use more to do the same thing)? If not that, then we either send in countless more troops and try to overrun the enemy (WW1 anyone?) or we move into biological warfare and nerve agents.

 

[Newai]

Google gives me 152,000 results for the phrase (not just the words) "less fatal." I think everyone knows what I meant. As for replacing the bombs, maybe re-read my original question?

Less deadly makes more sense for an individual. Less fatal applies to a plurality of victims.

 

[JaredJames]

Google gives me 152,000 results for the phrase (not just the words) "less fatal." I think everyone knows what I meant. As for replacing the bombs, maybe re-read my original question?

Less deadly makes more sense for an individual. Less fatal applies to a plurality of victims.

Replacing bombs with "stun weapons"? That's what I wanted clarification on.

A weapon that stuns at close range is no good over distance, a weapon that delivers a debilitating shock over long range can prove lethal at close range. I've only seen one weapon that can work over both long and short range, a shotgun that fires a stun cartridge. But, it's not quick to use. The user has to align a set of dots in the sight to the target to ensure the correct force is used. It is an anti-riot weapon, not something that would be particularly useful in a war zone, especially a full blown fire fight.

Again, when you say "less fatal" can you clarify? Are you talking about a weapon which could stun a group of enemies over a large area? See problem raised above.

Also, are you really saying that sending our soldiers into a battle with weapons they know can only put an enemy on the ground for a period of time is going to be effective? Especially when the enemy is coming at you with assault rifles.

 

[nismaratwork]

The term of art Newai, just to avoid future confusion, is LTL (Less Than Lethal). I wonder if perhaps that explains your glut of google results.

 

[mheslep]

If someone could intercept and break the one time cypher pads of the ELF shore to ship communication system that the US navy uses,...

I meant impervious in the sense that Russ used it for the subs themselves, impervious to preemptive nuclear strikes. Multiple mile long antennas are not.

 

[nismaratwork]

I meant impervious in the sense that Russ used it for the subs themselves, impervious to preemptive nuclear strikes. Multiple mile long antennas are not.

I would add, that there are known contingencies in these cases. Who is going to take a chance on disrupting communications when it might mean death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

The letters of last resort are four hand-written letters by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that contain orders to the commanders of the four British ballistic missile submarines on what to do in the case that an enemy nuclear strike has destroyed the UK and killed the Prime Minister.

The letters are stored inside two safes in the control room of each submarine.[1] These notes instruct the captain of what action to take in the event of the United Kingdom being attacked with nuclear weapons that destroy Her Majesty's British Government and/or the chain of command.

Although the final orders of the Prime Minister are at his or her discretion, and no fixed options exist, four known options are often presented to prime ministers by military advisers when writing such notes of last resort: (i) Captain ordered to respond to the nuclear attack on the UK by launching submarine's nuclear weapons; (ii) Captain ordered not to respond with nuclear weapons; (iii) Captain ordered to use own judgement whether to return fire with nuclear weapons; (iv) Captain ordered to place himself and ship under the command of Her Majesty's Government of Australia, or alternatively of the President of the United States. This system of issuing notes containing orders in the event of the head of government's death is said to be unique to the United Kingdom (although the concept of written last orders, particularly of a ship's captain, is a naval tradition), with other nuclear powers using different procedures. Such orders are destroyed unopened whenever a prime minister leaves office, so the decision of its use or not by previous prime ministers are known only to them - however, all relevant former prime ministers have supported an "independent nuclear deterrent", as does incumbent David Cameron.[2]

Only former prime minister Lord Callaghan has given any insight on his orders: Callaghan stated that, although in a situation where nuclear weapon use was required - and thus the whole purpose and value of the weapon as a deterrent had failed - he would have ordered use of nuclear weapons, if needed: ...if we had got to that point, where it was, I felt it was necessary to do it, then I would have done it (used the weapon)...but if I had lived after pressing that button, I could have never forgiven myself[3]

According to Peter Hennessy's book Secret State: Whitehall and the cold war 1945 to 1970, the process by which a Trident submarine would determine if the British government continues to function includes, amongst other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continues broadcasting.

Then you may have Russia's Dead Hand, and who-knows what else in the USA and elsewhere.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently the Treaty has now been approved 71 to 26.

 

[Newai]

The term of art Newai, just to avoid future confusion, is LTL (Less Than Lethal). I wonder if perhaps that explains your glut of google results.

Well that's helpful. Led me to this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

If I haven't cemented a career goal in the next few years, I think that may be where I want to be.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well that's helpful. Led me to this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

If I haven't cemented a career goal in the next few years, I think that may be where I want to be.

Well it's certainly a growing industry, and you can take with you the knowledge that your advances will be made in the effort to TRY and not kill, or to enhance the survivability of our troops and police. I'm glad I could help; it's not your fault that legalities and marketing led to the term, "less than lethal," and google will happily ignore "than".

 

[dilletante]

How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?

 

[nismaratwork]

How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?

I imagine that depends a lot on the plant design, and the type of bomb, and the age of the warhead. Certainly it's valuable fuel, but it's not just a matter of cracking open a warhead and tossing it into a furnace.

 

[mheslep]

How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?

I come up with on the order of one hundred 1 GW(electric) reactors for a year (the US has 104 reactors):

Russian and US nuclear weapon primaries are overwhelmingly plutonium based.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere"**, so the 1200 MT (1.2e9 gm) of Pu would produce 9.6e18 joules, or 300 GW(thermal)-years, distributed in any combination of reactor - time equivalents you like. If all of the 1200 MT of the weapons Pu was eventually burned in some manner it would produce 3000 GW(t) - years, or 1000 1GW(e) reactor-years.
____________________________________________________________________
* See, e.g., the US W-80 warhead, likely the most common in the US
arsenal. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.html

** This source states that the burn-up of special uranium and plutonium mixed fuel called MOX can be from 30% to 60%.

With one-third MOX cores, and 2.5 percent plutonium in the MOX, it would take 8 reactors (of 1,000 megawatts electrical each) about 30 years to complete disposition of 50 metric tons of plutonium. The number of years would be reduced proportionally to the increase in MOX core loading, the number of reactors used, and their power output. Thus, three reactors operating on a full MOX core with 6.8 percent plutonium could complete the disposition in about 10 years.

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-4/moxmain4.html

 

[theunbubba]

Do we even need 100? Imagine the destruction you could wreak with just 50. You could take out pretty much every major nation's capital, or center of commerce. Or is there something I'm missing?

The purpose of a nuclear deterrent is to insure the genocide of your opponent should they attempt to attack you.
It's called MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[theunbubba]

I imagine that depends a lot on the plant design, and the type of bomb, and the age of the warhead. Certainly it's valuable fuel, but it's not just a matter of cracking open a warhead and tossing it into a furnace.

You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.

First off please for the love of everything sane and rational please give us some links to support your rant.

The "highly dangerous" process you are claiming, the USA has been doing it for the last Fifteen years with HEU Russian bombs. Fuel made from old Russian bombs has been providing 20% of electrical energy in the USA during that time. As for my source it is the Megatons to Megawatts program signed between the Russian federation and the USA in 1993.

As for plutonium being the "most toxic" substance in the world, how about this I'll swallow half of a gram of plutonium and you can have a tenth of gram of cyanide (one fifth of what I just knocked back). I may have several years knocked off of my life expectancy due to a cancer in my GI tract, but I'm going to be alive long enough to goto your funeral, and see my children grow up, and my grandchildren, and who knows if medical science advances enough in the next 50 years my great grandchildren.

Nuclear power/materials are not some bogey man lurking in your closet or under the bed that is going to kill you. If you want to be freaked out by a energy source worry about natural gas, that has a better chance of getting you. As for the bomb, again I'll say I'd love to see every one of the damm things down-blended and turned into fuel, but in the real world that isn't going to happen. And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

Some good reading on plutonium http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html" and an older study by the "[URL Livermore National Laboratory

[/URL]

 

[JaredJames]

And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

I wouldn't say sick, I think it's quite accurate and I like it (might steal it from you).

 

[nismaratwork]

You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.

That's not what I said at all! I didn't say that this was dangerous, although you need to take reasonable precautions. I said that it isn't SIMPLE; that you don't just take a spoonful of alloyed plutonium from a bomb and toss it in a blender with Uranium, then bake in a reactor until 'done'.

The rest has been ably handled by Argentum Vulpes, but I'd point out that terms such as, "most toxic", are relative. That said, Pu is NOT it, to humans or anything else. If forced I'll eat Pu before I eat Saxitoxin, Batrachotoxin, Tetrodotoxin, (or Red Tide badness, Frog badness, and Fish badness)... or a number of other substances! Besides, when these bombs are decommissioned for one reason or another everything you describe is done, except using the core for fuel?... why?!

 

[nismaratwork]

I wouldn't say sick, I think it's quite accurate and I like it (might steal it from you).

I wouldn't say sick either... at least, if that's sick then every one of my colleagues are sick, every paramedic I've met are sick, cops are sick, teachers are sick, parents are sick...

... nah, Jared is right, that's just clever and stealable!

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I guess I should of used a better descriptor for the humorously true quote from my friend. I guess dark humor is a better descriptor, well I guess that is what I get for surfing the net when I should be in bed.

 

[theunbubba]

First off please for the love of everything sane and rational please give us some links to support your rant.

The "highly dangerous" process you are claiming, the USA has been doing it for the last Fifteen years with HEU Russian bombs. Fuel made from old Russian bombs has been providing 20% of electrical energy in the USA during that time. As for my source it is the Megatons to Megawatts program signed between the Russian federation and the USA in 1993.

As for plutonium being the "most toxic" substance in the world, how about this I'll swallow half of a gram of plutonium and you can have a tenth of gram of cyanide (one fifth of what I just knocked back). I may have several years knocked off of my life expectancy due to a cancer in my GI tract, but I'm going to be alive long enough to goto your funeral, and see my children grow up, and my grandchildren, and who knows if medical science advances enough in the next 50 years my great grandchildren.

Nuclear power/materials are not some bogey man lurking in your closet or under the bed that is going to kill you. If you want to be freaked out by a energy source worry about natural gas, that has a better chance of getting you. As for the bomb, again I'll say I'd love to see every one of the damm things down-blended and turned into fuel, but in the real world that isn't going to happen. And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

Some good reading on plutonium http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html" and an older study by the "[URL Livermore National Laboratory

[/URL]

I stand corrected. My understanding needed updating from what I "learned" back in the seventies. Thanks for the links.

 

[nismaratwork]

I stand corrected. My understanding needed updating from what I "learned" back in the seventies. Thanks for the links.

Welcome to PF, where you can catch up on decades of nuclear sciences and policy for fun and free. Isn't life grand?