Arms Treaty Debate - What's a Good Target Number

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate target number for nuclear arsenals in the context of arms treaties, specifically addressing the implications of reducing stockpiles and the strategic considerations involved. Participants explore various perspectives on the necessity and sufficiency of nuclear weapons, touching on historical data, deterrence theory, and geopolitical concerns.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about the adequacy of the proposed target of 1,550 nuclear warheads, suggesting it may be too low given historical contexts and current threats.
  • Others argue that significantly fewer warheads, such as 50 or 100, could suffice for deterrence, emphasizing the destructive capability of even a small number of nuclear weapons.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the accuracy of reported nuclear stockpile numbers and the potential existence of unaccounted or off-the-books weapons.
  • Some participants question the implications of reducing nuclear numbers on the need for nuclear testing to ensure the reliability of remaining arsenals.
  • There is a suggestion that the focus should also include the capabilities of anti-ICBM defenses in comparison to other nations.
  • A few participants propose that a minimal number of SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) could provide sufficient deterrence due to their survivability against first strikes.
  • Discussions include the potential geopolitical ramifications of nuclear use, with some suggesting that nuclear weapons serve primarily as deterrents rather than practical tools for warfare.
  • One participant humorously suggests offering nuclear weapons to countries seeking them, while maintaining control, highlighting the absurdity of the situation.
  • Concerns about the nuclear capabilities of countries like Pakistan and India are mentioned, emphasizing the broader implications of nuclear proliferation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the ideal number of nuclear weapons needed, with multiple competing views presented regarding sufficiency, necessity, and the implications of disarmament.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the reliability of nuclear stockpile data, the strategic value of different types of nuclear weapons, and the political motivations behind disarmament discussions. There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of nuclear capabilities and the implications of maintaining or reducing arsenals.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, arms control, nuclear strategy, and geopolitical security issues.

How many active nuclear weapons should we keep on hand?

  • None! Nukes are bad. If we lay down our arms, they'll become our friends.

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • One more than the other guy (upwards of 1k). Can't get caught with our pants down.

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Ten Times the world average for NPT countries (between 1k and 2k)

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • Upwards of 10,000 (between 2k and 10k)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Cold War Stockpile Levels (between 10k and 60k)

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
mugaliens
Messages
197
Reaction score
1
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
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?
 
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.
 
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'd be more interested in how many anti-ICBM defenses we have vs other countries.
 
drankin said:
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.
 
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?
 
Hepth said:
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.
 
drankin said:
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.
 
  • #10
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #11
I think a handful (100 or so) SLBMs is all we really need because they are essentially impervious to a first strike.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
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.:rolleyes: (sorry)
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
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?
 
  • #17
Argentum Vulpes said:
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... :biggrin:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
russ_watters said:
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?
 
  • #19
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #21
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?
 
  • #23
Not turning everyone in the blast radius into ash.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
What does "less fatal" mean?

You know, they make you a little dead... a kind of petit mort. :smile:
 
  • #25
I think Russ has a point in his question.
 
  • #26
"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.
 
  • #27
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Newai said:
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.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
Argentum Vulpes said:
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.