Which countries have nuclear arms?

  • #1
18,834
9,018
Lets make a list of countries who have nuclear arms and then which countries have the ability to launch nuclear arms.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lyuokdea
149
0
I debated the nuclear weapons topic some years back in policy debate, here's what I remember, the list is the country's and the number of warheads. (although this data is, if I remember previous to the start treaties)

The P5:

United States - 10000
Soviet Union - 15000
France - 1000
Great Britain - 700
China - 50

Other Coutries:
Israel - 100 - 200
India - 100
China - 50
Pakistan - 20
North Korea - 0 - 2 *note this is before the last couple months where North Korea says they are making some.

Both South Africa and Khagastan had nuclear weapons at one point, or were close to getting them, but they eventually disarmed.
 
  • #3
Inquiring_Mike
50
0
Why does the USA and Soviet Union need so many? Do they actually think that they will ever be able to use them? I think that this world would be much peaceful if every country that has massive numbers of nukes (500 and up) cut the number of nukes they possesses to a maximum of 50 or so...
 
  • #4
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,954
6
Some of this info is a few months old (someone on another message board provided this info...I forget who unfortunately!)

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nations...
400 China
450 France
22500 Russia
260 United Kingdom
12070 United States

Non-NPT nations...
70 India
100 Israel
15 Pakistan
1 or 2 North Korea

high-risk states...
Iraq (very close until a few months ago)
Iran (very close)
Libya (far off)

RENUNCIATIONS
These states have either had nuclear weapons or advanced programs developing them. All have signed the NPT and are operating in accordance to the treaty.

Algeria - Agreed to monitoring in 1995.
Argentina - Program dismantled after the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
Belarus - Complete dismantlement of USSR weapons confirmed.
Brazil - Program dismantled after the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
Kazakhstan - Complete dismantlement of USSR weapons confirmed.
Romania - Iliescu government discontinued program.
South Africa - Dismantled all 6 devices in 1990's
Ukraine - Complete dismantlement of USSR weapons confirmed.


ABSTAINING COUNTRIES
These countries have all the necessary infrastructure to build nuclear weapons, but have never developed nuclear weapon programs. All are signatories to the NPT.

Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
 
  • #5
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by Inquiring_Mike
Why does the USA and Soviet Union need so many?

It's about achieving parity with one's enemy. Both nations understand that, in the event of nuclear war, one does not only need enough nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy, one needs enough nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy after a first strike. A first strike would doubtlessly be targeted at the other nation's nuclear weapons, making it impossible to retaliate. If a nation is to not be vanquished by nuclear attack, it must have enough weapons with which to respond.
 
  • #6
Eh
746
1
But wait. If a nuclear attack is launched, the other nation would have several minutes to respond, wouldn't they? The attack may well destroy the launching sites of the enemy, but by the time they do, it's already too late. They would have been launched in the counter attack.
 
  • #7
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
The point of the US nuclear triad - land based, air based and sea based missiles - was to make it very difficult for an enemy to knock out all our missiles in an attack. So however struck, we would retain the ability to retaliate. This also contributed to the large numbers of warheads listed above, because each "leg" of the triad had to have enough warheads to destroy an attacker (in the old days of course there was only one problable attacker, the USSR).
 
  • #8
Dissident Dan
237
2
Does anybody remember the doctrine of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea was to make the enemy too afraid to strike, because, if it did, both sides had enough weapons to ensure that everybody bit the big one.
 
  • #9
theroyprocess
141
1
Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/03.07/0707krieger_10myths.htm [Broken]


Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons
By David Krieger and Angela McCracken, July 7, 2003


Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II.

It is widely believed, particularly in the United States, that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to defeat Japan in World War II. This is not, however, the opinion of the leading US military figures in the war, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Omar Bradley, General Hap Arnold and Admiral William Leahy. General Eisenhower, for example, who was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War II and later US president, wrote, “I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced [to Secretary of War Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’….” Not only was the use of nuclear force unnecessary, its destructive force was excessive, resulting in 220,000 deaths by the end of 1945.


Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Many people believe that the nuclear standoff during the Cold War prevented the two superpowers from going to war with each other, for fear of mutually assured destruction. While it is true that the superpowers did not engage in nuclear warfare during the Cold War, there were many confrontations between them that came uncomfortably close to nuclear war, the most prominent being the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. There were also many deadly conflicts and “proxy” wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million Vietnamese lives and the lives of more than 58,000 Americans, is a prominent example. These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly. Lurking in the background was the constant danger of a nuclear exchange. The Cold War was an exceedingly dangerous time with a massive nuclear arms race, and the human race was extremely fortunate to have survived it without suffering a nuclear war.


Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War.

In light of the Cold War’s end, many people believed that nuclear threats had gone away. While the nature of nuclear threats has changed since the end of the Cold War, these threats are far from having disappeared or even significantly diminished. During the Cold War, the greatest threat was that of a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and Soviet Union. In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged. Among these are the following dangers:

• Increased possibilities of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who would not hesitate to use them;
• Nuclear war between India and Pakistan;
• Policies of the US government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable;
• Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly by Russia, which has a substantially weakened early warning system; and
• Spread of nuclear weapons to other states, such as North Korea, that may perceive them to be an “equalizer” against a more powerful state.


The United States needs nuclear weapons for its national security.

There is a widespread belief in the United States that nuclear weapons are necessary for the US to defend against aggressor states. US national security, however, would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the United States, and their existence and proliferation threaten US security. Continued high-alert deployment of nuclear weapons and research on smaller and more usable nuclear weapons by the US, combined with a more aggressive foreign policy, makes many weaker nations feel threatened. Weaker states may think of nuclear weapons as an equalizer, giving them the ability to effectively neutralize the forces of a threatening nuclear weapons state. Thus, as in the case of North Korea, the US threat may be instigating nuclear weapons proliferation. Continued reliance on nuclear weapons by the United States is setting the wrong example for the world, and is further endangering the country rather than protecting it. The United States has strong conventional military forces and would be far more secure in a world in which no country had nuclear arms.


Nuclear weapons make a country safer.

It is a common belief that nuclear weapons protect a country by deterring potential aggressors from attacking. By threatening massive retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war. To the contrary, nuclear weapons are actually undermining the safety of the countries that possesses them by providing a false sense of security. While deterrence can provide some psychological sense of security, there are no guarantees that the threat of retaliation will succeed in preventing an attack. There are many ways in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculations and accidents. In addition, the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the risks of terrorism, proliferation and ultimately nuclear annihilation.


No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons.

Many people believe that the threat of using nuclear weapons can go on indefinitely as a means of deterring attacks because no leader would be crazy enough to actually use them. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons have been used, and it is likely that most, if not all, leaders possessing these weapons would, under certain conditions, actually use them. US leaders, considered by many to be highly rational, are the only ones who have ever actually used nuclear weapons in war, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Outside of these two bombings, the leaders of nuclear weapons states have repeatedly come close to using nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence is based upon a believable threat of nuclear retaliation, and the threat of nuclear weapons use has been constant during the post World War II period. US policy currently calls for the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack with chemical or biological weapons against the US, its troops or allies. One of the premises of the US argument for preventive war is that other leaders would be willing to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan provide still another example of nuclear brinksmanship that could turn into a nuclear war. Globally and historically, leaders have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons. Assuming that they would not do so is unwise.


Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense.

Some have argued that nuclear weapons, with their high yield of explosive power, offer the benefit of an effective defense for minimum investment. This is one reason behind ongoing research into lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, which would be perceived as more usable. The cost of nuclear weapons research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance, however, exceeded $5.5 trillion by 1996, according to a study by the Brookings Institution. With advances in nuclear technology and power, the costs and consequences of a nuclear war would be immeasurable.


more...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Lyuokdea
149
0
Although I do not agree with nuclear weapons policy, do you seriously believe that the US and USSR would not have gone to war if there were no nuclear weapons? ALthough many died in proxy wars, a Soviet Invasion of Europe would be almost gaurenteed without the threat of U.S. Nuclear Retaliation, a 3rd World War in Europe would have certainly killed millions more than the proxy wars throughout the war.
 
  • #11
theroyprocess
141
1
Weapons of Mass Destruction

I heard of two incidents from a film producer that there were several close calls
between the US and Russia pushing the nuclear buttons besides the Cuban missile
crisis. One was a flock a geese in Europe which the Russians first believed to be a
multi missile launch but averted in the nick of time. A US military figure ordered
a launch but was rightfully ignored in the nick of time. We've been dam lucky...so far.
 
  • #12
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by Lyuokdea
Although I do not agree with nuclear weapons policy, do you seriously believe that the US and USSR would not have gone to war if there were no nuclear weapons? ALthough many died in proxy wars, a Soviet Invasion of Europe would be almost gaurenteed without the threat of U.S. Nuclear Retaliation, a 3rd World War in Europe would have certainly killed millions more than the proxy wars throughout the war.

I guess it becomes a question of when. In 1945, sans the atomic bomb there will still not likely be a conflict. The allied forces in europe did not have the means to defeat the Soviet Union in their own backyard, and the Soviets certainly did not have much to gain from a war with the west. A few years later with the situation in Berlin though, we might be looking at WWIII.
 
  • #13
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Inquiring_Mike
Why does the USA and Soviet Union need so many? Do they actually think that they will ever be able to use them? I think that this world would be much peaceful if every country that has massive numbers of nukes (500 and up) cut the number of nukes they possesses to a maximum of 50 or so...

There are several reasons. My father worked on nuclear submarines, so I know a fair amount about the subject.

Despite the Soviet union's opposition to the Star Wars program, they had actually been the first to implement one. Basically they buried gravel with explosives in strategic places. If missiles flew over, they would shoot the gravel up into the air. At the speeds the missles travel a single piece of gravel can destroy them. Redundancy means at least some of the missles will get through.

The other reason is that the system was deliberately set up with multiple backup systems in order to prevent a nuclear war. For those interested, I recommend the movie, "By Dawn's Early Light" as an accurate portrayal of how a nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union was projected to progress. In the movie soviet terrorists launch missles at the US destroying several cities. Instead of retaliating by launching everything we have as many people suspect we would do, they launched all the B-1 bombers. The movie is about one such bombing crew.

The idea is that by launching the bombers which require eight hours to reach their target everyone has time to cool off and work things out. It also allows the submarines and railroad train based MX missle systems a chance to hide and move closer to their targets. It is the submarines in particular which are the ultimate back-up system in case all the other systems fail. For example, if the Soviets had struck with a massive first strike and managed to take out all of our land based missles and then gone on to shoot down all of the bombers, the submarines still possessed more than enough firepower to pay them back.

And, last but not least, Ronald Raygun began the practice of dramatically increasing the US nuclear arsenal. Basically, he played one-up-manship with the Soviets. As the Soviets attempted to keep up with growing US arsenal, their economy collapsed. This was, of course, exactly what the US wanted.
 
  • #14
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
Despite the Soviet union's opposition to the Star Wars program, they had actually been the first to implement one. Basically they buried gravel with explosives in strategic places. If missiles flew over, they would shoot the gravel up into the air. At the speeds the missles travel a single piece of gravel can destroy them. Redundancy means at least some of the missles will get through.
Hmm... No offense but the way you put it right now it sounds
totally absurd, I mean - explosives and gravel in the gorund ?! Come on !
Any reference to the details (maybe you just phrased it funny :wink:) wuli ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #15
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by drag
Hmm... No offense but the way you put it right now it sounds
totally absurd, I mean - explosives and gravel in the gorund ?! Come on !
Any reference to the details (maybe you just phrased it funny :wink:) wuli ?

Live long and prosper.

You are correct, it sounds funny and beyond belief. Much of what the soviet union did sounds funny and beyond belief. They loved doing things on huge scales and damn the environmental impact! Drain the Ural sea, spread radioactive waste over siberia! Who cares. One of their specialties was microwave radiation. They figured out exactly how to kill people by beaming microwaves at them. At one point the Soviet embacy in DC beamed them at the US department of agraculture across the street. Within five years everyone who worked there died.

Call it weird conspiracy theory bs if you want, or look up the evidence for yourself. Before the US won the second WW, people could not believe what was happening in the concentration camps either.
 
  • #16
Guybrush Threepwood
520
1
from theroyprocess's post:

"No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons."

LLLLOL. I'm surprised that such an argument even existed...
 
  • #17
theroyprocess
141
1
Whoops

Whoops:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/whoops.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
I've a question that is at least somewhat related. Aside from the Cuban missile crisis, has any nuclear power baldly threatened another country with a nuclear attack (post-WWII)?

IIRC, the US government made such a threat against China, either during the Korean war or in the 1960s, but I haven't found any details. Of course, this threat was delivered in secret by 'personal emissaries', not in a televised address, but was nonetheless very clear, deliberate, and serious (so I recall).
 
  • #19
kat
39
0
Originally posted by Nereid
I've a question that is at least somewhat related. Aside from the Cuban missile crisis, has any nuclear power baldly threatened another country with a nuclear attack (post-WWII)?
).

Pakistan/India?
 
  • #20
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Originally posted by Nereid
I've a question that is at least somewhat related. Aside from the Cuban missile crisis, has any nuclear power baldly threatened another country with a nuclear attack (post-WWII)?

IIRC, the US government made such a threat against China, either during the Korean war or in the 1960s, but I haven't found any details. Of course, this threat was delivered in secret by 'personal emissaries', not in a televised address, but was nonetheless very clear, deliberate, and serious (so I recall).

It used to be said that Eisenhower, who campaigned in 1952 on being able to stop the Korean war then going on, threatened China with nuking Beijing if they wouldn't strinke a deal on armistice. They did.
 
  • #21
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
by SelfAdjoint It used to be said that Eisenhower, who campaigned in 1952 on being able to stop the Korean war then going on, threatened China with nuking Beijing if they wouldn't strinke a deal on armistice.
Has anything concrete come into the public domain about this threat? I recently saw a television program on the Korean War where this was mentioned, but IIRC, it was more that it had been discussed (between the President, State Department, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?) and not clear that it was in fact delivered. Or, if delivered, just how specific it was.
 
  • #22
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
I was cautious in my statement just because I don't know of any evidence of it.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a formal note delivered by the Swedish ambassador (we had no diplomatic relations with the PRC at the time). Just let the rumor spread that it's being discussed...
 
  • #23
Zantra
781
3
In today's level of technology, "first strike" means absolutely nothing. Regardless of how many missles were launched, the 15 minutes it takes the missles to get here, would be more than enough time to launch a full counter-strike, thus decimating both sides. The only people left would be the missle silo guys, and the few government officials lucky enough to get to an underground bunker.

Personally, I'd rather be in Australia. Not that I wouldn't still be in danger from global nuclear fallout, but at least I'd have a chance. I can tell we're on a path to self-destruction. I just hope it's not in my lifetimer.
 
  • #24
Not only that, but a full nuclear volley would have devastating effects for many other countries than the two involved, if not the entire world. The fallout would be tremendous.
 
  • #25
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
There seem to be some incentives at work, for a non-nuclear country to go nuclear.

The NPT clearly isn't perfect - how many countries had signed it, only to go nuclear later?

Once a country has the bomb, there's a strong desire for its hostile (or threatened) neighbour to develop one too. India/Pakistan, Israel/??

If you're on the US's black list, what's to be lost by going nuclear, esp compared with what could be gained? North Korea, soon Iran?

If you're on the US's 'good guys' list, but take a firm stance regarding nukes, you get punished. New Zealand.
 
  • #26
theroyprocess
141
1
Loose Nukes

There should be a NUKE-GATE Congressional
trial about this 'shell game' of moving atom and
"dirty" bomb elements from place to place on
tax payers money...and extorting more to
perpetuate the problem.

There IS only one way to stop nuclear proliferation
and that is to denature and neutralize bomb grade
elements.

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30706-2003Oct1?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Loose Uranium
Thursday, October 2, 2003; Page A22


DESPOTS AND TERRORISTS seeking nuclear weapons need not produce their own bomb materials. Nor do they need the cooperation of a government. The frightening reality is that highly enriched uranium suitable for weapons can be found at more than 130 sites in 40 countries, many of them lightly guarded or supervised by poorly paid and demoralized officials. Last month the United States and Russia quietly eliminated one of those targets, transporting 30 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from a nuclear reactor facility in Romania to Russia, where it will be converted into a form not suitable for bombs. The secret operation, paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy, was the second such recovery mission in a little over a year, and a praiseworthy example of U.S.-Russian cooperation.

Yet compared with the overall threat, the Romania extraction was a drop in the bucket. At this rate, it will take a quarter-century to recover all the bomb-grade materials at the two dozen sites identified by the State Department as most urgent -- not to mention those scattered around the rest of the world. In the meantime, they offer a temptingly soft target to terrorists seeking a short cut to a bomb. The Bush administration has been slowly awakening to this huge problem, but it needs to accelerate its efforts and do more to overcome resistance at home and abroad.

more...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Hey all,
I'm a student of the University of Antwerp (Belgium) and I'm working on a paper about the nuclear thread to the world. Does any of you know a good source were I can find an overvieuw of all the countries in the world that posses nuclear arms?

Thanks!
 
  • #28
Hey all,
I found a link you all might be interessted in:

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/weapons/weapon.asp?ID=3&weapon=nuclear [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
theroyprocess
141
1
40 Countries Have Nukes

"35 or 40" countries able to make nuclear weapons: IAEA chief

Friday October 31, 2:50 AM

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031030/1/3fg7u.html [Broken]

Up to 40 countries are believed to be capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons, underlining the need to reinforce and update the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei told a French newspaper.

The treaty, which came into force in 1970, has been overtaken by a world in which developing nuclear arms has become attractive not only to many countries, but also to "terrorist groups," ElBaradei told Friday's issue of Le Monde.

The number of countries believed to be able to create such weapons "is estimated at 35 or 40," he said.

"And under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities ... or even to possesses military-grade nuclear material," he said.

Should anyone of them decide to break their commitment to the non-proliferation treaty, experts believe it "could produce a weapon in just a few months."

He added: "We are already on the verge of catastrophe with North Korea."

Elsewhere in the interview, ElBaradei said his agency was at work verifying Iran's nuclear programme, and said a report would be made at the next UN Security Council meeting.

To cope with the increasing risk of other countries developing nuclear arms, the agency head said a beefed-up version of the non-proliferation treaty was needed, beyond the tweaking that it went through in 1995 after the first Gulf War.

"We have to reach agreement on limiting the construction, in civilian programmes, of nuclear material for military ends by confining this to installations under multilateral control."

A "new safety system" that would treat the causes of international insecurity, not just their symptoms, also should be created that would not be based on "dissuasion, but on fairness and universality," he argued.

=========
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
theroyprocess
141
1
Nuclear Weapons Conference Resolution

Resolution and papers from this Conference

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/


Press Release and Statement of Conference Conclusions (PDF)

Conference Resolution 1:
Conference Statement – ICRP Risk Model (PDF)

Conference Resolution 2:
Scientist's Communiqué (PDF)

Conference Resolution 3:
Need for Comprehensive Screening in Contaminated Areas (PDF)

Kurzinfo und Spendenaufruf zur Konferenz (PDF)

Conference short (PDF)

For more information, contact:

Gewaltfreie Aktion Atomwaffen Abschaffen

www.uraniumweaponsconference.de[/url] - [url]www.uranwaffenkonferenz.de[/URL]

Co-Coordinator: Marion Küpker, Beckstraße 14, 20357 Hamburg, Germany

Phone +49-40-4307332 - Fax +49-40-43183233 - Email:
[email]marionkuepker@compuserve.com[/email]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
theroyprocess
141
1
Nuclear De-Alerting Confernce

Dr. Helen Caldicott is organizing a symposium in January called "THREE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT, THE IMMINENT THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR" in Washington, DC at the Shoreham Hotel. You will find all the details on the web page at http://www.nuclearpolicy.org. The world's top nuclear scientists and military people from both Russian and the US have been invited and it promises to be a mind altering event. This topic needs to be introduced into the presidential debates and election campaign as the candidates are totally ignoring the issue at
the moment.

See link on left hand side of homepage at:
http://www.nuclearpolicy.org


COUNTDOWN TO ARMAGEDDON article:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/11_07_03/Countdown_to_Armageddon/countdown_to_armageddon.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
theroyprocess
141
1
Bunker Buster II animation

Bunker Buster II animation:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bustertwo.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
pelastration
162
0
UN website on Non-proliferation Treaty and disarmament:

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/ [Broken]

And what about the USA program for mini-nukes? By delivering the weapon more accurately — within 30 feet — they say a blast of only one-half kiloton would be enough to destroy the bunker. The radiation zone would be reduced to a little more than a mile.

1. US Congress lifts ban on mini-nukes
Agreement frees nuclear-weapons labs to develop low-yield bombs By Ian Hoffman

In a deal cut Thursday, Senate and House lawmakers scrapped a decade-old ban on developing low-yield nuclear weapons. Ending a bitter, months-long fight over the nation's nuclear policy, the agreement frees nuclear-weapons physicists in California and New Mexico to design a class of hydrogen bombs that explode at under five kilotons of TNT -- in essence, less than one-third the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
more on: http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1750904,00.html

2. Dave Zweifel: Bush would use mini-nukes, prof warns.
Is George Bush the most dangerous president in U.S. history?
If you ask Professor John Swomley, he is.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/zweifel/56811.php

Is this the way it has to go? What if a president goes on coke or whiskey or believes God just called him and said: 'Use them Now!' ... or he just has bad friends wanting to destroy some concurrent economic or agricultural areas (during a war or conflict) in another country. What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Thank you for that report. I hadn't seen it, and I try to keep up. This is grim news indeed. The only dim ray of light I see is that the Army didn't after all use the aerosol MOAB bunker buster after it had been so loudly announced. Seems like a slim thread to depend on the Generals to rein in the foolishness of the administration, but where else can we go?
 

Suggested for: Which countries have nuclear arms?

Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
546
Replies
2
Views
468
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
776
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
801
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
577
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
905
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Top