PDA

View Full Version : USA has 5,113 nuclear warheads




wildfirepower
05-04-2010, 04:37 AM
WASHINGTON — The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and “several thousand” more retired warheads awaiting the junk pile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.

The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

“We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons.

The United States previously has regarded such details as top secret.

The figure includes both “strategic,” or long-range weapons, and those intended for use at shorter range.

The Pentagon said the stockpile of 5,113 as of September 2009 represents a 75 percent reduction since 1989.

A rough count of deployed and reserve warheads has been known for years, so the Pentagon figures do not tell nuclear experts much they did not already know.

Hans Kristensen, director of Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said his organization already had put the number at about 5,100 by reviewing budget estimates and other documents.

The import of the announcement is the precedent it sets, Kristensen said.

“The important part is that the U.S. is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark,” he said.

Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen “builds confidence” that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers.

The administration is not revealing everything.

The Pentagon figure released Monday includes deployed weapons, which are those more or less ready to launch, and reserve weapons. It does not include thousands of warheads that have been disabled or all but dismantled. Those weapons could, in theory, be reconstituted, or their nuclear material repurposed.

Estimates of the total U.S. arsenal range from slightly more than 8,000 to above 9,000, but the Pentagon will not give a precise number.

Whether to reveal the full total, including those thousands of nearly dead warheads, was debated within the Obama administration. Keeping those weapons out of the figure released Monday represented a partial concession to intelligence agency officials and others who argued national security could be harmed by laying the entire nuclear arsenal bare.

A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the overall total remains classified, did not dispute the rough estimates developed by independent analysts.

Exposure of once-classified totals for U.S. deployed and reserve nuclear weapons is intended to nudge nations such as China, which has revealed little about its nuclear stockpile.

“You can’t get anywhere toward disarmament unless you’re going to be transparent about how many weapons you have,” said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Russia and the United States have previously disclosed the size of their stockpiles of deployed strategic weapons, and France and Britain have released similar information. All have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is the subject of the U.N. review that began Monday.

The U.S. revelations are calculated to improve Washington’s bargaining power with Iran’s allies and friends for the drive to head off what the West charges is a covert Iranian program to build a bomb.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad spoke ahead of Clinton at the conference, denouncing U.S. efforts to pressure his regime to abandon its nuclear program.

The U.N. conference will try to close loopholes in the internationally recognized rules against the spread of weapons technology.

Independent analysts estimate the total world stockpile of nuclear warheads at more than 22,000.

The Federation of American Scientists estimates that nearly 8,000 of those warheads are operational, with about 2,000 U.S. and Russian warheads ready for use on short notice.

The United States and Russia burnished their credentials for insisting that other countries forgo atomic weapons by agreeing last month to a new strategic arms reduction treaty.

The New START treaty sets a limit of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads for each side, down from 2,200 under a 2002 deal. The pact re-establishes anti-cheating procedures that provide the most comprehensive and substantial arms control agreement since the original 1991 START treaty.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/ap_military_nuclear_weapons_050310/

tangent4ronpaul
05-04-2010, 05:19 AM
That's 1/6th of what we used to have....

The TRAITORS in office have been hard at work! :(

-t

wildfirepower
05-04-2010, 07:26 AM
That's 1/6th of what we used to have....

The TRAITORS in office have been hard at work! :(
I read somewhere that USA had 30,000+ nuclear warheads but USA destroyed majority of them as part of international agreement. USA has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing the nuclear weapons and they just destroy it for world peace.

angelatc
05-04-2010, 07:28 AM
The United States previously has regarded such details as top secret.

So they'll allow the rest of the world to audit our military capabilities....

pcosmar
05-04-2010, 08:23 AM
They will turn them all over to the UN to be used by the Global Police Force.

manny229
05-04-2010, 08:26 AM
I read somewhere that USA had 30,000+ nuclear warheads but USA destroyed majority of them as part of international agreement. USA has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing the nuclear weapons and they just destroy it for world peace.

Do we still have any active missile silos? I know some abandoned ones are for sale

http://www.missilebases.com/properties

Atlas F site in Upstate NY's Adirondack Park seems nice!

tmosley
05-04-2010, 08:26 AM
Sort of like how England got rid of privately owned guns for national peace. Now you can't walk down the street without being menaced by some hooligan with a knife.

In a world without nukes, world wars will again be viable. Entire nations can be overrun and rolled into larger ones.

Fucking brilliant.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
05-04-2010, 08:29 AM
More than enough nukes.

tmosley
05-04-2010, 08:43 AM
More than enough nukes.

Until they are cut by a further 85%. ANd then another 85%.

But then, I doubt they are actually giving full disclosure here.

tmosley
05-04-2010, 08:53 AM
Do we still have any active missile silos? I know some abandoned ones are for sale

http://www.missilebases.com/properties

Atlas F site in Upstate NY's Adirondack Park seems nice!

Holy crap, some of those are cheap!

RPF should get together and buy one of those. 5 people could probably come up with 40K each for such a venture. It would be a hell of a bug out location, if nothing else.

silus
05-04-2010, 08:56 AM
That's 1/6th of what we used to have....

The TRAITORS in office have been hard at work! :(

-t
God, some people on this forum are so damn ignorant.



So they'll allow the rest of the world to audit our military capabilities....
We wouldn't be "revealing" the numbers if it wasn't already known to our adversaries.

tangent4ronpaul
05-04-2010, 09:47 AM
sort of like how england got rid of privately owned guns for national peace. Now you can't walk down the street without being menaced by some hooligan with a knife.

In a world without nukes, world wars will again be viable. Entire nations can be overrun and rolled into larger ones.

Fucking brilliant.

+1776!!!!!

tangent4ronpaul
05-04-2010, 09:49 AM
Do we still have any active missile silos? I know some abandoned ones are for sale

http://www.missilebases.com/properties

Atlas F site in Upstate NY's Adirondack Park seems nice!

The original Titan bases are MUCH better! - besides this is in NY state... :(

-t

Carole
05-04-2010, 09:49 AM
Could it be that nuclear weapons, having been around half a century or so, are actually OBSOLETE?

Does anyone really not think the PTB have MUCH better weapons now than those old fashioned (:D) nukes?

With trillions of dollars in black budgets down the drain, I strongly suspect nukes are outdated and have long been surpassed by newer weaponry of which the general public is totally unaware.

Maybe nukes are the strawman for continued waste of time and effort and money. :D

osan
05-04-2010, 10:04 AM
WASHINGTON — The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile

We used to have over 30,000.


and “several thousand” more retired warheads awaiting the junk pile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.

That "shrinking rapidly" part is worrisome.


The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

How does giving away the farm improve our bargaining position? Is this man a total idiot?


“We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons.

Traitors.


The United States previously has regarded such details as top secret.


And with good reason.





The import of the announcement is the precedent it sets, Kristensen said.

Yes. USA divulges and the rest laugh at our stupidity.


“The important part is that the U.S. is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark,” he said.

Important to whom?


Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen “builds confidence” that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers.


Now there's solid reasoning for you.


The administration is not revealing everything.

They're so butch.




Exposure of once-classified totals for U.S. deployed and reserve nuclear weapons is intended to nudge nations such as China, which has revealed little about its nuclear stockpile.

Because China is not that stupid.


Traitors at the helm. How warming.

osan
05-04-2010, 10:08 AM
Do we still have any active missile silos? I know some abandoned ones are for sale

http://www.missilebases.com/properties (http://www.missilebases.com/properties)

Atlas F site in Upstate NY's Adirondack Park seems nice!

I came this close to buying a Titan I site in central WA several years ago when I still had money. 1024 acres and two perfectly dry silos along with the power station, launch control center, etc. It was, in the end, a bit remote even for me, and I like remote.

fisharmor
05-04-2010, 10:15 AM
Could it be that nuclear weapons, having been around half a century or so, are actually OBSOLETE?

FTW

I don't think there has been any development since the early 1980s.
They are most definitely obsolete: they're certainly some of the oldest weapons still inventoried by US armed forces.
As I've pointed out before, we maintain a bomber fleet because our ICBMs are accurate to a mile or two of what they're trying to hit - yet Google can read newspaper headlines from space.

Even one of what we have is too many.
We need to send them all to the scrapyard...
and make new ones.

The whole stockpile is geared toward MAD principles, and the entirety of our foreign policy for the last 20 years has been taking for granted that we're dealing with people for whom MAD doesn't work.
If that's really true, then we have no reason to continue with it.

Junk 'em all, and replace them with high precision low-yield ICBMs that we'd actually use if push came to shove, which don't require boots on foreign soil.

osan
05-04-2010, 10:22 AM
Could it be that nuclear weapons, having been around half a century or so, are actually OBSOLETE?

Not yet. Until practical systems are developed that can reliably knock out incoming missiles from orbit, nukes will still occupy a valuable position in deterrence. Why do you think we have not had WWIII yet? Nukes. Were a new Stalin to arise and attempt to take Europe, for example, they could be bombed into the stone age where they would belong. Remove that threat and what is there to stop the tanks rolling across the continent? Not much.


Does anyone really not think the PTB have MUCH better weapons now than those old fashioned (:D) nukes?

Yeah, better is out there by a certain definition of "better", but not better enough... not yet. Well, there may be, but they ain't talking. But that deal raises the more worrisome question of whose side are "they" on? Not ours, I would bet.


With trillions of dollars in black budgets down the drain,

Down the drain? Not likely. Some of the shit I've worked on would scare you sheet-white. Back in 79-80 I had a friend whose father worked at LLL. Mr. K used to tell us about some of the things they worked on there, none of which he was supposed to but we were good boys and would not have said anything to anyone because we gave our words. Anyhow, they'd developed a scanning laser beacon that caused instant and permanent blindness in enemy troops. Word of it leaked out and they had to scrap it (yeah, right).



Maybe nukes are the strawman for continued waste of time and effort and money. :D

Could be, but we still have them and have the means of delivering them anywhere on the planet within minutes. Nobody is going to tell me that that no longer has strategic value.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
05-04-2010, 11:21 AM
Until they are cut by a further 85%. ANd then another 85%.

But then, I doubt they are actually giving full disclosure here.

Even then, still more than enough.

Shit, if you just have 1 nuke you are good.

wildfirepower
05-04-2010, 11:23 AM
The maintainence cost and safe-keeping cost for 5,113 nuclear warheads must be running into hundreds of billions of dollars. It is better to use the nuclear weapons or destroy them when USA has a national debt of $12 Trillion.

Theocrat
05-04-2010, 11:23 AM
I wonder how many biological and chemical warheads the U.S. has...

tmosley
05-04-2010, 01:12 PM
Even then, still more than enough.

Shit, if you just have 1 nuke you are good.

Absolutely not. This is patently absurd.

1 nuke does much less damage than a WWII era invasion. You have to have MAD for nukes to guarantee peace. A large number of warheads means that an invasion means COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION for the invading party--not just their armies, but their cities and towns as well. 5000 warheads is enough for this, even with ballistic missile shields, though 30,000 is better. 500 is ok if you are certain you can defeat any defenses. 30 is enough for purely defensive purposes (ie nuking armies as they cross your borders and taking out carrier groups), but that doesn't provide for the element of sheer terror that you really need to stop nationalistic fervor from devolving to military action.

wildfirepower
05-05-2010, 08:12 AM
How many nuclear warheads does Russia have.

Carole
05-05-2010, 08:53 AM
Osan,
Thanks for your insight.

" Anyhow, they'd developed a scanning laser beacon that caused instant and permanent blindness in enemy troops. Word of it leaked out and they had to scrap it (yeah, right)."

Yeah, right. LOL :D :eek:

Not to mention those sound weapons they used at the G-20 and on some pirates recently. :)

Carole
05-05-2010, 09:02 AM
"Quote:
Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen “builds confidence” that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers.

Now there's solid reasoning for you."

And was it not under Clinton that the administration gave away nuclear secrets to the Chinese, or that it was "stolen" by that guy whose name I cannot recall these many years later. (Actually, I suspect they "sold" those secrets for campaign moneies.) :D:D

DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: BEHIND THE TREASON ALLEGATIONS
SUBSECTION: RED FLAGS OF TREASON – General Part 2
Revised 7/21/99
http://alamo-girl.com/0032.htm

Traitor in chief
Clinton has not only dismantled our national defense, he has given away our military advantages to enemies all too willing to destroy us.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/28/espionage