Date: 19/03/2017 08:13:28
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 1040044
Subject: Nuclear warheads
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
Nobody knows.
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
Nobody knows.
I can understand neither side wanting to admit anything, but have there been any guess-tamates?
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
Nobody knows.
No. There are very exacting treaties between the US and Russia that stipulate the extent of these two nation’s nuclear arsenals. Less is known about that of the other nuclear weapon states though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks
bob(from black rock) said:
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
Nobody knows.
I can understand neither side wanting to admit anything, but have there been any guess-tamates?
The problem is that for example in the US there are four armed services all of whom have nukes & maybe the CIA has some too.
Since the breakup of the USSR some of the nukes were in other now newly independent countries but may be accessible by the Russians.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
Nobody knows.
No. There are very exacting treaties between the US and Russia that stipulate the extent of these two nation’s nuclear arsenals. Less is known about that of the other nuclear weapon states though.
Treaty schmety. A tissue of lies both official & covert.
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:
Tamb said:Nobody knows.
I can understand neither side wanting to admit anything, but have there been any guess-tamates?
The problem is that for example in the US there are four armed services all of whom have nukes & maybe the CIA has some too.
Since the breakup of the USSR some of the nukes were in other now newly independent countries but may be accessible by the Russians.
No need to worry, they have plenty enough for any emergency.
PermeateFree said:
Tamb said:
bob(from black rock) said:I can understand neither side wanting to admit anything, but have there been any guess-tamates?
The problem is that for example in the US there are four armed services all of whom have nukes & maybe the CIA has some too.
Since the breakup of the USSR some of the nukes were in other now newly independent countries but may be accessible by the Russians.
No need to worry, they have plenty enough for any emergency.
Specially as some are MIRVs No doubt some neutron & some cobalt as well.
http://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2017/03/15/hate-vegetables-you-might-have-super-taster-genes
Interesting article. I wonder if this is why Arts doesn’t like cauliflower.
I like cauliflower and can’t understand that it is listed with the other bitter vegetables (bok choy, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, radish, swede, turnip, and watercress), but then sometimes these other vegetables are edible (tasty even) too.
Well just how many countries have nukes then?
bob(from black rock) said:
Well just how many countries have nukes then?
USA , Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. South Africa had them but gave them up.
bob(from black rock) said:
Well just how many countries have nukes then?
Another nobody knows.
US, GB, China, Russia, Ukraine.
Yes, estimates can be made.
US and Russia, about 7000 each
UK, France, China, Israel, about 200 to 300 each
Pakistan, India, 100 to 200 each
North Korea, few (less than 20).
Greatest uncertainty exists in the “non-compliant states”, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea.
South Africa also had a small number (less than 10) nuclear warheads which it dismantled some 25 years ago.
Ukraine also had thousands of nuclear weapons when it became independent, but it gave these up as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in exchange for a guarantee that Russia, the USA, the UK, China and France would respect its territorial integrity. Ha ha. I think the moral is, never ever give up your nuclear weapons.
dv said:
Yes, estimates can be made.US and Russia, about 7000 each
UK, France, China, Israel, about 200 to 300 each
Pakistan, India, 100 to 200 each
North Korea, few (less than 20).Greatest uncertainty exists in the “non-compliant states”, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea.
South Africa also had a small number (less than 10) nuclear warheads which it dismantled some 25 years ago.
Ukraine also had thousands of nuclear weapons when it became independent, but it gave these up as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in exchange for a guarantee that Russia, the USA, the UK, China and France would respect its territorial integrity. Ha ha. I think the moral is, never ever give up your nuclear weapons.
It seemed pretty optimistic at the time. But those were heady days.
dv said:
Yes, estimates can be made.US and Russia, about 7000 each
UK, France, China, Israel, about 200 to 300 each
Pakistan, India, 100 to 200 each
North Korea, few (less than 20).Greatest uncertainty exists in the “non-compliant states”, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea.
South Africa also had a small number (less than 10) nuclear warheads which it dismantled some 25 years ago.
Ukraine also had thousands of nuclear weapons when it became independent, but it gave these up as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in exchange for a guarantee that Russia, the USA, the UK, China and France would respect its territorial integrity. Ha ha. I think the moral is, never ever give up your nuclear weapons.
Ha, wouldn’t that change things.
If you can’t beat em, join em.
If Israel can do it I see no reason why Aus can’t.
rumpole said:
If you can’t beat em, join em.If Israel can do it I see no reason why Aus can’t.
We probably could. But no reason why we should.
rumpole said:
If you can’t beat em, join em.If Israel can do it I see no reason why Aus can’t.
That might cause a broohahah in Jakarta.
Where is wookie these days?
Witty Rejoinder said:
rumpole said:
If you can’t beat em, join em.If Israel can do it I see no reason why Aus can’t.
That might cause a broohahah in Jakarta.
Well you wouldn’t tell them would you ?
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Witness protection.
I wonder who is going to get to keep all the warheads at Dounreay when Scotland goes indie.
rumpole said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
rumpole said:
If you can’t beat em, join em.If Israel can do it I see no reason why Aus can’t.
That might cause a broohahah in Jakarta.
Well you wouldn’t tell them would you ?
What’s the point of having them then?
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Last I heard he was on Trump’s staff, military adviser or suchlike.
Bubblecar said:
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Last I heard he was on Trump’s staff, military adviser or suchlike.
Heheheh
Bubblecar said:
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Last I heard he was on Trump’s staff, military adviser or suchlike.
On secondment from Moscow?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Last I heard he was on Trump’s staff, military adviser or suchlike.
On secondment from Moscow?
Moonlighting.
This seems appropriate here: Tom Lehrer’s Who’s Next?
Bubblecar said:
Hahahahahahaha!
AwesomeO said:
Where is wookie these days?
Last I heard he was on Trump’s staff, military adviser or suchlike.
AwesomeO said:
rumpole said:
Witty Rejoinder said:That might cause a broohahah in Jakarta.
Well you wouldn’t tell them would you ?
What’s the point of having them then?
What’s the point of having insurance ?
Nah seriously though, nuclear weapons are a pretty useless deterrent unless people know you have them.
rumpole said:
AwesomeO said:
rumpole said:Well you wouldn’t tell them would you ?
What’s the point of having them then?
What’s the point of having insurance ?
Not the same comparison, nukes are a deterrent, no point in keeping them secret, in fact you exaggerate their reach and potency.
The disadvantage to Australia getting nuclear weapons is that it breaks the dam on nuclear non-proliferation. So far the only Non-Proliferation Treaty who has gone to the dark side is North Korea. It makes sense, to me, to keep the number of players with nuclear weapons manageable.
North Korea is going to get a lot of attention when it gets to the point where it can credibly strap a working nuke to a rocket that can target America.
I reckon they might even step back from that via backdoor diplomacy and massive civil aid.
AwesomeO said:
North Korea is going to get a lot of attention when it gets to the point where it can credibly strap a working nuke to a rocket that can target America.I reckon they might even step back from that via backdoor diplomacy and massive civil aid.
Don’t you read the papers? Target Japan. That’s what all this hoo-haa is about.
AwesomeO said:
rumpole said:
AwesomeO said:What’s the point of having them then?
What’s the point of having insurance ?
Not the same comparison, nukes are a deterrent, no point in keeping them secret, in fact you exaggerate their reach and potency.
Yes, they will be a deterrent if Indonesia decides to build up militarily, but unless that happens there is no need to provoke an arms race.
> nukes are a deterrent, no point in keeping them secret, in fact you exaggerate their reach and potency.
Doubly wrong. Battlefield nukes are for immediate use. Any weapon that is not intended for use is no deterrent. Further, exaggerating their reach and potency only serves feed more money into your opposing army’s coffers. Even without you exaggerating the strength, the enemy military is going to exaggerate your strength in order to get more money. The USA’s military was famous for deliberately over-exaggerating Russia’s military might.
bob(from black rock) said:
How many? and in what format? would the Yanks and the Russians have of these weapons?
I did find an answer to this recently. There’s an update published every year or three, depending on the country. It lists weapon type, warhead range, and a guess as to the number of weapons. Still some uncertainty.
This wasn’t it.
“As of early 2017, the authors estimate that Russia has a military stockpile of roughly 4,300 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces. Of these, roughly 1,950 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and at heavy bomber bases, while another 500 strategic warheads are in storage along with some 1,850 nonstrategic warheads. In addition to the military stockpile for operational forces, a large number of retired but still largely intact warheads await dismantlement, for a total inventory of around 7,000 warheads. “
Ah, here we are, display Table 1 of
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1290375
for Russia.
The US nuclear arsenal remained roughly unchanged in the last year, with the Defense Department maintaining an estimated stockpile of some 4,480 warheads to be delivered via ballistic missiles and aircraft. Since September 2009, when the United States announced that the nuclear arsenal contained 5,113 warheads, the stockpile has decreased by 633. Most warheads in the current arsenal are not deployed but stored, and many are destined to be retired. Of the approximately 1,740 warheads deployed, roughly 1,590 are on ballistic missiles or at bomber bases in the United States, with another 150 tactical bombs deployed at European bases.
Display Table 1 of http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1264213
btm said:
This seems appropriate here: Tom Lehrer’s Who’s Next?
I hope that I am dead and gone, when Alabama gets the Bomb.