7 replies to this topic

[Magnus]

China Nuclear Weapons Stock Grows as India Matches Pakistan Rise
By Robert Wall - Jun 2, 2013 7:01 PM AT

China, which has the world’s second-largest military budget behind the U.S., expanded its nuclear-weapons arsenal last year, with India and Pakistan also bolstering their stockpiles, a research institute said.

The three added an estimated 10 warheads each to their inventories, with China’s arsenal now reaching 250 devices, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said today in releasing a new yearbook. Pakistan holds 100 to 120 units and India 90 to 110, while North Korea may have as many as eight warheads with an uncertain operational status, it said.

As efforts have intensified among nuclear states to curb the proliferation of the weapons, the international focus has shifted to stopping Iran from joining the ranks. At the same time the U.S. and others are working to update even if not expand their warheads and the ability to deliver them.

“The long-term modernization programs underway in these states suggest that nuclear weapons are still a marker of international status and power,” said Shannon Kile, a senior researcher at the organization. “All are making qualitative improvements.”

In Iran, which the U.S. and European countries are trying to block from gaining such weapons, “we are seeing a steady expansion in the scope and also the pace of its nuclear program,” Kile said.

Shrinking Arsenal

The global nuclear weapon arsenals shrank to about 17,265 warheads at the start of the year from 19,000 a year earlier as the U.S. and Russia continue eliminating them under bilateral arms control agreements, Sipri said. Russia retains the largest inventory, with 8,500 warheads, ahead of 7,700 held by the U.S.

Russia and the U.S. have embarked on large renewal programs, Kile said. Both countries have committed to developing new long-range bombers to replace aging aircraft.

“Russia is moving to a smaller force, but a more capable force,” Kile said.

The U.S., with the world’s largest defense budget, is set to spend $214 billion in the next decade on related activities, he said. “The irony is that with President Obama’s Prague address in 2009 calling for the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons, in fact the U.S. is determined to retain its triad of nuclear forces for the indefinite future,” Kile said in reference to the mix of long-range bombers, missiles, and submarine-launched capabilities the Pentagon maintains.

French Nukes

China, too, is pursuing a “qualitative” improvement of its inventory, Kile said. U.S. spending, including on long-range conventional strike capabilities, is driving China to make its own missiles more mobile and harder to attack, he said.

India is similarly working on expanding its capabilities to use nuclear weapons through new ballistic missiles in development. “With India we see the gradual expansion of its longer-range ballistic missile capabilities which are not really targeted at Pakistan but rather at China,” Kile said.

The French nuclear warhead inventory, the world’s third largest, remained unchanged at 300 units with the U.K. also maintaining a level stockpile at 225 devices. Israel, which has never publicly acknowledged its stockpile, is estimated to remain at 80 warheads, Sipri said.

“There was an extraordinary number of tests of nuclear-capable launch systems conducted in 2012,” Kile said. “That really is a good indicator of the commitment of all of these countries to modernize or expand their arsenals.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Wall in London at rwall6@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at bkammel@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg...istan-rise.html

[rungroot]

Quote

...with China's arsenal now reaching 250 devices...

Uhm, yyyyyyeeeah, China's arsenal is just NOW reaching 250 devices...okay, yyyyyyeah...

So I call bullish!t on the entire article.  

[sabre2]

Israel, which has never publicly acknowledged its stockpile, is estimated to remain at 80 warheads,------

Yeah right... it had at least a dozen or more devices in 1973, and now 40 years later it only has 80 ????... gthe article is complete and utter rubbish.

Israel has at least 3-400 warheads. It has the 3rd/4th largest nuclear arsenal after the US/USSR. Possessing weapons ranging from megaton city busters to nuclear mines and neutron and EMP weapons..
Similarly with India, by 1998 it had at least 30-50 assembled devices, and afterwards it massively accelerated weaponisation of more devices, so it currently has at least 200 warheads at a minimum and 350 max. However US in particular wants to support India and use it against China, hence playing down the number of weapons it has in comparison to Pak/China thereby justifying India's increase in fissile material stocks and number of weapons.

India's weapons grade material stocks stands in the range of tonnes, enough for several hundreds of weapons.

[Krad]

100 warheads is enough to ensure deterrence as long as you have appropriate delivery mechanisms and penetration aid tactics and strategy.

Why? Because 100 is enough to completely destroy your enemy and yourself in the long run....because the whole world's climate will be irrevocably changed due to nuclear fallout and decreased solar flux and subsequent warfare for supporting of stretched population bases.

The huge stockpiles amassed by the Russians and Americans are a legacy of the cold war.

You really don't need many nuclear weapons at all to completely destroy the world as we know it.....so a minimum deterrence is achieved even at 50 warheads.....and definitely at 100.

Money is then better spent in ensuring the capable delivery of these systems to ensure deterrence is maintained and consolidated....rather than ramping up into the several hundreds or even thousands of warheads.

That's exactly what countries like China and Israel have been doing...and what India and Pakistan are probably in the process of doing.

Heat signatures and electrical capacity from known weaponised nuclear material power plants and processing centers give a pretty accurate picture of warhead accumulation....and I'm pretty sure this research institute has used data from several dual-use commercial remote sensing application satellites and whatever military contacts they have to make an inferred judgement on warhead levels in the nuclear powers.

I wouldn't throw out its conclusions sorely on the fact of what existing warhead numbers were X or Y years ago based on this information.

[gnak]

Krad, on 07 June 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

100 warheads is enough to ensure deterrence as long as you have appropriate delivery mechanisms and penetration aid tactics and strategy.

Why? Because 100 is enough to completely destroy your enemy and yourself in the long run....because the whole world's climate will be irrevocably changed due to nuclear fallout and decreased solar flux and subsequent warfare for supporting of stretched population bases.

The huge stockpiles amassed by the Russians and Americans are a legacy of the cold war.

no 100 warheads wont destroy the world... radiation from fallout is overrated

castle bravo was the biggest US nuke test, it was a ground detonation as far as i know didn't effect worlds climate nor any long lasting radiation

but it did blew the island in half...

russians and americans are retiring old warheads close to expiration, they both still designing and producing newer warheads

[Krad]

The burning of whole cities caused by 100 large warheads (lets say 100kt+ each) would easily cause enough soot to cause long term global cooling.

Nuclear tests were for the most part done over barren land, over water or underground....where as you correctly put it...fallout was minimized even in the largest of tests.

But targeting cities is a whole different ball game given the amount of densely packed relatively flammable materials they contain.

The soot produced combined with the fact that it would be multiple nuclear explosions in a short amount of time would probably inject enough soot and material in the atmosphere to severely cool the earth (and it doesnt take much to affect agriculture given the heat-sensitivity and solar requirement for most of the high yield crops we use today).

How long the nuclear winter would last is anyones guess....the models are hard to determine....but the thing is 100 nukes gives you pretty much the same deterrence as 1000 as long as you are able to deliver them to your targets and intend to target cities.

http://www.guardian....y.climatechange

[gnak]

Krad, on 07 June 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

The burning of whole cities caused by 100 large warheads (lets say 100kt+ each) would easily cause enough soot to cause long term global cooling.

Nuclear tests were for the most part done over barren land, over water or underground....where as you correctly put it...fallout was minimized even in the largest of tests.

But targeting cities is a whole different ball game given the amount of densely packed relatively flammable materials they contain.

The soot produced combined with the fact that it would be multiple nuclear explosions in a short amount of time would probably inject enough soot and material in the atmosphere to severely cool the earth (and it doesnt take much to affect agriculture given the heat-sensitivity and solar requirement for most of the high yield crops we use today).

How long the nuclear winter would last is anyones guess....the models are hard to determine....but the thing is 100 nukes gives you pretty much the same deterrence as 1000 as long as you are able to deliver them to your targets and intend to target cities.

http://www.guardian....y.climatechange

no one knows for sure wat the environmental consequences be in a nuclear war... uni professors opinions are opinions not fact

few years ago everyone is talking bout global warming based on "intelligent peoples opinions"

turns out the world is actually cooling now

[Krad]

Agreed. But the wide number of factors and variables means its big enough of a question mark that no sensible country would want to risk such a catastrophe....hence 100 warheads buys you ample deterrence...especially if it is all targetted on one or two countries....rather than the entire world.

You are better off investing in keeping up with delivery technology...(both tactics and strategy) than the futile exercise of growing an even larger stockpile that will just be a waste of warheads in an all out exchange (destroying the world's ecosystem once or several times over is still destroying it). Larger stockpiles also consume funds in maintaining and increase the security threat of warhead proliferation and trigger happy generals laying waste due to false threats. That's money time and effort that is best spent in ensuring 100 nukes can defeat the best countermeasure systems out there rather than having 1000 or more unsecured nukes that will largely be intercepted by mid-tech jamming and ballistic defense countermeasures when used against a determined technologically capable adversary...because your delivery systems and penetration aids are 2 generations behind their interception technology.