Reply: I don’t, but will certainly look for it. Does anybody else remember? HK

THANKS!

JA
November 14th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

JA: Are there any weapons of mass destruction in Puerto Rico?

Reply: No, but there used to be. The United States deployed nuclear weapons in Puerto Rico between 1956 and 1975. Two types of weapons were deployed in two periods: nuclear bombs (June 1956-June 1972), and nuclear depth charges (April 1961 through June 1975). For more information, go here.

Hans M. Kristensen.

Reply: It would be interesting to hear more about how you know they housed nuclear weapons on Attu Island during the Cold War. As far as I recall, nuclear depth charges for anti-submarine aircraft were housed further to the east on Adak Island. HK

I am a Canadian, living near the prime target of Bangor, WA. My biggest worry has always been the loose control or outright theft/sale of Soviet nuclear weapons, such as suitcase bombs, after the break-up of the USSR. And the possibility of their being sold to and used by rogue states, and/or terrorists. We see this as a movie plot often, but how likely is it, and do you think there are many “missing” weapons? Since there has been no further attack on US soil after 9/11, is it possible that the government has actually prevented a nulear-terrorist incident? It would seem that such a thing would be hard to keep secret.

Reply: Until I see anything that suggests otherwise, no, I don’t think there are any missing nuclear weapons – that is other than the ones we and the Russians lost in the oceans during the Cold War. It is a valid concern, and it would be a serious matter indeed if one ended up in the wrong hands. But so far I haven’t seen anything but worst-case scenarios and unsubstantiated rumors. Be careful not to leap from 9/11 to a nuclear terrorist incident; the first was a hijacking of airliners, while the second probably hasn’t happened because no terrorist organization has managed to steel or build a nuclear weapon. The reasons may be many, but is it is very hard to build one, and counterintelligence and monitoring has probably improved security since 9/11. Also, distinguish between nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. While nuclear countries guard their nuclear weapons viciously, it is probably a great deal easier to obtain small amounts of radioactive materials. Far less powerful, but still messy. HK

Reply: Yes, NWS Earle was one of two primary naval nuclear weapon storage sites on the Atlantic coast (the other being NWS Yorktown in Virginia. When the Navy retired the Terrier, ASROC and SUBROC weapons in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, Earle lost its main role. And with the retirement of nuclear depth charges and denuclearization of the surface fleet in 1994, all remaining naval nuclear weapons (Tomahawk and Trident) for East Coast forces were consolidated at Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic at Kings Bay in Georgia in 1997. HK

Reply: Depending on what “your” facility is, keep in mind that these nuclear weapon sites have existed for decades. They were targets for Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War when we (and everyone else) constantly live 30 minutes from nuclear annihilation, and they are probably targets for Russian nuclear weapons even today. Terrorists have been blowing up US buildings (but mostly those of other countries) overseas for decades, but never a nuclear weapons facility. If anything, US nuclear weapons facilities are probably safer today than they were 10 years ago. I don’t think there is any need for you to worry about repercussions “if this information gets in the wrong hands.” Our information is based on declassified and publicly available information. If the facilities are indeed unsafe, then the solution is not to prohibit people from talking about them, but to remove the weapons and store them somewhere safer. Since there is no strategic threat against the United States today that I can see necessitates nuclear weapons being deployed on alert or on operational bomber, missile and submarine bases, I would recommend you ask the government why the nuclear weapons are still there. HK

Reply: Politically there hopefully would be some attempt to defuse the situation. On the military side the US would probably try to counter it by developing plans of its own, if necessary, although not necessarily nuclear plans. But Russia probably already has incorporated US missile defenses in Alaska into its targeting plans. Although doing so seems out of line with today’s world, targeting even limited missile defense systems is quite common in strategic planning (see here). HK

Reply: Most of the facilities in Southern California lost their nuclear certifications after 1994 when the surface ships were denuclearized and the weapons pulled back to central storage sites for dismantlement. The exception was Naval Air Station North Island, which retained its nuclear certification as a storage facility for approximately 150 nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles. In April 1998, however, North Island’s nuclear certification was allowed to expire after the Tomahawks had been transferred to Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific near Bangor, Washington. They are still stored at SWFPAC, the only facility on the West Coast that is nuclear weapons certified. HK

Reply: The overview is an estimate based on unclassified information released by the U.S. government over many years. As such, the countries you mention probably have an even better idea of what the locations are. Likewise, I suspect the U.S. intelligence community has a faily good idea of where the overwhelming majority of those countries’ nuclear weapons are stored. As for Iran, it is not yet thought to have nuclear weapons. HK