Comments on: Estimates of the US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, 2007 and 2012 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php Comments and analyses of important national and international security issues Fri, 25 May 2012 17:31:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Ladislav Ouda http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-7328 Ladislav Ouda Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:40:24 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-7328 Thank you for a very interesting article. I am also very interested in this topic and consequently to the previous question (Robert Dells) I would like to ask you about the total megatonnage in 1989 for the USA and for the USSR. I would estimate that the USSR has maximum total explosive yield of all stockpiled nuclear weapons just in 1989 (and higher compared to the USA due to higher explosive yield of warheads, especially on ICBMs). However, for the USA the situation is more complicated (historical changes in the number and explosive yield of the warheads). In addition, there are two different data. Total explosive yield of all kept warheads, and total explosive yield of all deployed warheads (on nuclear weapons delivery). I have made some rough estimates but I am not sure with the preciseness. Thank you for a very interesting article. I am also very interested in this topic and consequently to the previous question (Robert Dells) I would like to ask you about the total megatonnage in 1989 for the USA and for the USSR.

I would estimate that the USSR has maximum total explosive yield of all stockpiled nuclear weapons just in 1989 (and higher compared to the USA due to higher explosive yield of warheads, especially on ICBMs). However, for the USA the situation is more complicated (historical changes in the number and explosive yield of the warheads).

In addition, there are two different data. Total explosive yield of all kept warheads, and total explosive yield of all deployed warheads (on nuclear weapons delivery).
I have made some rough estimates but I am not sure with the preciseness.

]]> By: Robert Dell http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-6986 Robert Dell Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:59:14 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-6986 I was very interested by this article and was wondering about how many megatons of plutonium and uranium would be in the 9938 bombs held in 2007? <b>Reply: </b>Note that megatonnage is not a measure for the weight of plutonium and uranium but an expression of the explosive yield of weapons. One kiloton equals the explosive power (or energy) of one 1,000 kilograms of TNT dynamite. A megaton is 1 million times that power. As for the megatonnage of the 2007 stockpile: approximately 1,986 megatons. HK I was very interested by this article and was wondering about how many megatons of plutonium and uranium would be in the 9938 bombs held in 2007?

Reply: Note that megatonnage is not a measure for the weight of plutonium and uranium but an expression of the explosive yield of weapons. One kiloton equals the explosive power (or energy) of one 1,000 kilograms of TNT dynamite. A megaton is 1 million times that power.

As for the megatonnage of the 2007 stockpile: approximately 1,986 megatons. HK

]]> By: Eugene Rossel http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-5533 Eugene Rossel Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:08:54 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-5533 How many nuclear bombs did we have in 1945? <b>Reply: </b>The first six months of 1945, zero. In early august, two (both dropped on Japan). The second bomb dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion design with a plutonium core, of which a test explosion was conducted on July 16 in New Mexico. The designers and military were so confident in the Uranium gun-type design of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima that it was employed without ever having been tested. Low rate production continued after Japan's surrender with seven bombs produced through 1946. HK How many nuclear bombs did we have in 1945?

Reply: The first six months of 1945, zero. In early august, two (both dropped on Japan). The second bomb dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion design with a plutonium core, of which a test explosion was conducted on July 16 in New Mexico. The designers and military were so confident in the Uranium gun-type design of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima that it was employed without ever having been tested. Low rate production continued after Japan’s surrender with seven bombs produced through 1946. HK

]]> By: AA http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-2595 AA Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-2595 I know this article is a little outdated, but could you give me the states with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I am trying to research it for a global issues class. My teacher says he believes Georgia is the largest, but I feel it is New Mexico. I cannot find any current sources providing information on this. If you could provide me with a source of finding it myself it would be greatly appreciated. Nice article by the way. <b>Reply: </b>No, it is still Bangor, Washington, that tops our <a href="http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/h2125x87046603r5/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">list</a>. But New Mexico is certainly expected to rise to the top over the next five years as retired warheads are gradually removed from their bases and placed in central storage. And since warhead dismantlement is not a priority under current plans, the inventory at Kirtland will likely remain high for the next decade. HK I know this article is a little outdated, but could you give me the states with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons. I am trying to research it for a global issues class. My teacher says he believes Georgia is the largest, but I feel it is New Mexico. I cannot find any current sources providing information on this. If you could provide me with a source of finding it myself it would be greatly appreciated. Nice article by the way.

Reply: No, it is still Bangor, Washington, that tops our list. But New Mexico is certainly expected to rise to the top over the next five years as retired warheads are gradually removed from their bases and placed in central storage. And since warhead dismantlement is not a priority under current plans, the inventory at Kirtland will likely remain high for the next decade. HK

]]> By: FS http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-138 FS Wed, 16 May 2007 16:41:41 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-138 FS: There seems to be an inconsistency in the full fact sheet data. Under “Notes and Assumptions” the table estimate on the US SORT arsenal in 2012 will be 2192 warheads yet only 2172 operational weapons are accountable in your assumptions. I suspect the guilty party is the 20 B61-11 weapons that should be grouped under “tactical warheads” as opposed to the “strategic” inventory and thus not “counted” under SORT. (such as the B61-3 and -4) Would you not agree the B61-11 is a tactical weapon notwithstanding the B-2 is the delivery system? I continually appreciate your insights to these discussions. <b>Reply: </b>Thanks for the kind words! No, our 2012 estimate is 2592 operational warheads, of which only 2192 will be counted under SORT. MK FS: There seems to be an inconsistency in the full fact sheet data. Under “Notes and Assumptions” the table estimate on the US SORT arsenal in 2012 will be 2192 warheads yet only 2172 operational weapons are accountable in your assumptions. I suspect the guilty party is the 20 B61-11 weapons that should be grouped under “tactical warheads” as opposed to the “strategic” inventory and thus not “counted” under SORT. (such as the B61-3 and -4) Would you not agree the B61-11 is a tactical weapon notwithstanding the B-2 is the delivery system?

I continually appreciate your insights to these discussions.

Reply: Thanks for the kind words! No, our 2012 estimate is 2592 operational warheads, of which only 2192 will be counted under SORT. MK

]]> By: MS http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-137 MS Mon, 14 May 2007 06:39:15 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-137 MS: Thank you! Do you know whether Russia will have a responsive and inactive arsenal of roughly the same size? <b>Reply: </b> The Russian government hasn't been very specific about its plans for the structure of the stockpile. The Russian force structure doesn't really include "responsive" warheads for uploading like the United States, although a large reserve of non-deployed warheads is thought to exist as spares. Instead, Russia seems to be planning to retain an "all deployed" posture with fewer missiles than the United States. In addition, Russia has a larger inventory of non-strategic warheads than the United States. MK MS: Thank you! Do you know whether Russia will have a responsive and inactive arsenal of roughly the same size?

Reply: The Russian government hasn’t been very specific about its plans for the structure of the stockpile. The Russian force structure doesn’t really include “responsive” warheads for uploading like the United States, although a large reserve of non-deployed warheads is thought to exist as spares. Instead, Russia seems to be planning to retain an “all deployed” posture with fewer missiles than the United States. In addition, Russia has a larger inventory of non-strategic warheads than the United States. MK

]]> By: MS http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_us_nuclear_weapon.php/comment-page-1#comment-136 MS Fri, 04 May 2007 07:43:10 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/estimates_of_the_us_nuclear_we.php#comment-136 MS: A great report about the U.S. nuclear stockpile! Do you know any similar assessment of the size and composition (active/inactive) of Russia's strategic arsenal in 2012? MS <b>Reply:</b> Yes, I and my colleague at NRDC, Robert Norris, periodically do similar assessments of Russia's nuclear stockpile, although the access to Russian information is far less than what we can find on the United States. Our latest two assessments are here: 1. Nuclear Notebook in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: <a href="http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/d41x498467712117/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">Russian Nuclear Forces, 2007</a> 2. Blog on FAS web site: <a href="http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/04/article_russian_nuclear_forces.php" rel="nofollow">Article: Russian Nuclear Forces, 2007</a> HK MS: A great report about the U.S. nuclear stockpile!
Do you know any similar assessment of the size and composition (active/inactive) of Russia’s strategic arsenal in 2012? MS

Reply: Yes, I and my colleague at NRDC, Robert Norris, periodically do similar assessments of Russia’s nuclear stockpile, although the access to Russian information is far less than what we can find on the United States. Our latest two assessments are here:

1. Nuclear Notebook in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Russian Nuclear Forces, 2007
2. Blog on FAS web site: Article: Russian Nuclear Forces, 2007

HK

]]>