Comments on: Estimated Nuclear Weapons Locations 2009

By: esper

esper — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:22:04 +0000

[Edited] The Israeli government already has nuclear weapons and has had them for a long time. Because of the Holocaust and the “Six Day War,” the weapons were acquired and it was of great importance to have the nuclear capabilities. Surrounding by neighboring Islamic countries that are Israel’s adversaries, Israel has to have the upper hand. Iran is their main concern!

Reply: Certainly, Israel’s history and its sense of vulnerability probably had a significant influence on the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Whether it was about Islamic neighbors or simply hostile neighbors is less clear. Israel’s own policies and actions are also part of the picture. But now that Israel has the nukes, what happens if some of its potential adversaries in the region also acquire them? Does Israeli security go up or down? HK

By: Shaurya

Shaurya — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:48:20 +0000

What is the basis of the presumptions that India has 60-80 weapons and Pakistan has about 70-90. Is it based on the fissile material available? If so, can you explain your assumptions on the fissile material, in the case of India? Example: What are the presumptions for each reactor for fissile material produced in its life time?

By: ilona@israel

ilona@israel — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:42:50 +0000

Actually israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons (officially) so where from such strange and exact information? Reply: Of course, only the Israeli government knows how many nuclear weapons it has produced. That is the case with all nuclear weapon states. What we provide is an estimate based available public information. The reason the Israeli government has not officially confirmed that it has nuclear weapons is because it is its policy not to do so, but everyone else have concluded long ago that Israel has a nuclear arsenal, including the U.S. government. HK

By: shane

shane — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:25:00 +0000

Chinese media has a response (more here) to your estimate with a public discussion of 2nd artillery's multiple underground facilities (with pictures). It said it can withstand multiple nuclear strikes on single location, and requires perhaps thousands nukes to destroy an entire facility. Reply: Thanks for the links. Amazing claims, but hopefully it doesn't come to that. I can't help wonder what good intact warheads deep underground would be if there's nothing left on the surface to deliver them. HK

By: Stuart Anderson

Stuart Anderson — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:24:55 +0000

I’m looking at the map of the UK and trying to work out what the site on the east of scotland could be. It seems to imply Rosyth but as far as I’m aware only old nuclear subs are keep there waiting for to be dismantled.

Reply: There is no site in Eastern Scotland. The map is too rough and the dots too large to eyeball locations. If you go into the text and look under the United Kingdom (or Britain as the editors decided), you’ll see that there are two facilitates listed in Scotland: Faslane (sub base) and Coulport (warhead storage). HK

By: Distiller

Distiller — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:13:31 +0000

Are you sure there are no USN SSBNs floating around in the Indian Ocean, at least from time to time? And do you have any indication that they really do in the Med?

Reply: The patrol areas on the map are nominal patrol areas. The SSBNs patrol where their mission requires them to go; meaning where they are within range of the targets the particular submarine has to hold at risk according to the war plan. SSBNs not on hard alert have greater freedom to go elsewhere, but I have never seen any indication of US SSBNs in the Indian Ocean. During the Cold War they went into the Mediterranean, but that was probably primarily because of the shorter range of the missiles. With the D5 they don’t have to go there to reach their targets, unless the mission involves a compressed trajectory to get a warhead on target quickly. But if so, that’s probably only a very small portion of the patrols with the majority taking place in open Ocean areas. HK

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:00:02 +0000

Why do you assume none are stored at Diego Garcia?

Reply: Because we know of no indications that any nuclear weapons are stored in Diego Garcia. All U.S. nuclear weapons that used to be deployed in other countries have been withdrawn – except in Europe, where 200 bombs are left over from the Cold War in five countries. Those bombs and the warheads on sea-launched ballistic missile submarines patrolling in the Atlantic and Pacific are the only U.S. nuclear weapons deployed outside the continental United States. HK