5 ms·
Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons and How Big Their Arsenals Are
- oblio 10y agoI hope we never get to that point but I have a feeling that the Russian nuclear arsenal is similar to their tanks at the start of Barbarossa: many legacy or barely functional ones. Otherwise I don't see how they would be able to adequately maintain such a huge stockpile with a GDP equal to the Spanish one.
- fapjacks 10y agoThis is very important. I think your proposition is totally valid. There is a Soviet/Russian program we can use as a sort of measuring stick to determine what kind of state their nuclear stockpile is in: The Russian miniature nuclear reactors powering lighthouses and navigation beacons. [0] Turns out, almost all of these things are in total disrepair, and many of these lighthouses and navigation beacons have been totally lost and left neglected. There's actually a story out there about three hunters who used the warmth of one of these Strontium cores as a heat source, of course suffering severe radiation poisoning. [1] [0] http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/06/abandoned-russian-polar-nuclear-lighthouses/ http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/06/abandoned-russian-polar-... [1] http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/radioactive-waste-and-spent-nuclear-fuel/2003-11-two-strontium-powered-lighthouses-vandalised-on-the-kola-peninsula http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/radioactive-waste-and...
- wbl 10y agoNukes don't require that much maintenance. The cores are definitely stable if not exposed to moisture. Explosives are cheap to remanufacture if necessary. The large problem would be materials that they don't have the know-how to make, like happened to us with FOGBANK.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Nukes don't require that much maintenance Liquid-fueled ICBMs do, as do bombers, subs, etc. Nuclear warheads might not, but warheads alone aren't very useful.
- chinathrow 10y agoToo many and too big.
- collyw 10y agoCrazy that you get down voted for that comment. Its not like anyone wants / expects to use them.
- Roboprog 10y agoWell, if you have nukes, other countries largely leave you alone. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though. (/s) Now, why a country would need enough to "boil the oceans" (not literally, but just to get the point across), that's perhaps another matter.
- Fnoord 10y agoThis is inaccurate. My country (The Netherlands) officially has no nukes. It is a public secret Volkel airbase near Eindhoven hosts USAF nukes though. Diplomatic cable leaks, as well as a statement by former prime minister Ruud Lubbers in 2013 both confirm there are nukes hosted [1]. Yet in statistics like in this article -among other- the above doesn't count. Not even mentioned. Which leads me to wonder how inaccurate the rest is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base
- sfifs 10y agoI think the article's implication is pretty clear that it's trying to enumerate countries which possess/control nuclear weapons, not stationed. I doubt the political leader of Neatherlands can trigger those American weapons stationed on its territory. During the cold war American weapons were certainly deployed in Europe and elsewhere and some very likely still are.
- jessriedel 10y agoYes, this is all well known. It's called "nuclear sharing" and it involves 6 bases at 5 European countries hosting US bombs. Estimated number of weapons by base: Kleine Brogel (Belgium): 10~20 Büchel (Germany): >=20 Volkel (Netherlands): 10~20 Aviano (Italy): 50 Ghedi (Italy): 20~40 Incirlik (Turkey): 50~90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
- AnonymousPlanet 10y agoThis reminds me of when Sarkozy (ostensibly after some post-dinner drinks) offered Merkel access to French nuclear weapons. The offer was politely declined. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-506124.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-506124.html The US has nukes stationed in Germany too and some are even meant to be hooked up to German Tornados, should they ever be used in anger. However, that hardly qualifies as them being controlled by Germany. And therefore they, aswell, don't get a place on that list.
- 10y ago
- tibarun 10y agoThe rest of the world should consider economic sanctions against these evil psycopaths!
- grizzles 10y agoThe list doesn't mention Saudia Arabia. IIRC either Snowden or Wikileaks disclosed US government cables that confirmed Saudia Arabia have the A bomb.
- rgbrenner 10y agoSource? Google didn't turn up anything for me
- CalChris 10y agoCurrently, KSA isn't listed as a nuclear weapons country: http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/saudi-arabia/ http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/saudi-arabia/
- ungerik 10y agoThere is a highly speculative conspiracy theory that the US - Saudi relationship went sour because the Saudies wanted Nukes and the US didn't allow it. Followed by a price war on oil, reopened 9/11 allegations etc.
- Roboprog 10y agoSo, this is a map of the countries that the US won't be invading? :-) HHOS, Merry Christmas.
- Roboprog 10y agoE.g. - invade Afghanistan, but Pakistan is our "ally". Remind me where we found Bin Laden, again? Our leaders must be able to accurately assess that most of the population is indeed stupid. Statement stands: if you don't want your country to be the victim of a corporate "smash and grab", build yourself a couple nukes.
- feborges 10y agowhat about south africa?