3 ms·
> My understanding is that most of the proliferation has been in atomic rather than hydrogen bombs. I think it's actually the opposite. The US stockpile consis
by ohazi 7y ago
> My understanding is that most of the proliferation has been in atomic rather than hydrogen bombs.
I think it's actually the opposite. The US stockpile consists of mostly (entirely?) thermonuclear weapons. They're smaller for a given yield, and are therefore much easier to deliver. Most of them are also variable-yield, so you can still use a hydrogen bomb to make a smaller boom if that fits your strategic goals.
Edit: it looks like this is the case for the other superpowers as well. The only nuclear state for which this may not be the case is Pakistan, although it's possible that they have a boosted weapon of some sort.
- md_ 7y agoI think there may still be merit to the op’s case that we should distinguish between the risk of a nuclear attack and the risk of a nuclear exchange (or, “nuclear Armageddon”). Some of the scenarios I outlined—rogue non-state actors, regional wars—may lead to isolated nuclear attacks but not full exchanges. I’m not sure if the hydrogen bomb distinction is relevant here. (Yes, afaik what you say is true, but I think this is sort of a red herring.)