3 ms·

Nuclear warhead accounting for treaty purposes is not intuitive, they aren't always counting the things you would assume. US warheads are thermonuclear, so they

Nuclear warhead accounting for treaty purposes is not intuitive, they aren't always counting the things you would assume. US warheads are thermonuclear, so they use a tiny plutonium primary stage to trigger the main fusion secondary stage. The "hard part" is the plutonium trigger, and without it a thermonuclear warhead is harmless and inert. When the US decommissions a warhead for treaty purposes, they remove the plutonium trigger and put it on a shelf somewhere. The trigger assembly doesn't count as a weapon, and therefore it can't be deployed. However, since the plutonium trigger is not actually destroyed, these could be rapidly assembled into a deployable weapon. You would not expect any of these to be participating in a nuclear exchange. The US has relative few operational warheads but it probably maintains an inventory of 10,000+ plutonium triggers. For treaty purposes, they often count delivery platforms, like missiles and bombers. This makes sense when you consider that it is easy to re-hydrate a warhead on short notice if you have the necessary components in inventory but not so easy to produce an operational delivery system which may have a lead time of years.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
Do you think there is a possible nuclear war scenario where we get a "second round"?
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  Not one where the first round employs most of the strategic deterrent. The logistics required to do a second round is unlikely to be available. The point of keeping inventory is that it is possible, if deemed necessary, to quietly scale up the number of warheads prior to any nuclear exchange, should the situation warrant it. Also, there is very limited capacity to produce new warhead assemblies, so keeping the old triggers around provides optionality for a relatively low cost while also creating a patina of uncertainty about capacity for adversaries.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

Do you think there is a possible nuclear war scenario where we get a "second round"?

jandrewrogers 5y ago
Not one where the first round employs most of the strategic deterrent. The logistics required to do a second round is unlikely to be available. The point of keeping inventory is that it is possible, if deemed necessary, to quietly scale up the number of warheads prior to any nuclear exchange, should the situation warrant it. Also, there is very limited capacity to produce new warhead assemblies, so keeping the old triggers around provides optionality for a relatively low cost while also creating a patina of uncertainty about capacity for adversaries.