18 ms·

United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

329 points by philipkglass 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago
Max warheads = 31k Current warheads = 3.7k I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts - ie, how much work does it take to maintain a stockpile of x nukes, and if you can turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily.
- nulltxt 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2OUzBrLEFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2OUzBrLEFk is a interesting video about the transport of these weapons
- mikewarot 2y ago
  Plutonium pits slowly transmute, and the emitted alpha particles are trapped and form helium bubbles. They have to be replaced periodically.
  - wdh505 2y ago
    I think the tritium "preignition" has to be replaced every 10 years.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  > how long a nuke in storage lasts Decades, certainly. All but the first few generations of bombs were designed for long periods of storage. Notably, many of the TOP500 supercomputers were built with the singular goal of simulating the ageing of nuclear weapons in storage. If a supercomputer is owned by the DoE or SANDIA, then that's what it is for. > turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily. Yes! Cold-war era warheads from both the Soviet Union and the US have been used as nuclear fuel. A notable one was the Megatons to Megawatts program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program The plutonium in bombs is essentially "super high grade" reactor fuel. Even degraded after decades in storage it is still far, far better than what is typically used. It just needs to be converted into the MOX (metal oxide) fuel pellets and then used in a reactor, pretty much as-is.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    While many supercomputers were funded by stockpile stewardship, the goal was to produce high performance computers capable of a wide range of simulation needs. One good example would be NERSC at LBL- it's unclassified research only, and their series of supercomputers were never intended to simulate ageing nuclear weapons. Hard to say exactly what goes on in the classified supercomputers, but they certainly weren't spending much of their time simulating aging nuclear weapons- that was the ostensible reason.
- philipkglass 2y ago
  It takes quite a bit of work to maintain nuclear warheads. All active US weapons contain plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,100 years. It's radioactive by alpha decay, which leads to changes in the material properties due to energetic collisions and the buildup of microscopic helium bubbles (alpha particles are merely ionized helium nuclei, so stopped alpha particles become helium). Since the US stopped testing actual nuclear warheads in the early 1990s, it takes a great deal of indirect theoretical and experimental evidence to make sure that nuclear warheads are reliable without live fire tests. That's part of "stockpile stewardship." [1] If the plutonium has deviated too far from its original mechanical behavior, it would need to be removed from warheads, purified, and remanufactured into replacements that match the original specs. And again, the rebuilt components need to be reliable but they can't actually be tested via explosion. US weapons also rely on tritium gas "boosting" to operate reliably and efficiently [2], and tritium decays with only a 12.3 year half life. The gas reservoirs of weapons need their tritium replaced at significantly shorter intervals. Even manufacturing enough tritium to maintain the stockpile has become a challenge because the US has retired its Cold War era weapons-material reactors that used to operate at Hanford and Savannah River. Currently the US uses a power reactor owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority to make tritium for weapons [3]. It's possible to make nuclear weapons (even thermonuclear weapons) with only uranium 235 for fissile material and no stored tritium. Such weapons could last a much longer time without active maintenance, since U-235 decays thousands of times slower than Pu-239. However, they would be larger and heavier for the same explosive yield, which complicates delivery. They would also lose certain safety features. Finally, without being able to perform full scale tests, it is doubtful that the US would have the confidence to replace its current high-maintenance weapons stockpile with a new generation of low-maintenance weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship [2] https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html#Nfaq4.3.1 https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html#Nfaq4.3.... [3] https://www.wvlt.tv/2022/05/24/watts-bar-lone-source-nuclear-weapon-material-tva-increasing-production/ https://www.wvlt.tv/2022/05/24/watts-bar-lone-source-nuclear... "Watts Bar lone source of a nuclear weapon material; TVA increasing production"
  - Loughla 2y ago
    How do you know all this? Is that a hobby or a job?
- openasocket 2y ago
  I think it’s shorter than you would imagine. I recall an episode of the podcast Arms Control Wonk talking about the nukes in possession of Ukraine during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Professor Lewis stated that those warheads likely had a service life of 5-10 years. But that may be specific to those Soviet warheads, and I think that different components need to be replaced at different intervals.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  So this varies depending on what kind of nuclear weapon is and the delivery system. The major deterrant is the LGM-30G Minuteman III [1]. Most of our rockets use liquid propellants. Since the alert window is under 10 minutes, you can't keep a liquid-fuelled rocket permanently fueled so the Minuteman was developed as a solid rocket fuel booster. There's a whole team responsible for maintaining the boosters and warheads of this first line of defense [2]. But there are a variety of other systems. Some dropped by strategic bombers, others on mobile launchers, shorter range missiles deployed in Europe (eg MRBMs in Turkey), nuclear weapons deployed on submarines and so on. Also you have a mix of types. AFAIK the US was moved away from highly-enriched uranium weapons in favor of plutonium. Or at least, HEU reactors have shut down. Maybe there's a sufficient stockpile? Also, a lot of these weapons will be thernonuclear so you have to worry about the production and storage of tritium. IIRC a lot of tritium is a byproduct of plutonium production. Maintaining a significant nuclear arsenal is actually really complex and expensive. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman [2]: https://minutemanmissile.com/missilemaintenance.html https://minutemanmissile.com/missilemaintenance.html
  - lmm 2y ago
    > Since the alert window is under 10 minutes, you can't keep a liquid-fuelled rocket permanently fueled so the Minuteman was developed as a solid rocket fuel booster. Huh? The Titan II was developed to do precisely that and worked that way for decades, they were liquid-fuelled and kept fuelled in their silos.
    - openasocket 2y ago
      Liquid propellants are generally less stable than solid fuel. I had read in multiple places (from reputable sources) that you generally couldn’t keep liquid missiles permanently fueled like that. The propellants are extremely corrosive and dangerous. But you are right that the Titan II is liquid fueled and was kept permanently fueled in the silo. I’m not entirely sure how to resolve those two facts. The Wikipedia page about the Titan II does mention multiple accidents and fatalities related to propellant leaks, so I’m guessing that they were just more risky to operate?
- hollerith 2y ago
  >I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts Russia's nuclear stockpile -- at least the strategic warheads -- have all been built anew since the end of the Cold War. The US is also modernizing its stockpile in the same way, but it has not finished yet. "built anew": made with all new components except that the fissile material is recycled from an old Cold-War-era warhead. (They probably re-cast and re-machine the fissile material.) The reader might be asking, How can Russia, a poor country, afford that? Well, nukes aren't that expensive once you have the fissile material and the design and manufacturing expertise and infrastructure. The pay for the soldiers to guard the nukes and constantly be on the ready to launch them is more expensive, according to one report I saw recently (and Russia has low personnel costs).
pythonguython 2y ago
Hans has always been the guy keeping count. Just about anytime you hear someone cite the US stockpile count, it’s his number. Truly impressive how accurate he is able to be with no special accesses. Only 40 off.
- wahern 2y ago
  The data had already been declassified up to 2020, so they only needed to estimate changes over the past 3-4 years: > Between 2010 and 2018, the US government publicly disclosed the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile; however, in 2019 and 2020, the Trump administration rejected requests from the Federation of American Scientists to declassify the latest stockpile numbers (Aftergood 2019; Kristensen 2019a, 2020b). In 2021, the Biden administration restored the United States’ previous transparency levels by declassifying both numbers for the entire history of the US nuclear arsenal until September 2020—including the missing years of the Trump administration. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2339170 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2...
  - pythonguython 2y ago
    I was unaware they published in the 2010s. Worth noting Hans was counting even before then
transcriptase 2y ago
Every time I’ve seen nuclear stockpiles and the reduction thereof discussed, I’ve wondered: Assuming for some reason the United States needed to ramp back up to an absurd number of warheads (ignore the MAD/political practicalities), how quickly could they do so? What’s the lead time or rate limiting factors in production? Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of time, why does the standing arsenal really matter? Does it really make a difference in global safety or geopolitics? I don’t know the first thing about the topic so this is all genuine curiosity, and I feel like the googling required to get an answer would put me on lists I don’t really feel like being on.
- skellington 2y ago
  There is no form of full scale nuclear war where the production apparatus for anything becomes a factor.
  - slg 2y ago
    That is assuming nuclear war breaks out with zero warning. There is usually a build up to wars that could involve ramping up production of a nuclear arsenal before any nuclear weapons are actually used.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      What type of warning do you expect to see? We currently have a war in Ukraine involving between 2-4 of the major nuclear powers depending on how you want to count them (Russia, US, UK, China). Russia is bleeding heavily and it is hard to tell how close they are to some sort of internal crisis or collapse into groupthink by the military leaders. There have probably been Able Archer style near misses and we could have a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis without much changing. China is building up its nuclear arsenal and the political positioning in APAC suggests that a US-China war is on the cards. If we escalated in to full-scale nuclear war this July that'd be unexpected but we're way past 0 warning. There are lots of warnings. In terms of raw risk the last few years might be the biggest risk of a nuclear war breaking out that the species has ever faced.
PoignardAzur 2y ago
3000 nukes is better than Cold War highs, but it's still massive overkill. Even with a 90% interception rate, 300 nukes would be enough to kill tens of millions of citizens of any country from the blast alone. If an enemy leader isn't deterred by that, 2700 extra nukes aren't going to change their mind.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's still massive overkill The bombs are there because “the only way to avoid being the victim of a nuclear first strike (that having the enemy hit you with their nukes) was being able to credibly deliver a second strike.” “Thus the absurd-sounding conclusion to fairly solid chain of logic: to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, you have to build so many nuclear weapons that it is impossible for a nuclear-armed opponent to destroy them all in a first strike, ensuring your second-strike lands. You build extra missiles for the purpose of not having to fire them.” https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence...
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You don't need a huge number of nuclear weapons to achieve this, you need nuclear weapons in secret and ideally changing locations (i.e. submarines)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Which is a lot more fallible than just having a huge number
    - golergka 2y ago
      Security through obscurity is fragile. Strength in numbers — less so.
    - justin66 2y ago
starik36 2y ago
Why did US disclose this number? Is there a treaty compelling them to? Did other nuclear powers disclose them?
- _visgean 2y ago
  it has no reason not to, its a detterent, russia and china needs to believe that the nukes are working and that there is enough for them to ensure the mutual assured destruction.
- maxglute 2y ago
  IMO context is: recent US/PRC nuclear talk broke down. US/RU nuclear monitoring also broke down post UKR war. There is no strategic monitoring system anymore between large nuclear powers. Only mind games now. Throw number out there for deterrence/mind game as everyone is either building out (PRC) or modernizing nuke force (US/RU). Maybe anchoring technique to limit proliferation range. That said, there's no reason US adversaries should believe # is credible. And even if it is, each country has different # of launchers/warheads for deterence posture due to different geopolitical/technological constraints. I.e. ballistic missile defense changes penetration ratios.
- holowoodman 2y ago
  Everyone knows the rough number anyways I'd suspect. Publishing numbers is a part of all arms-control treaties, so unilaterally publishing it may be an attempt to show willingness and shame the others towards a new arms-control treaty. And of course, as the sister comment said, an announcement of dick-size.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  They're scared and they want to intimidate. Talking about them is the first step toward using them.
- hugh-avherald 2y ago
  While generally it's an advantage to keep information about your true military capability secret, for nuclear weapons it's the opposite.
- 2y ago
johnohara 2y ago
Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Nuclear warhead is a single nuclear device. Are you thinking MIRV where multiple nuclear warheads are mounted to missile? The US has down rated lots of SLBMs and ICBMs recently. Many of the warheads in storage are from missiles. They could put them back, but then they would show in the active count.
  - johnohara 2y ago
    That's insightful because it means it may be strictly an accounting issue versus an actual reduction in the number of warheads i.e. the number of warheads counted == the number mounted, not the total number possessed.
    - holowoodman 2y ago
      The number of mounted warheads is a very important issue, because a nuclear war will take at most half a day. So all the mounted warheads at that point are the ones that can be used, nothing more. Of course if the war doesn't come as a surprise but with a lot of buildup, then you can remount everything over a few weeks.
    - ianburrell 2y ago
      The number mounted matters cause it determines how missiles can be used. With multiple warheads, ICBMs could be used for first strike. First strike won’t work, but opponent still needs to worry about it. With one warhead, ICBMs are only useful for retaliation strike. Also, the US is still following New START treaty after Russsia pulled out.
- alexb23 2y ago
  No, a MIRV [1] missile has multiple warheads, each warhead has a single device and is counted as such. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...
devwastaken 2y ago
Nobody asks how many anti nuke missiles. :)
- BMc2020 2y ago
  Funny enough, I know a little bit about this one. We have them, but they are all come-from-behind missiles, so the launch site has to be as close to Russia (or wherever) as possible, which angers the Russians. The head-on hit-a-bullet-with-another-bullet-is missile still impossible, although many would like us to believe they are already here. Nuh uh. Plus those are still useless against nukes delivered inside ton of cocaine.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    Your contention is that GMD, THAAD, PAC-3 and Arrow are essentially expensive fireworks? Interesting. Russia and Iran will be delighted to hear that in fact their ballistic missiles were not intercepted.
    - BMc2020 2y ago
      BMc2020: "I would have to be a complete nut to say Hitler was a great man." amenhotep: "You said Hitler was a great man."
      - yodon 2y ago
        I suspect in other contexts you're aware of this, but personal attacks generally don't land well here. Consider continuing to focus on making important points well, as that tends to work better, as does assuming the best when someone disagrees with you, since sometimes that's a sign your comment can be legitimately interpreted or read in ways you didn't expect or intend.
        BMc2020 2y ago
        He was trying to put words in my mouth and got caught.
corry 2y ago
What an odd situation, where we can applaud "the transparency" (and I do, honestly) while the US is also simultaneously cheerfully delivering a public reminder that "we have more than enough to absolutely annihilate anyone and everyone... so don't fuck with us."
- IIAOPSW 2y ago
  As they said at the end of Dr. Strangelove, these things have absolutely no value as a deterrent if you don't tell anyone you have them!
- golergka 2y ago
  What's odd about this? Both a good things worth applauding to.
- nimbius 2y ago
  Most of the stockpile remains or grows solely due to senators from colorado, Wyoming and montana who host the ground based strategic nuclear arsenal. Force reduction would mean lost jobs and revenue. At least the transparency can start a discussion hopefully.
  - TiredOfLife 2y ago
    And nothing to do with russia invading its neighbors and threatening to nuke anyone helping them.
    - 542354234235 2y ago
      Probably not. The US nuclear triad is very well known and doesn’t rely on exact numbers. It isn’t like Russia would think “maybe they decommissioned all their SSBN nuclear subs and we are in the clear” until they saw the yearly numbers. The point is that we already have plenty enough to obliterate any nation on earth in either a first or second strike. The arms reduction treaties and transparency have always been to reassure war hawks that we still have plenty to kill everyone, so we don’t need to spend money making more and risk an accident. If you want to saber rattle, you test new systems like hypersonic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Or you perform “military exercises” to show how capable and/or stealthy your nuclear subs and bombers are.
switch007 2y ago
What was going through their minds in the 60s when they amassed 5,000...10,000 but went on to amass over 30,000? Was there any point after a few thousand?
- smiley1437 2y ago
  I'd say it was a dick measuring contest against the USSR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_sto...
- sillywalk 2y ago
  Watch Dr. Strangelove.
  - voxadam 2y ago
    "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
- murderfs 2y ago
  Keep in mind that Sputnik only happened in 1957, so the chances of a nuke actually hitting its target were much smaller during the build up than after the rollout of ICBMs. A lot of these were tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to be launched at invading Soviet forces (including by infantry! Look up the Davy Crockett if you want to see Fallout's mini-nuke's real life counterpart)
- jjk166 2y ago
  Back in the day, most of these weapons were to be dropped from massed strategic bombers or launched on short range missiles. You needed lots both because a lot of these were never going to make it to the target and those that did would be highly inaccurate. This is combined with most of the nukes being intended to either take out the adversary's large stockpile, or survive the use of the adversary's stockpile.
  - 2y ago
credit_guy 2y ago
I think the point of this sudden urge for transparency is to send a message to Russia and to the US allies about the tactical nukes. There is currently a perception of a disparity of capabilities in tactical nukes. There is parity in strategic nukes because of the New Start treaty [1]. Here's a report to the US Senate about the tactical nukes [2] produced in April 2024, and here's a quote by Putin lifted from that report: > On June 16, 2023, President Putin declared, “We have more such [tactical] nuclear weapons than NATO countries. They know about it and never stop trying to persuade us to start nuclear reduction talks. Like hell we will …. It is our competitive advantage.” Of course the US allies are worried that maybe the US nuclear umbrella is not that strong after all. Then how many tactical nukes do Russia and the US have? The perception was that Russia has between 1000 and 2000 and the US just a few hundred, but the numbers were uncertain. I think this report sends the message that the US has thousands of such tactical weapons, not just a few hundred. The message is not exactly spelled out but here's my reading. The only current tactical nuke in the US arsenal is the B61 [3]. More than 3000 were built, but it's not clear how many are still available today. The latest versions are B61-12 and B61-13, of which 400 were supposed to be made (in total, not each). The current number of B61-12 and B61-13 is not available, and I saw an estimate of 100 [4]. With this report, we can infer the total number of B61. How? The number of strategic warheads is capped at 1550. The latest US report [5] is that the number as of January this year was 1419, but this includes heavy bombers (B52, B1 and B2), of which there are 60, so actual deployed strategic warheads are 1359. The total number in the nuclear stockpile according to this new transparency report is 3748. The report explains what this number represents: > all types of nuclear weapons, including deployed and non-deployed, and strategic and non-strategic. Since we know the number of deployed strategic (1359) and the total number (3748), it follows that the rest (2389) is the total of the non-deployed strategic warheads and all the B61s (deployed or not). I can't find number of non-deployed strategic warheads, but I think it should be very small, otherwise the arms treaty is a total joke. The difference between deployed and non-deployed is quite minimal, for example the non-deployed weapons have their tritium bottles removed. So my guess is that the majority of the 2389 number above is B61 tactical nukes. Not all of them are deployed or active, but they can become so in a very short timespan. I think this is the message that the US is trying to send. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START [2] https://www.state.gov/report-on-the-status-of-tactical-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons-negotiations/ https://www.state.gov/report-on-the-status-of-tactical-nonst... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb [4] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-h... [5] https://www.state.gov/2023-report-to-congress-on-implementation-of-the-new-start-treaty/ https://www.state.gov/2023-report-to-congress-on-implementat...
gumby 2y ago
Looks like only about half of them have been deployed. The rest are mostly retired but not yet dismantled, or in inventory (https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/ https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclea...) Apart from the absolute number, is the collection of current weapons "more effective" (whatever that would mean -- some sort of fit for purpose) than the ~23K warheads at the end of the cold war? Or is it simply a subset of the devices in 1989, with some maintenance since then? I believe the US is designing a new warhead, maybe the first since the end of the cold war (source, discussion at the nuclear testing museum in Las Vegas last month, perhaps not the most reliable source). What about delivery?
- fragmede 2y ago
  Do you need to do delivery? If nuclear winter is going to end humanity as we know it, then couldn't you blow up an uninhabited wasteland part of your own country and still hurt everyone?
  - philipkglass 2y ago
    "In Search of a Bigger Boom" https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bi... The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of “delivery” — weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb from here to there, the target — was listed as “Backyard.” As the scientist who related this anecdote explained, “since that particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there was no use carting it anywhere.”
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    "Hurt everyone" is not most people's ideal strategy. Maybe North Korea would go for that, but it's really preferred to hurt the enemy more than yourself.
  - taberiand 2y ago
hereme888 2y ago
Has anyone "secretly" placed nukes in space yet?
PM_me_your_math 2y ago
[dead]
baud147258 2y ago
It seems like some of the conversations in that thread went a little nuclear, no? sorry I couldn't resist

329 points by philipkglass 2y ago

Max warheads = 31k Current warheads = 3.7k I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts - ie, how much work does it take to maintain a stockpile of x nukes, and if you can turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily.

nulltxt 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2OUzBrLEFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2OUzBrLEFk is a interesting video about the transport of these weapons
mikewarot 2y ago
Plutonium pits slowly transmute, and the emitted alpha particles are trapped and form helium bubbles. They have to be replaced periodically.
- wdh505 2y ago
  I think the tritium "preignition" has to be replaced every 10 years.
jiggawatts 2y ago
> how long a nuke in storage lasts Decades, certainly. All but the first few generations of bombs were designed for long periods of storage. Notably, many of the TOP500 supercomputers were built with the singular goal of simulating the ageing of nuclear weapons in storage. If a supercomputer is owned by the DoE or SANDIA, then that's what it is for. > turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily. Yes! Cold-war era warheads from both the Soviet Union and the US have been used as nuclear fuel. A notable one was the Megatons to Megawatts program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program The plutonium in bombs is essentially "super high grade" reactor fuel. Even degraded after decades in storage it is still far, far better than what is typically used. It just needs to be converted into the MOX (metal oxide) fuel pellets and then used in a reactor, pretty much as-is.
- dekhn 2y ago
  While many supercomputers were funded by stockpile stewardship, the goal was to produce high performance computers capable of a wide range of simulation needs. One good example would be NERSC at LBL- it's unclassified research only, and their series of supercomputers were never intended to simulate ageing nuclear weapons. Hard to say exactly what goes on in the classified supercomputers, but they certainly weren't spending much of their time simulating aging nuclear weapons- that was the ostensible reason.
philipkglass 2y ago
It takes quite a bit of work to maintain nuclear warheads. All active US weapons contain plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,100 years. It's radioactive by alpha decay, which leads to changes in the material properties due to energetic collisions and the buildup of microscopic helium bubbles (alpha particles are merely ionized helium nuclei, so stopped alpha particles become helium). Since the US stopped testing actual nuclear warheads in the early 1990s, it takes a great deal of indirect theoretical and experimental evidence to make sure that nuclear warheads are reliable without live fire tests. That's part of "stockpile stewardship." [1] If the plutonium has deviated too far from its original mechanical behavior, it would need to be removed from warheads, purified, and remanufactured into replacements that match the original specs. And again, the rebuilt components need to be reliable but they can't actually be tested via explosion. US weapons also rely on tritium gas "boosting" to operate reliably and efficiently [2], and tritium decays with only a 12.3 year half life. The gas reservoirs of weapons need their tritium replaced at significantly shorter intervals. Even manufacturing enough tritium to maintain the stockpile has become a challenge because the US has retired its Cold War era weapons-material reactors that used to operate at Hanford and Savannah River. Currently the US uses a power reactor owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority to make tritium for weapons [3]. It's possible to make nuclear weapons (even thermonuclear weapons) with only uranium 235 for fissile material and no stored tritium. Such weapons could last a much longer time without active maintenance, since U-235 decays thousands of times slower than Pu-239. However, they would be larger and heavier for the same explosive yield, which complicates delivery. They would also lose certain safety features. Finally, without being able to perform full scale tests, it is doubtful that the US would have the confidence to replace its current high-maintenance weapons stockpile with a new generation of low-maintenance weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship [2] https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html#Nfaq4.3.1 https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html#Nfaq4.3.... [3] https://www.wvlt.tv/2022/05/24/watts-bar-lone-source-nuclear-weapon-material-tva-increasing-production/ https://www.wvlt.tv/2022/05/24/watts-bar-lone-source-nuclear... "Watts Bar lone source of a nuclear weapon material; TVA increasing production"
- Loughla 2y ago
  How do you know all this? Is that a hobby or a job?
openasocket 2y ago
I think it’s shorter than you would imagine. I recall an episode of the podcast Arms Control Wonk talking about the nukes in possession of Ukraine during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Professor Lewis stated that those warheads likely had a service life of 5-10 years. But that may be specific to those Soviet warheads, and I think that different components need to be replaced at different intervals.
jmyeet 2y ago
So this varies depending on what kind of nuclear weapon is and the delivery system. The major deterrant is the LGM-30G Minuteman III [1]. Most of our rockets use liquid propellants. Since the alert window is under 10 minutes, you can't keep a liquid-fuelled rocket permanently fueled so the Minuteman was developed as a solid rocket fuel booster. There's a whole team responsible for maintaining the boosters and warheads of this first line of defense [2]. But there are a variety of other systems. Some dropped by strategic bombers, others on mobile launchers, shorter range missiles deployed in Europe (eg MRBMs in Turkey), nuclear weapons deployed on submarines and so on. Also you have a mix of types. AFAIK the US was moved away from highly-enriched uranium weapons in favor of plutonium. Or at least, HEU reactors have shut down. Maybe there's a sufficient stockpile? Also, a lot of these weapons will be thernonuclear so you have to worry about the production and storage of tritium. IIRC a lot of tritium is a byproduct of plutonium production. Maintaining a significant nuclear arsenal is actually really complex and expensive. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman [2]: https://minutemanmissile.com/missilemaintenance.html https://minutemanmissile.com/missilemaintenance.html
- lmm 2y ago
  > Since the alert window is under 10 minutes, you can't keep a liquid-fuelled rocket permanently fueled so the Minuteman was developed as a solid rocket fuel booster. Huh? The Titan II was developed to do precisely that and worked that way for decades, they were liquid-fuelled and kept fuelled in their silos.
  - openasocket 2y ago
    Liquid propellants are generally less stable than solid fuel. I had read in multiple places (from reputable sources) that you generally couldn’t keep liquid missiles permanently fueled like that. The propellants are extremely corrosive and dangerous. But you are right that the Titan II is liquid fueled and was kept permanently fueled in the silo. I’m not entirely sure how to resolve those two facts. The Wikipedia page about the Titan II does mention multiple accidents and fatalities related to propellant leaks, so I’m guessing that they were just more risky to operate?
hollerith 2y ago
>I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts Russia's nuclear stockpile -- at least the strategic warheads -- have all been built anew since the end of the Cold War. The US is also modernizing its stockpile in the same way, but it has not finished yet. "built anew": made with all new components except that the fissile material is recycled from an old Cold-War-era warhead. (They probably re-cast and re-machine the fissile material.) The reader might be asking, How can Russia, a poor country, afford that? Well, nukes aren't that expensive once you have the fissile material and the design and manufacturing expertise and infrastructure. The pay for the soldiers to guard the nukes and constantly be on the ready to launch them is more expensive, according to one report I saw recently (and Russia has low personnel costs).

pythonguython 2y ago

Hans has always been the guy keeping count. Just about anytime you hear someone cite the US stockpile count, it’s his number. Truly impressive how accurate he is able to be with no special accesses. Only 40 off.

wahern 2y ago
The data had already been declassified up to 2020, so they only needed to estimate changes over the past 3-4 years: > Between 2010 and 2018, the US government publicly disclosed the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile; however, in 2019 and 2020, the Trump administration rejected requests from the Federation of American Scientists to declassify the latest stockpile numbers (Aftergood 2019; Kristensen 2019a, 2020b). In 2021, the Biden administration restored the United States’ previous transparency levels by declassifying both numbers for the entire history of the US nuclear arsenal until September 2020—including the missing years of the Trump administration. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2339170 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2024.2...
- pythonguython 2y ago
  I was unaware they published in the 2010s. Worth noting Hans was counting even before then

transcriptase 2y ago

Every time I’ve seen nuclear stockpiles and the reduction thereof discussed, I’ve wondered: Assuming for some reason the United States needed to ramp back up to an absurd number of warheads (ignore the MAD/political practicalities), how quickly could they do so? What’s the lead time or rate limiting factors in production? Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of time, why does the standing arsenal really matter? Does it really make a difference in global safety or geopolitics? I don’t know the first thing about the topic so this is all genuine curiosity, and I feel like the googling required to get an answer would put me on lists I don’t really feel like being on.

skellington 2y ago
There is no form of full scale nuclear war where the production apparatus for anything becomes a factor.
- slg 2y ago
  That is assuming nuclear war breaks out with zero warning. There is usually a build up to wars that could involve ramping up production of a nuclear arsenal before any nuclear weapons are actually used.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    What type of warning do you expect to see? We currently have a war in Ukraine involving between 2-4 of the major nuclear powers depending on how you want to count them (Russia, US, UK, China). Russia is bleeding heavily and it is hard to tell how close they are to some sort of internal crisis or collapse into groupthink by the military leaders. There have probably been Able Archer style near misses and we could have a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis without much changing. China is building up its nuclear arsenal and the political positioning in APAC suggests that a US-China war is on the cards. If we escalated in to full-scale nuclear war this July that'd be unexpected but we're way past 0 warning. There are lots of warnings. In terms of raw risk the last few years might be the biggest risk of a nuclear war breaking out that the species has ever faced.

PoignardAzur 2y ago

3000 nukes is better than Cold War highs, but it's still massive overkill. Even with a 90% interception rate, 300 nukes would be enough to kill tens of millions of citizens of any country from the blast alone. If an enemy leader isn't deterred by that, 2700 extra nukes aren't going to change their mind.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it's still massive overkill The bombs are there because “the only way to avoid being the victim of a nuclear first strike (that having the enemy hit you with their nukes) was being able to credibly deliver a second strike.” “Thus the absurd-sounding conclusion to fairly solid chain of logic: to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, you have to build so many nuclear weapons that it is impossible for a nuclear-armed opponent to destroy them all in a first strike, ensuring your second-strike lands. You build extra missiles for the purpose of not having to fire them.” https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/ https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence...
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You don't need a huge number of nuclear weapons to achieve this, you need nuclear weapons in secret and ideally changing locations (i.e. submarines)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Which is a lot more fallible than just having a huge number
  - golergka 2y ago
    Security through obscurity is fragile. Strength in numbers — less so.
  - justin66 2y ago

starik36 2y ago

Why did US disclose this number? Is there a treaty compelling them to? Did other nuclear powers disclose them?

_visgean 2y ago
it has no reason not to, its a detterent, russia and china needs to believe that the nukes are working and that there is enough for them to ensure the mutual assured destruction.
maxglute 2y ago
IMO context is: recent US/PRC nuclear talk broke down. US/RU nuclear monitoring also broke down post UKR war. There is no strategic monitoring system anymore between large nuclear powers. Only mind games now. Throw number out there for deterrence/mind game as everyone is either building out (PRC) or modernizing nuke force (US/RU). Maybe anchoring technique to limit proliferation range. That said, there's no reason US adversaries should believe # is credible. And even if it is, each country has different # of launchers/warheads for deterence posture due to different geopolitical/technological constraints. I.e. ballistic missile defense changes penetration ratios.
holowoodman 2y ago
Everyone knows the rough number anyways I'd suspect. Publishing numbers is a part of all arms-control treaties, so unilaterally publishing it may be an attempt to show willingness and shame the others towards a new arms-control treaty. And of course, as the sister comment said, an announcement of dick-size.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
They're scared and they want to intimidate. Talking about them is the first step toward using them.
hugh-avherald 2y ago
While generally it's an advantage to keep information about your true military capability secret, for nuclear weapons it's the opposite.
2y ago

johnohara 2y ago

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?

ianburrell 2y ago
Nuclear warhead is a single nuclear device. Are you thinking MIRV where multiple nuclear warheads are mounted to missile? The US has down rated lots of SLBMs and ICBMs recently. Many of the warheads in storage are from missiles. They could put them back, but then they would show in the active count.
- johnohara 2y ago
  That's insightful because it means it may be strictly an accounting issue versus an actual reduction in the number of warheads i.e. the number of warheads counted == the number mounted, not the total number possessed.
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    The number of mounted warheads is a very important issue, because a nuclear war will take at most half a day. So all the mounted warheads at that point are the ones that can be used, nothing more. Of course if the war doesn't come as a surprise but with a lot of buildup, then you can remount everything over a few weeks.
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    The number mounted matters cause it determines how missiles can be used. With multiple warheads, ICBMs could be used for first strike. First strike won’t work, but opponent still needs to worry about it. With one warhead, ICBMs are only useful for retaliation strike. Also, the US is still following New START treaty after Russsia pulled out.
alexb23 2y ago
No, a MIRV [1] missile has multiple warheads, each warhead has a single device and is counted as such. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...

devwastaken 2y ago

Nobody asks how many anti nuke missiles. :)

BMc2020 2y ago
Funny enough, I know a little bit about this one. We have them, but they are all come-from-behind missiles, so the launch site has to be as close to Russia (or wherever) as possible, which angers the Russians. The head-on hit-a-bullet-with-another-bullet-is missile still impossible, although many would like us to believe they are already here. Nuh uh. Plus those are still useless against nukes delivered inside ton of cocaine.
- amenhotep 2y ago
  Your contention is that GMD, THAAD, PAC-3 and Arrow are essentially expensive fireworks? Interesting. Russia and Iran will be delighted to hear that in fact their ballistic missiles were not intercepted.
  - BMc2020 2y ago
    BMc2020: "I would have to be a complete nut to say Hitler was a great man." amenhotep: "You said Hitler was a great man."
    - yodon 2y ago
      I suspect in other contexts you're aware of this, but personal attacks generally don't land well here. Consider continuing to focus on making important points well, as that tends to work better, as does assuming the best when someone disagrees with you, since sometimes that's a sign your comment can be legitimately interpreted or read in ways you didn't expect or intend.
      - BMc2020 2y ago
        He was trying to put words in my mouth and got caught.

corry 2y ago

What an odd situation, where we can applaud "the transparency" (and I do, honestly) while the US is also simultaneously cheerfully delivering a public reminder that "we have more than enough to absolutely annihilate anyone and everyone... so don't fuck with us."

IIAOPSW 2y ago
As they said at the end of Dr. Strangelove, these things have absolutely no value as a deterrent if you don't tell anyone you have them!
golergka 2y ago
What's odd about this? Both a good things worth applauding to.
nimbius 2y ago
Most of the stockpile remains or grows solely due to senators from colorado, Wyoming and montana who host the ground based strategic nuclear arsenal. Force reduction would mean lost jobs and revenue. At least the transparency can start a discussion hopefully.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  And nothing to do with russia invading its neighbors and threatening to nuke anyone helping them.
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    Probably not. The US nuclear triad is very well known and doesn’t rely on exact numbers. It isn’t like Russia would think “maybe they decommissioned all their SSBN nuclear subs and we are in the clear” until they saw the yearly numbers. The point is that we already have plenty enough to obliterate any nation on earth in either a first or second strike. The arms reduction treaties and transparency have always been to reassure war hawks that we still have plenty to kill everyone, so we don’t need to spend money making more and risk an accident. If you want to saber rattle, you test new systems like hypersonic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Or you perform “military exercises” to show how capable and/or stealthy your nuclear subs and bombers are.

switch007 2y ago

What was going through their minds in the 60s when they amassed 5,000...10,000 but went on to amass over 30,000? Was there any point after a few thousand?

smiley1437 2y ago
I'd say it was a dick measuring contest against the USSR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_sto...
sillywalk 2y ago
Watch Dr. Strangelove.
- voxadam 2y ago
  "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
murderfs 2y ago
Keep in mind that Sputnik only happened in 1957, so the chances of a nuke actually hitting its target were much smaller during the build up than after the rollout of ICBMs. A lot of these were tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to be launched at invading Soviet forces (including by infantry! Look up the Davy Crockett if you want to see Fallout's mini-nuke's real life counterpart)
jjk166 2y ago
Back in the day, most of these weapons were to be dropped from massed strategic bombers or launched on short range missiles. You needed lots both because a lot of these were never going to make it to the target and those that did would be highly inaccurate. This is combined with most of the nukes being intended to either take out the adversary's large stockpile, or survive the use of the adversary's stockpile.
- 2y ago

credit_guy 2y ago

I think the point of this sudden urge for transparency is to send a message to Russia and to the US allies about the tactical nukes. There is currently a perception of a disparity of capabilities in tactical nukes. There is parity in strategic nukes because of the New Start treaty [1]. Here's a report to the US Senate about the tactical nukes [2] produced in April 2024, and here's a quote by Putin lifted from that report: > On June 16, 2023, President Putin declared, “We have more such [tactical] nuclear weapons than NATO countries. They know about it and never stop trying to persuade us to start nuclear reduction talks. Like hell we will …. It is our competitive advantage.” Of course the US allies are worried that maybe the US nuclear umbrella is not that strong after all. Then how many tactical nukes do Russia and the US have? The perception was that Russia has between 1000 and 2000 and the US just a few hundred, but the numbers were uncertain. I think this report sends the message that the US has thousands of such tactical weapons, not just a few hundred. The message is not exactly spelled out but here's my reading. The only current tactical nuke in the US arsenal is the B61 [3]. More than 3000 were built, but it's not clear how many are still available today. The latest versions are B61-12 and B61-13, of which 400 were supposed to be made (in total, not each). The current number of B61-12 and B61-13 is not available, and I saw an estimate of 100 [4]. With this report, we can infer the total number of B61. How? The number of strategic warheads is capped at 1550. The latest US report [5] is that the number as of January this year was 1419, but this includes heavy bombers (B52, B1 and B2), of which there are 60, so actual deployed strategic warheads are 1359. The total number in the nuclear stockpile according to this new transparency report is 3748. The report explains what this number represents: > all types of nuclear weapons, including deployed and non-deployed, and strategic and non-strategic. Since we know the number of deployed strategic (1359) and the total number (3748), it follows that the rest (2389) is the total of the non-deployed strategic warheads and all the B61s (deployed or not). I can't find number of non-deployed strategic warheads, but I think it should be very small, otherwise the arms treaty is a total joke. The difference between deployed and non-deployed is quite minimal, for example the non-deployed weapons have their tritium bottles removed. So my guess is that the majority of the 2389 number above is B61 tactical nukes. Not all of them are deployed or active, but they can become so in a very short timespan. I think this is the message that the US is trying to send. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START [2] https://www.state.gov/report-on-the-status-of-tactical-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons-negotiations/ https://www.state.gov/report-on-the-status-of-tactical-nonst... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb [4] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-h... [5] https://www.state.gov/2023-report-to-congress-on-implementation-of-the-new-start-treaty/ https://www.state.gov/2023-report-to-congress-on-implementat...

gumby 2y ago

Looks like only about half of them have been deployed. The rest are mostly retired but not yet dismantled, or in inventory (https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclear-weapons-2024/ https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-05/united-states-nuclea...) Apart from the absolute number, is the collection of current weapons "more effective" (whatever that would mean -- some sort of fit for purpose) than the ~23K warheads at the end of the cold war? Or is it simply a subset of the devices in 1989, with some maintenance since then? I believe the US is designing a new warhead, maybe the first since the end of the cold war (source, discussion at the nuclear testing museum in Las Vegas last month, perhaps not the most reliable source). What about delivery?

fragmede 2y ago
Do you need to do delivery? If nuclear winter is going to end humanity as we know it, then couldn't you blow up an uninhabited wasteland part of your own country and still hurt everyone?
- philipkglass 2y ago
  "In Search of a Bigger Boom" https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bigger-boom/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/12/in-search-of-a-bi... The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of “delivery” — weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb from here to there, the target — was listed as “Backyard.” As the scientist who related this anecdote explained, “since that particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there was no use carting it anywhere.”
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  "Hurt everyone" is not most people's ideal strategy. Maybe North Korea would go for that, but it's really preferred to hurt the enemy more than yourself.
- taberiand 2y ago

hereme888 2y ago

Has anyone "secretly" placed nukes in space yet?

PM_me_your_math 2y ago

[dead]

baud147258 2y ago

It seems like some of the conversations in that thread went a little nuclear, no? sorry I couldn't resist