4 ms·

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 perce

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...

sillywalk 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. Perhaps. I don't think it the disparity really matters that much. Either Nuclear deterrence works or it doesn't. Once the first nuke goes off, all bets are off. > US allies are worried that maybe the US nuclear umbrella is not that strong after all. I imagine that US allies do worry, I suppose that has been the case since NATO's inception. But I don't think it's about the strength of the umbrella. It is the willingness to, after having offered shelter under it, actually employ nuclear weapons. Ukraine, is another question. If Russia employs tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I don't think having a few hundred more B-61s (or a few thousand more tactical nukes to be deployed by hypothetical means) would be relevant. There are only so many aircraft that are equipped to fly them, crews trained to use them, and only so many "targets" to hit, before targets becomes another word for cities. At least initially, I assume that any US/NATO nuclear response would be on Russian targets occupying Ukrainian soil, hoping to avoid retaliation. All this is so depressing and scary.

sillywalk 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. Perhaps. I don't think it the disparity really matters that much. Either Nuclear deterrence works or it doesn't. Once the first nuke goes off, all bets are off. > US allies are worried that maybe the US nuclear umbrella is not that strong after all. I imagine that US allies do worry, I suppose that has been the case since NATO's inception. But I don't think it's about the strength of the umbrella. It is the willingness to, after having offered shelter under it, actually employ nuclear weapons. Ukraine, is another question. If Russia employs tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I don't think having a few hundred more B-61s (or a few thousand more tactical nukes to be deployed by hypothetical means) would be relevant. There are only so many aircraft that are equipped to fly them, crews trained to use them, and only so many "targets" to hit, before targets becomes another word for cities. At least initially, I assume that any US/NATO nuclear response would be on Russian targets occupying Ukrainian soil, hoping to avoid retaliation. All this is so depressing and scary.