Article

2010-05-04 Home Front: WoT

Clinton, Pentagon Reveal State Secret: Size of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2010-05-04 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 Our country's in the very best of hands...

Posted by Raj 2010-05-04 00:14|| 2010-05-04 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 What's next, televised walking tours of NSA and Groom Lake?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-04 01:46|| 2010-05-04 01:46|| Front Page Top

#3 Is anyone suprised???

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-05-04 09:56|| 2010-05-04 09:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Considering that the approximate number had to be provided the Russians for arms limitations treaties, who were the only key players who didn't know?

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-05-04 10:04|| 2010-05-04 10:04|| Front Page Top

#5 who were the only key players who didn't know?

The ones who pay for it all.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-04 10:10|| 2010-05-04 10:10|| Front Page Top

#6 PDF files:
As of January 2009, the U.S. stockpile contained an estimated 5,200 nuclear warheads: approximately 2,700 operational warheads comprised of 2,200 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads; and about 2,500 additional warheads in reserve (including some 150 spares).2 An additional 4,200 warheads await dismantlement as a consequence of the Bush administrations announcement in 2004 to reduce the U.S. stockpile by nearly 50 percent by 2012.3 This reduction was achieved in December 2007, five years early, and an additional 15 percent reduction is scheduled to be completed by 2012, leaving a stockpile of approximately 4,600 warheads.4

We estimate that as of late 2009, Russia had approximately 4,600 nuclear warheads in its operational arsenal: roughly 2,600 strategic warheads and 2,000 nonstrategic warheadsa slight decrease from last years levels. An additional 7,300 warheads are estimated to be in reserve or awaiting dismantlement, for a total of approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads

Posted by ed 2010-05-04 10:16|| 2010-05-04 10:16|| Front Page Top

#7 I have to ask.
What's a "Nonstrategic warhead" it seems to me ANY warhead would be strategic.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-05-04 11:06|| 2010-05-04 11:06|| Front Page Top

#8 Nonstrategic warhead - my guess is one that cannot easily be delivered to a target, perhaps partly disassembled for reliability testing, or out of commission temporarily for other reasons.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-05-04 11:20|| 2010-05-04 11:20|| Front Page Top

#9 What's a "Nonstrategic warhead"

Low Kt yield. Used for tactical situations. Stuff like small artillery rounds or engineer munitions [used to move sides of mountains into valleys to make them impassible], or the infamous Davy Crockett who's blast radius was probably larger than its range.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-05-04 11:20|| 2010-05-04 11:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Yeah, the Davy Crockett was a winner. As one wag put it, "What's next, an atomic hand grenade?"

Posted by mojo 2010-05-04 11:32|| 2010-05-04 11:32|| Front Page Top

#11 What's a "Nonstrategic warhead"

Basically anything not carried by ICBMs, SLBMs, or strategic bombers. A 200kt cruise missile warhead is considered nonstrategic.

Posted by ed 2010-05-04 11:40|| 2010-05-04 11:40|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm not really a military expert, though I completely understand the idiocy of revealing the size of our Arsenal. Woud one of my Betters(military RBers) please explain how we'd need more than 1,000 nukes? I find it hard to believe, with my current knowledge, that there's more targets in Russia and elsewhere that require that much firepower.

And mojo, great quote.

Posted by Charles 2010-05-04 11:54|| 2010-05-04 11:54|| Front Page Top

#13 "For those with strong throwing arms."

As for why we have more than a thousand nukes - "to make the rubble bounce".

Posted by Mitch H. 2010-05-04 13:21|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/ 2010-05-04 13:21|| Front Page Top

#14 Wrong Mitch H.

Why so many? Easy. More warheads due to the need for survivability of the arsenal against a first strike in sufficient number to deter a first strike. Also MIRVs and such mean more than one warhead per delivery vehicle.

For instance, we have 14 Ohio class SSBNs, each with 24 Trident II SLBMs, each of which holds Up to eight W88 (475 kton) warheads, although there are treaty reductions which are reducing this humber to 4 per missile. BAsically, 192 warheads per submarine with normal loadout, and 96 with minimal loadout. Meanign the tridents alone account for up to 2688 of our warheads (1350 or so at minimal), half of which are active, and the rest which are in port, at any given time.

Now add in the ICBMs, and strategic bombs carried by B-2 and straegti warheads on B-1 carried cruise missile, and you see how we have so many warheads - and why the number will not go below about 4500 without taking some major sytems offline.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-05-04 15:38|| 2010-05-04 15:38|| Front Page Top

#15 Thank you OS for your response. It was insightful, to me at least.

Posted by Charles 2010-05-04 18:55|| 2010-05-04 18:55|| Front Page Top

#16 I appreciate yall's answers but what I meant was "Any munition has a Strategic use"
Even the dropping mountainsides into valleys is strategic, Hell even OWNING them is strategic, it seems to me an Oxymoron to have a "Non-Strategic" name.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-05-04 19:48|| 2010-05-04 19:48|| Front Page Top

23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 tipover
23:13 gorb
23:10 gorb
23:09 JohnQC
23:08 gorb
22:53 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 OldSpook
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 gorb
22:29 gorb
22:26 linker
22:20 SteveS
22:18 twobyfour
22:12 DMFD
22:11 trailing wife
22:04 JosephMendiola
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:56 linker
21:53 linker
21:52 linker
21:48 Hotspur666
21:40 Glenmore
21:36 Hotspur666
Merry-Go-Blog