From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 23:27:39 MST
[Hermit 3] Are you deaf to what the rest of the world has said about the
unilateral abrogation of SALT or don't you care? <snip> While the number of
missiles has decreased (largely due to the reduction in the number of
boomers and completely ineffective fixed silos) in the last 15 years, the
number of warheads has actually increased (due to increased deployment of
MIRVs) (Jane’s and FAS). Reductions tend to be cost cutting driven (Senate
Reports, FAS and Jane’s). <snip> The fact that the US has limited
inspections (Senate record and US Law) and has unilaterally abrogated the
world's major strategic arms limitation agreement (CIS and European analysis
and comment, Jane’s and FAS) and failed to ratify any others (same) is
hardly conducive persuading others to accept our bona fides.
[Joe Dees 4] Total US warheads have decreased from a max of 50,000 to less
than a quarter of that, and we are negotiating with Russia to drop them to
less than 3000 apiece. As for the abrogation of SALT, while I do not agree
with Son of Star Wars because I think that it spends a lot of money failing
to protect us against a nonexistent threat, it is not a warhead-producing
program. <snip>
[Hermit 4]
The US has never had 50,000 warheads, still less the ability to deliver that
number and even your guess as to current levels is hopelessly inaccurate.
Treaty limitations initially focused on launchers, not missiles, and despite
the recent attention on missiles, nobody is talking about warheads because
of the huge US disparity and everyone else's intention to catch-up. The
failure in SALT 1 to prevent the deployment of MRV/MIRVs (which were
developed in response to the the threatened development of ABMs) despite the
ban on ABMs, lead to their rapid deployment. The current US threat to deploy
ABMs is leading to huge pressure in other states to increase the number and
loading rate of MIRVs. The following quote from the Bulletin is perhaps
appropriate:
[quote]Although the East-West nuclear arms race is clearly over, no nuclear
state is moving significantly toward nuclear disarmament. Between them,
Russia and the United States still have upwards of 30,000 nuclear weapons --
strategic and tactical -- in various states of readiness. Nine years after
the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States and Russia collectively have
some 7,000 warheads ready to be fired with less than 15 minutes
notice.[/quote]
As far as US stocks go,
[url]http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma01nukenote.html[/url]
The US has 200 x Minuteman III Mk 12 launchers, 300 x Minuteman III Mk 12A
launchers and 50 x MX/Peacekeeper launchers. The ready stock of missiles are
respectively 600, 900 and 500. Each MIRV missle can carry 3, 3 and 10
Warheads respectively. This yields a potential of 1,800, 2,700 and 5,000
warheads if fully loaded.
While the current load is 600, 900 and 500 warheads (total 2,000 warheads),
the pits to produce warheads to fully load these missiles are maintained as
on hand stock in component form (so they are not subject to treaty
limitation) which would yield some 9,500 warheads). In addition we have an
additional 675 SLBMs each with 8 warheads, yielding a total of 3,456
warheads and 1,750 air delivery bombs (single warhead) all in operational
state, and sufficient pits to produce at least double that.
I have included the latest bulletin count below, but note that it relates
only to assembled weapons which is what the treaties mandated be published.
It is important to realize that the majority of nuclear weapons can be
assembled in under 36 hours (some in as few as 3), and that FAS estimates
that the US and CIS have the parts on hand to triple their inventories. The
Ukraine may have stored components but it is likely that they have
deteriorated to a point where they are no longer usable. China has probably
got more launch platforms than functional warheads, but that could change
quite rapidly.
The majority of our systems are designed for rapid launch, allowing us to
maintain an economical "launch on warning" posture (economical because most
of our launches will be successful - a launch on strike posture assumes that
large numbers of missiles will be destroyed before launch). Russia, which
had a "launch on warning" policy, lost the capability in May 2001, when her
ground reception station suffered a devastating fire, requiring her to
revert to a "launch on strike" posture. This requires a much higher number
of activatable missiles in order to allow for first-strike losses (which she
does not have), and forces her to ready and fuel missiles and hold them in
an active state during US alert states. The CIS may have, at least
partially, recovered "launch-on-warning" capability, but [i]US[/i] defense
analysts anticipate her having to triple her warhead ready-for-delivery
levels to maintain a believable MAD capability in the event of the US
deploying a ballistic missile defense system.
China has historically had a "retaliate after first strike" policy, despite
having only a limited number of vulnerable liquid fuelled delivery systems,
and a single, problematic missile submarine. She has stated that she will
need to upgrade her submarine systems, convert her land systems to
rapid-launch solid-fuelled rockets and increase her warhead levels by at
least ten times the current amount (400 x single warhead missiles to 1200 x
3 MIRV missiles) to maintain a credible deterrent in the face of an area ABM
deployment by the US (to prevent her from becoming susceptible to "nuclear
blackmail"). In the meantime, she is moving from keeping her warheads stored
separately from the missiles to keeping them with the missiles, and is
adopting a launch on warning posture despite her inferior personnel and
launch control systems, greatly increasing the probability of accidents.
[url]http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma00nukenote.html[/url]
Global Nuclear Stockpiles, 1945-2000
Year U.S. Russia U.K. France China Total
1945 2 0 0 0 0 2
1946 9 0 0 0 0 9
1947 13 0 0 0 0 13
1948 56 0 0 0 0 56
1949 169 1 0 0 0 170
1950 298 5 0 0 0 303
1951 438 25 0 0 0 463
1952 832 50 0 0 0 882
1953 1,161 120 1 0 0 1,282
1954 1,630 150 5 0 0 1,785
1955 2,280 200 10 0 0 2,490
1956 3,620 400 15 0 0 4,035
1957 5,828 650 20 0 0 6,498
1958 7,402 900 22 0 0 8,324
1959 12,305 1,050 25 0 0 13,380
1960 18,638 1,700 30 0 0 20,368
1961 22,229 2,450 50 0 0 24,729
1962 27,100 3,100 205 0 0 30,405
1963 29,800 4,000 280 0 0 34,080
1964 31,600 5,100 310 4 1 37,015
1965 32,400 6,300 310 32 5 39,047
1966 32,450 7,550 270 36 20 40,326
1967 32,500 8,850 270 36 25 41,681
1968 30,700 10,000 280 36 35 41,051
1969 28,200 11,000 308 36 50 39,594
1970 26,600 12,700 280 36 75 39,691
1971 26,500 14,500 220 45 100 41,365
1972 27,000 16,600 220 70 130 44,020
1973 28,400 18,800 275 116 150 47,741
1974 29,100 21,100 325 145 170 50,840
1975 28,100 23,500 350 188 185 52,323
1976 26,700 25,800 350 212 190 53,252
1977 25,800 28,400 350 228 200 54,978
1978 24,600 31,400 350 235 220 56,805
1979 24,300 34,000 350 235 235 59,120
1980 24,300 36,300 350 250 280 61,480
1981 23,400 38,700 350 274 330 63,054
1982 23,000 40,800 335 274 360 64,769
1983 23,400 42,600 320 279 380 66,979
1984 23,600 43,300 270 280 414 67,864
1985 23,500 44,000 300 359 426 68,585
1986* 23,400 45,000 300 355 423 69,478
1987* 23,700 44,000 300 420 415 68,835
1988* 23,400 42,500 300 411 430 67,041
1989* 22,500 40,000 300 412 433 63,645
1990* 21,000 38,000 300 504 432 60,236
1991* 19,500 35,000 300 538 434 55,772
1992* 18,200 33,500 300 538 434 52,972
1993* 16,750 32,000 300 524 434 50,008
1994* 15,380 30,000 250 512 400 46,542
1995* 14,000 28,000 300 500 400 43,200
1996* 12,900 26,000 300 500 400 40,000
1997* 12,425 24,000 260 450 400 37,525
1998* 11,425 22,000 260 450 400 34,535
1999* 10,925 20,000 185 450 400 31,960
2000* 10,500 20,000 185 450 400 31,535
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT