Why don't the U.S. and other nuclear nations disarm too?

"Still, there is no compelling reason why states need nuclear weapons, except to protect themselves from other states with nuclear weapons; an asinine circular argument."

You must be joking.
There are many, many reasons a state would want nuclear weapons besides detterrence. Most of them horrible.

 

Red: Hence the "compelling"!

And isn't a Freudian slip when you say one thing and mean you mother?

E_S

 

compelling != justifiable
compelling = rational

Just because wanting WMD to enhacne military power, project power, or make up for territorial/material disadvantage might not be 'justifiable', those impulses and desires still exist.


I dadn't make a freudian slip!

 

Red-Seven:
You're missing the point. The point is that the world collectively realised the 'middle way', and countries voluntarily signed the NPT. In return the countries with nuclear technology are supposed to help non-weaponised countries with nuclear technology and expertise, and provide inducements and general stability (and ENFORCEMENT OF THE TREATY), so that nations do not feel the need to embark upon arms races.

The US and other nuclear nations are enforcing the NPT because it becomes useless otherwise, and that leads directly to the worst-case: wide proliferation. The 'right' is derived from voluntary commitment to the NPT and international nuclear framework.

I didn't know that; thanks for providing key background information. But the U.S. cannot legally force a country to join the NPT or stay in it, right?

 

No, I do not believe that a nation can be 'forced' to join (aside from open international blackmail, etc). And the treaty has a 90-day opt-out clause, so that nations can voluntarily leave the treaty, too. The ruckus that you see in the international community in IRan and NK involve countries that have not pulled out of the NPT and other treaties, yet are still trying to circumvent the treaties (without the diplomatic problems linked to pulling out).

It's all very confusing, sometimes. And makes my head hurt. But these issues are probably the most important facing the world community right now...more important than Terrorism, I'd say.

 

Indeed. Okay so let's get back on topic...

Why don't the U.S. and other nuclear nations disarm?

Ok, before we answer that question there are two background questions that must be addressed:

1. How many operational nukes does the U.S. currently have?

2. Does the U.S. require that many for effective deterrance?

 

According to the Nuclear Posture Review:
Post START treaty,
the US has stockpiles for 10,600 warheads, although most of these are not "weapons ready"

on the active side the US has:
550 Minuteman III ICBM's in fixed launchers
50 MX missles in moveable track-launchers

The ICBM's are MIRVed, meaning they carry more than one warhead that can be independently targeted. The Minuteman carries 3 each, the MX, 10 each.

18 Ohio class trident subs that carry 6-8 nuclear missles each(depending on model)but 4 are going to be decommissioned within 4 years.

94 B-52 bombers, 56 of which are configured to carry nuclear cruise missles

21 B-2 Spirit bombers which are all nuclear ready.

325 low-yield Tomahawk cruise missles

Deterrence is a tricky concept to define.

Although the US and the nuclear nations have more than enough weapons for a strict deterrence factor, th arms race developed out of this concept.

The US and Russia operate under the principle of "counter-strike effectiveness."

That is to say, if X nation has 4 missle launchers, and Y nation knocks 3 of those launchers out, will X nation still be able to effectively retaliate?

The concept of MAD only works if both sides have enough firepower to completely neutralize each other.

 

Okay, let's do some math:

on the active side the US has:
550 Minuteman III ICBM's in fixed launchers
50 MX missles in moveable track-launchers

The ICBM's are MIRVed, meaning they carry more than one warhead that can be independently targeted. The Minuteman carries 3 each, the MX, 10 each.

So if we multiply 550 by 3 and 50 by 10, we get 1 650 and 500. That's a total of 2 150.

18 Ohio class trident subs that carry 6-8 nuclear missles each(depending on model)but 4 are going to be decommissioned within 4 years.

So let's just make that 14 subs, then. Let's take the average and say that each one carries 7 nukes. 14*7 is 98.

94 B-52 bombers, 56 of which are configured to carry nuclear cruise missles

21 B-2 Spirit bombers which are all nuclear ready.

But do these bombers actually carry any nukes right now? Let's just say they don't (unless you have information to the contrary).

325 low-yield Tomahawk cruise missles

So 325 + 98 + 2 150 = 2 573

Tentative estimate of the number of nuclear explosives in the United States: 2,573. This number is subject to change, pending clarification.

 

I just wanted to quickly point out a reason why the USA shouldn't disarm and rogue states like North Korea shouldn't be allowed to gain nuclear weapons.

North Korean Threatens Australia

Basically North Korea is threatening a nuclear strike on Australia if we get too involved with the USA in it's proposed blockade of North Korea. It's also threatening Australian politicians who discuss North Korea with the rest of Asia. North Korea is trying to gag debate about it's actions by threatening a nuclear strike.

Australia has no such weapons to retaliate, we are a nuclear free country except for a single reactor for medical purposes. This is why the world cannot allow countries like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc to gain weapons of mass destruction. They can and will be used to stand over those countries that they don't agree with or to bully enemies into submission.

I know it's a unofficial government source, but it is rhetoric like this that governments use to frighten people without actually being responsible for it. I'd say it's a sanctioned statement.

I am personally very offended by the remarks and I have totally changed my opinion on what the USA is doing at the moment. These type of threats to a non-nuclear country are akin to holding a gun to the head of a child and telling them to keep quiet in a schoolyard. Well, we have a big brother, North Korea. A big brother with bigger guns than you.

 

Uruk-hai,

Isn't there a US Air Force base located on Australia? I remember that there was some sort of controversy because of the nuclear bombers stationed there. I'm a bit fuzzy, so I could be wrong.

But this is precisely why there needs to be a nuclear deterent, and it makes a solid case for the ABM missle shield.

Kuna, I'd like to see where you are going with your numbers....( and no, US bombers do not routinely carry nuclear missles anymore.)

 

Mr44, no there are no US air, naval or army bases in Australia and there's no nuclear weapons in the country at all.

We did consider building our own arsenal of nukes during the 50's and 60's but it was never acted upon due to a myriad of reasons, regional stability not being the least of them.

 

We did consider building our own arsenal of nukes during the 50's and 60's but it was never acted upon due to a myriad of reasons, regional stability not being the least of them.


It didn't stop us allowing the British to detonate their nuclear weapons in the desert, absent mindedly forgetting to check (or even care) that the Aboriginal population might not appreciate being irradiated.

Mr.44, we've got NSA bases here as part of the non-existent ESCHELON network, plus as a listening station of SE Asia. According to the 1998 Defence Report on Asia (East Asia Security Review, IIRC), some 50% of US forces were stationed in SE Asia. It makes sense to have a friendly nation of good looking men and gorgeous women, like Australia, who are staunch allies of America, as a staging point for most ELINT and SIGINT work in SE Asia.

I believe that Australia is/was being considered to house a USAF base following a withdrawl from Japan, but I can't recall the exact details at this point in time.

E_S

 

Mr44:
Kuna, I'd like to see where you are going with your numbers....( and no, US bombers do not routinely carry nuclear missles anymore.)

Earlier I posted two questions:

1. How many operational nukes does the U.S. currently have?

2. Does the U.S. require that many for effective deterrance?

We've already answered Number 1 (approx. 2 573). As for Number 2, you posted that:

Although the US and the nuclear nations have more than enough weapons for a strict deterrence factor, th arms race developed out of this concept.

The US and Russia operate under the principle of "counter-strike effectiveness."

That is to say, if X nation has 4 missle launchers, and Y nation knocks 3 of those launchers out, will X nation still be able to effectively retaliate?

The concept of MAD only works if both sides have enough firepower to completely neutralize each other.

In order to answer this question, we'll have to know how many operational nukes the other nuclear nations of this world have. If you don't feel like posting the stats, could you at least give us a link (preferably to the same place from which you got info on the U.S.'s nuclear capabilities)?

 

Here are the most recent nuclear forces stats for the Russian Federation:

From CDI (Center for Defense Information) 2002:

missles:
308 ss-18 Satan ICBM's 10 warheads each
72 22-19 Stiletto ICBM's 6 warheads each
90 ss-24 tracked launchers 1 warhead each
360 22-25 Topol launchers 1 warhead each

submarines:
(*NOTE* by doctrine, the Russians place a mixture of nuclear and conventional missiles in their subs, due to less specialization in their hardware. The total missle numbers reflect this, so it is not known how many nuclear missles a specific sub carries)

7 Delta III Kalmar subs 16 missles each
7 Delta IV Delfin subs 16 missles each
3 Akula subs 20 missles each

bombers
63 TU-95 Bear light bombers
15 TU-160 Blackjack heavy bombers

EDIT:

Here is some more information about potential "threat countries":

China

missles:
20 DF-5 Dong Feng ICBM's with 5 warheads each

Submarines:
1(that's right!) type 92 Xia sub with 3 or 4 missles

North Korea:

2 Taepo Dong missles with suspected nuclear warheads

India:
between 80-90 nuclear missles on modified SCUD platforms

Pakistan:
15-25 nuclear missles

Israel:
approximately 150 nuclear missles