Nuclear Weapons Thread

[Colt .45]

I read about nuclear weapons from different countries.

The U.S. and Russia are reducing their nuclear arsenals to 1700-2200 deployed warheads, but that does not count warheads in reserve or tactical nuclear warheads. And the warheads that are taken out of the deployed force do not have to be destroyed can be put in reserve and the treaty expiers in 2012 so they can be put bake in operational states.

The U.K. has around 200, France 350, China 400 but it could be much lower, Pakistain 75, India 50, and North Korea has 6-10. Isreal is an undecleared countriey with around 200 nuclear warheads.

[planeman]

Belgium, don't forget Beligum. They share a landborder with the Netherlands you know.

Also Japan is widely thought to have them, though presumably limited ability to deliver them in a strategic sense.

Cuba used to have Tactical nukes (FROG) but I assume they were long since withdrawn from use.

[Colt .45]

Originally Posted by planeman

Belgium, don't forget Beligum. They share a landborder with the Netherlands you know.

Also Japan is widely thought to have them, though presumably limited ability to deliver them in a strategic sense.

Cuba used to have Tactical nukes (FROG) but I assume they were long since withdrawn from use.

Beligum and Japan never had nukes, and the nukes in cuba belonged to the U.S.S.R., that was the cuban missile cristes.

[Roger604]

Belgium has nuclear weapons

You're pulling our leg, right?

[planeman]

Partly. Basically Belgium's nukes were (are?) US'. I might be wrong but something along the lines of them being notionally Belgium and stored at an airbase in Belgium. I think that a squadron of BAF even had the role of dropping them in the event of the cold war going hot. They were small tactical devices in the form of free-fall bombs.


Greece and a couple of other NATO countries had US nukes there although I don't think you could say "Greece has nukes".

Similar story in Cuba, obviously they were USSR's. I'm not talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis per-say, I'm talking about the FROG missiles that were to be used in the event of an invasion as per Bay Of Pigs - there are some pretty scary stories about how the local commander during the Bay Of Pigs crisis had the control over the use of the FROGs - something unthinkable in the West were using nukes pretty much comes from the centre.

FROG-7A


Apparently US intelligence didn't know about the nuclear FROG-7As which would have been disasterous for any invasion attempt (firing nukes into a landing fleet is pretty high % I think it's safe to assume).

Japan is "undeclared" - I can't say for sure.

[Violet Oboe]

The estimations of international experts about how long it would take the japanese military to go nuclear after a political decision by the Prime Minister of Japan has been taken are varying widely.

Some guess that since the late 70's Japan would only need 3-6 months for assembling enough warheads for a minimal deterrent and mating them with ballistic missiles. Japan possesses indeed the necessary technologies like solid powered missiles, RV tech and has reactor grade Pu in abundance.
Another faction of scientists maintains that even Japan would need rather 3-5 years for creating a capable and credible nuclear deterrent since Japan would need the time for building the highly complex infrastructure from scratch and recruiting enough reliable personnel for the project.

In my view the most probable scenario would be a slow advance to breakout capacity but after the ´dice was rolled´ by the political leadership a initial capability could be ready after 12-18 months.

[Scratch]

re nukes in european countries:

The US stored nukes on several air-bases in european countries during the cold war. That was regulated in a NATO treaty about "nuklear participation" (?)
In a state of defence, these nukes would have been delivered by aircraft of those coutries airforces. However, they needed approvel by the US president to do so.
There is US staff stationed on those bases for maintenance I think.
In Germany there are believed to be around 20 nukes (B61 I think) stationed at the Buechel AFB of fighter-bomber wing 33. They are part of NATO's nuclear detarrence and would be delivered by german Tornados. The crews train the handling with dummies.
All other nuke depots in germany have been broached, it seems.

That wing will start transfering to the EF starting in 2009, wich is not nuke capable. So the Luftwaffe seems to completely loose it's nuke capabilities in the coming years.

[Colt .45]

Originally Posted by Scratch

re nukes in european countries:

The US stored nukes on several air-bases in european countries during the cold war. That was regulated in a NATO treaty about "nuklear participation" (?)
In a state of defence, these nukes would have been delivered by aircraft of those coutries airforces. However, they needed approvel by the US president to do so.
There is US staff stationed on those bases for maintenance I think.
In Germany there are believed to be around 20 nukes (B61 I think) stationed at the Buechel AFB of fighter-bomber wing 33. They are part of NATO's nuclear detarrence and would be delivered by german Tornados. The crews train the handling with dummies.
All other nuke depots in germany have been broached, it seems.

That wing will start transfering to the EF starting in 2009, wich is not nuke capable. So the Luftwaffe seems to completely loose it's nuke capabilities in the coming years.

The german Air Force will keep 85 Tornados that will serve along with the 180 EF for a fighter fleet of 265, which is down from 426 in 2004.

[adeptitus]

There are many countries with the technical capability and materials to build nuclear weapons. I have little doubt that if Canada or Australia find themselves in need of nukes for protection, they can do so within couple of years.

IMO during the Cold War, some nations adopted "no nukes" policy because they were either pressured to do so, or felt it'd have been suicidal to match up against US or USSR. In the post-Cold War era, things are quite different. I predict the number of nuclear-armed countries to increase through this century, regardless of US efforts.

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by Colt .45

The german Air Force will keep 85 Tornados that will serve along with the 180 EF for a fighter fleet of 265, which is down from 426 in 2004.

Yeah, that will be the ECR and RECCE Tornados. And maritime strike I think. But these are not capable to deliver nukes, AFAIK. All IDS Tornados will be replaced.

[Colt .45]

Originally Posted by Scratch

Yeah, that will be the ECR and RECCE Tornados. And maritime strike I think. But these are not capable to deliver nukes, AFAIK. All IDS Tornados will be replaced.

Germany is suposed to be well known for its military, but now they are downsizing its armed forces which i think is just stupid.

[The_Zergling]

Originally Posted by Colt .45

Germany is suposed to be well known for its military, but now they are downsizing its armed forces which i think is just stupid.

Well it all depends on what their goals are for their military. If they plan on constant foreign deployment like the US, then a larger more mobile military is necessary. If only for defense, then maybe not so stupid. Unfortunately since German politics isn't my strong point, I have no idea where they're headed.

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by The_Zergling

Well it all depends on what their goals are for their military. If they plan on constant foreign deployment like the US, then a larger more mobile military is necessary. If only for defense, then maybe not so stupid. Unfortunately since German politics isn't my strong point, I have no idea where they're headed.

Rather neither one, or probably somewhere in between.
A sarcastic answer would be: have an armed aid organisation to secure the build-up of schools and local infrastructure from criminals and probably war lords.

It's this new world order thing with world wide conflicts and asymmetric threads were we may take part in an international task-force that (hopefully) then will be big enough.

There actually is to be a 35.000 man contingent wich will represent the intervention forces. Their task would be "peace enforcing meassures" in high intensity conflicts against military opponents. Divided on NRF, EU battlegroups and national contingents. Outfitted with the high end equipment. Making a rather competent force IMO, especially integrated with other european forces.
Then there are stabilisation and support forces, wich are bigger, for medium-low intensity conflicts.
It's just believed that we will not need major actuall/conventional warfighting capabilities in the foreseeable future.

integrated, joint and combined are often heared in that context.