precisely how many nuclear weapons the United States has in its arsenal: 5,113. That is exactly 4,802 more than we need.
311 would be to few, but what really gets me is the precision of the statement. This simply isn't an issue where any sort of precision, from any perspective makes sense (except the perspective that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, their precise number would be zero).
but 311 warheads would provide the equivalent of 1,900 megatons of explosive power, or nine-and-a-half times the amount that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara argued in 1965 could incapacitate the Soviet Union by destroying “one-quarter to one-third of its population and about two-thirds of its industrial capacity.” .
False 311 warheads would provide less than 150 megatons. Maybe less than a hundred.
"The W87 is an American thermonuclear missile warhead. It was created for use on the MX or Peacekeeper ICBM, 50 of which, with up to 12 warheads per missile, were deployed during the 1986-2005 period. Starting in 2007, 200 of the W87 warheads from now-retired MX/Peacekeeper missiles will be retrofitted onto much older Minuteman III missiles, with only one warhead on each missile...
...The original yield of the W87 was 300 kilotons of TNT, but has the announced ability to be upgraded to a yield of 475 kilotons, presumably by using more HEU in the fusion secondary stage tamper. It is not known if that upgrade was completely tested or merely designed and ready to implement."
en.wikipedia.org
"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead...
en.wikipedia.org
Also Russia is not the only potential target, and more importantly its not simply a matter of having enough megatons, but of having enough to do the job reliably after we absorb a first strike, which might destroy much of our capability. Preferably having significantly more than enough in each "leg" of the triad (land based missiles, SLBMs, and bombers).
Today’s fleet of 14 can be cut to 12, with eight on patrol at a given time, together carrying 192 missiles ready to launch.
I'm not sure we can rely on having eight on patrol at any time if we cut the fleet to 12.
Finally, for maximum flexibility in our nuclear arsenal, each of our B-2 stealth bombers could carry one air-launched nuclear cruise missile.
If we have them they could launch more than one.
Also we can't reasonably assume that 19 out of 20 would be available.
would allow us to convert all our B-52H bombers to a conventional role, which is far more likely to be of use in our post-cold-war world.
Most of the B-52s are used for conventional purposes.
If they exist, and our functional, they can be used to carry nuclear warheads, whatever their official job. You don't need any special easily tracked technology to carry nuclear weapons. B-29s did it. Or you could put them in trucks.
Gary Schaub Jr. is an assistant professor of strategy at the Air War College and James Forsyth Jr. is a professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Then its surprising that he doesn't know the yield of our nuclear warheads, and/or he makes such a large error in simple math when he estimates the total yield of a 311 warhead nuclear arsenal. |
