02/15/2008 09:50:23 PM EST

Is the US a 'responsible' nuclear power?

posted by ajay

I was sent this article about Pakistan's point of view on America's nuclear weapons and their safety.
http://www.thebulletin.org/ columns/hugh-gusterson/2008 0205.html
Apart from the underlying sarcasm and humor in the article, it makes you think.


Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
I confess I am one of those who is not comfortable about a fanatical Islamic state being in complete control of a Nuclear weapon. But can the US and the west be the sole arbiter on matters regarding nuclear technology?
Especially since they are so complacent about their own technology and safety.
Ideally you would want none of these countries to have weapons, but given US bending proliferation rules to accomodate India and its other favoured allies. The nuclear problem is being exacerbated by the US.

http://www.thebulletin.org/ columns/hugh-gusterson/2008 0205.html
< Todays Headlines | Manhattan news >
 Display:
Is the US a 'responsible' nuclear power? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Who else is left? (none / 0)

 

so complacent about their own technology and safety

I would wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

by MRFred on 02/15/2008 10:42:25 PM EST

complacent or trigger happy? (none / 0)

The fact that a B-52 plane had loaded nuclear misslies that the pilot did not even know about is some cause for alarm. If a similar incident had happened in say Pakistan, Iran or China. The US would have gone ballistic about irresponsible nuclear states.

Also, the fact that US keeps its missiles tipped with nuclear warheads even during 'peace' time with no perceived nuclear threat is a sign of complacency. 

by ajay on 02/16/2008 12:03:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Absurd argument (none / 0)

( the US stores) its missiles tipped with nuclear warheads even during 'peace' time with no perceived nuclear threat is a sign of complacency

Well ajay, what do you suggest, the Barney Fife defense?

First its obvious that you have no idea what the word complacency means in general and in regard to nuclear weapons in particular.

self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies

If we kept our warheads in a large stockpile...well away from our delivery systems , that would be complacent or more precisely just plain stupid.

We have been doing that, keeping weapons in a ready status ( meaning ready for use if deemed necessary by the what is called the National Command Authority),  in times of peace...since 1946.  Also in case you've been away from the TV for awhile...there is a war on, though not one the would ( hopefully) require nuclear weapons. 

Where do you think other nuclear armed states keep their weapons? In some sort of kit behind a " In Case of Emergency Break Glass" locker?

 

by MRFred on 02/16/2008 01:11:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand this (none / 0)
 The U.S and Russia have  a total number of intact warheads  estimated to be 18,000 and the cold war is over.

These two countries are the most dangerous by far


by Chinese Democracy on 02/16/2008 01:20:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
is it really absurd? (none / 0)

"Also in case you've been away from the TV for awhile...there is a war on, though not one the would ( hopefully) require nuclear weapons"  Ofcourse there always is a war on. Which decade has the US not been in war? Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkans, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc.. So if guys like you feel safe that the US is in a state of readiness from nuclear threat, then good for you.

 "Where do you think other nuclear armed states keep their weapons? In some sort of kit behind a " In Case of Emergency Break Glass" locker?"

Yes, the nuclear stockpiles/warheads and the missiles are stored separately by other nuclear weapon states.

by ajay on 02/16/2008 05:07:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes its really absurd. (none / 0)

Yes, the nuclear stockpiles/warheads and the missiles are stored separately by other nuclear weapon states.

No...they are not. You simply have no idea what your talking about.

Just one example. Below is a photo of one the TYPHOON CLASS (TYPE 941) Ballistic missle submarine.

 

The Russian Navy  states that it operates 26 strategic nuclear submarines carrying 2,272 nuclear warheads on 440 ballistic missiles.

Note the word "on". It would be very difficult to store warheads and missiles  "separately" on a submarine at depth, stop the boat, open tubes, attach the warheads then be on their merry way.

India, China, France Great Britan and The US currently maintain SLBMS in their fleets. 

 

 

by MRFred on 02/17/2008 05:35:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
china does (none / 0)

http://www.nuclearfiles.org /menu/key-issues/nuclear-we apons/basics/nuclear-stockp iles.htm

 "Ballistic Missiles: China uses liquid fuelled missiles which would take some time to prepare for launch, and reportedly stores the warheads separate from these missiles."

what do you have to say?

by ajay on 02/18/2008 09:12:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I said , you have no idea what your talking (none / 0)

about.

This is your statement

Yes, the nuclear stockpiles/warheads and the missiles are stored separately by other nuclear weapon states.

To which I pointed out that that is not true in every case and gave examples. You responded with a link. 

"Ballistic Missiles: China uses liquid fueled missiles which would take some time to prepare for launch, and reportedly stores the warheads ploying the separate from these missiles."

I pointed out in the previous point that the Chinese are deploying Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.

Namely the XIA class SLBMS that carry Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles:

The Type 092 missile submarine carries twelve JuLang-1 (NATO code-name: CSS-N-3) two-stage, solid-propellant, submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Each missile carries a single 25~50kT nuclear warhead. The two rows of missile launch tubes are situated behind the sail under the raised deck. The basic variant JL-1 has a maximum range of 2,150km with accuracy (CEP) of 600m; the improved JL-1A may have a maximum range of 2,500km with increased accuracy.

No matter, you may want to read your references , it clearly states:

There are currently about 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Of these about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice

Obviously, the US is not the only nuclear capable country that maintains some of its stockpiles in a ready status.

by MRFred on 02/18/2008 06:44:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
missing the point (none / 0)

Being in a state of high alert does not necessarily mean nuclear tipped missiles ready to be deployed. Or whatever the technicalities of these terms mean, I am not an expert.

Anyway, the point of my whole argument, which you are missing, is that the US which seems to be injudicious in handling its weapons, (irrespective of how careless others are) should not always be advising and being an arbiter on matters of nuclear weapons. And I do not see why the US needs to have ~15,000 nuclear tipped missiles. But as you argued earlier, hey there is a war on!!

If all you want to do is cherry pick on what I have to say, then I do not see the point in arguing with you.

by ajay on 02/19/2008 09:54:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As are you (none / 0)

 I am not an expert

Sums up the whole exchange. You are consistently wrong in every assertion numbers, readiness and how they are deployed, so, you right..there is no point.

The US maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.

 Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen (Jan/Feb 2006). "U.S. nuclear forces, 2006". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62 (1): 68-71.

 

by MRFred on 02/19/2008 10:48:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cherry picking!! (none / 0)

again..cherry picking.. I said I am not an expert on the technical terms and word play, but I do get the gist.

You did not address the broader issue I was talking about, but instead you pick on terms you see is convenient for you to argue about and cut and paste from websites. This does not make you an expert either!

by ajay on 02/20/2008 08:48:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is the US a 'responsible' nuclear power? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: