Who has Nukes?

Have you ever wondered ‘Who has Nukes and how many do they have?’

Then you will find this interesting. Especially if you feel that Russia has no weaponry or that they are no threat to anybody.

Country / # or Nukes / # of operational Nukes
Russia / 14000 / 5192
USA / 5400 / 4075
UK / 185 / 160
France / 348 / 348
China / 240 / 193
Israel / 80 / Unknown
India / 50 / Unknown
Pakistan / 60 / Unknown
N.Korea / 10 / Unknown

Yes, but does Russia have the missle capabilities to send the nukes? And if so how well are this nukes maintained and how old are they?

Enough to do the job....

ICBM

SS-18: 75
SS-19: 100
SS-25: 201
SS-27: 48
SS-27M: 6


SLBM

SS-N-18: 80
SS-N-23: 64
SS-N-23M1: 32

Strategc Bombers

Tu-95H6: 32
Tu-95H16: 32
Tu-160: 15

A source would be nice, as it is your post is meaningless, anyone can come up with some numbers.

ATS user / # or Nukes / # of operational Nukes
VIKINGANT / 6541 / 1235
BBTBE / 6566 / 1265
ArMaP / 156489 / 156488 (one has a loose screw)

Sorry,
I meant to add ths on my second post...
www.fas.org...

I think the future of weapons will be ones that can be used and then denied if things do not work as planned. Nukes are not that weapon. Mot dangerous is bio and nano weapons in my opinion. Nukes are so 20th century.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


That's better, thanks.


reply to post by UFOTECH

A stone is still effective, as long as they work as intended there is no need for change.

I guess that when they reach the conclusion that they need different weapons they will create them, unless they have already reached that conclusion.

More to the point, who has the missing suitcase bombs ?

world-poli-ticker.blogspot.com...

I have them. What? I am a arms dealer and I couldn't resist. Daddy needs some new shoes I sold them to some interesting guys who payed some big cash for them. In all seriousness you could put all the names of the usual countries such as Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Tajikstan, Afghanistan, Sean Connery, Kryzygstan, Uzbekistan...I can keep going

The USA numbers are in theory wrong because the vast majority of our warheads are still sitting in storage from the cold war while they dismantle them..or wait to be dismantled...

I know there are a good several thousand warheads sitting at Pentax in Texas and more in California not sure about the rest...

Found that info while searching for locations of underground bases and playing connect the dots

So do you think Russia will use them against us?

reply to post by alien life uk


The USSR only built most of those portable tactical nukes for a few years in the late 60' and early 70's. Their explosives would now have decayed and have to be replaced and the fissile materials in them would also need to be repackaged and reshaped the metal in the cylinder casings would now be brittlized and would also have to be replaced.

It might be easier to start from scratch than to rebuild those old cold war relics. The people who might try and deploy them would likely just die from uranium burns and poison and the area they tried to set them off in would have to be decontaminated but they would not likely produce a fissile yield to be concerned about. An atomic weapon is old if it is more than 5 or 6 years old. A 40+ year old device is more likely to kill its user from leakage than any thing else.

It is truely amazing how many people still think that Russia has no capability of making decent weaponary....:shk:

They have the most high tech and best maintained equipment...not to mention volumes. I do no think that the whole 14000 are totally non operational.

Will they use them? Who knows? If they are pushed hard enough maybe. They have a lot less to lose and alot more to gain.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Why do you say that they have a lot less to lose?

If the US got into a real world war with Russia the US and Russia will burn from coast to coast. Anyone that doesn't realize that is still the reality is living in a fantasy alternate reality universe.

reply to post by ArMaP


First of all, the population of Russia is only a third of the USA, and with almost twice the land mass there ‘less to lose’. If the next big battle goes nuclear, I don’t think anybody wants worldwide annihilation, so a few small strategic nukes will be launched. This would be at certain major cities to cripple the enemy country. That would leave the rest of the country to regather itself and restart. A large part of Russia is currently unpopulated. Should there be a Nuclear strike on say Moscow, a lot of the people could move up north or East, away from the disaster.

If Russia has 14000 nukes, (operational or not) they would have to have had a back up plan. Since this many would clearly be overkill, and nobody want to wipe themselves out, my guess is that they have shelters to cater for a fair proportion of the population.

Failing that plan, if there is no back up, and things did go nuclear, maybe they have that many so there will be no chance of ANY survival so an attack on Russia is a suicide move.

Like I said, if they are pushed hard enough, maybe they will go down that path.

Even if there were survivors, Russia has not made big claims of being the most powerful nation etc so they have ‘less to lose’ by way of credibility as well.

The final reason I say they have ‘less to lose’ is (again supposing there are survivors) that they are self sufficient with oil and gas supplied, where to US are largely dependant on the M.E. which by all likelihood is where much of the next ‘big war’ or Nuking will be. If they lose access to that region due to nukes they will be without their supplies. Meaning they potentially have more to lose on that front.

This is just my theory so feel free to attack it in any way you like, just don’t be looking for hard evidence to support it.