Hard Facts on Nuclear Proliferation
The bad-old-days of the Cold War were a long time ago, but I still remember them like they were yesterday. A bad acid trip I had yesterday. Considering the media-induced lack of institutional memory among the general populace, most of whom were at the party with me yesterday, I thought it might be a good time to review the basics on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. Just to make sure we're all on the same page.
Last week I heard some punk political organizer from Iowans for Sensible Priorities repeatedly state that the United States has 10,000 nuclear missiles. After the fourth of fifth time he said this I had to humiliate him in public. Even at the height of the spend-them-into-the-dust years of the arms buildup in the 1980's the U.S. never had more than about 1,000 missiles. Warheads yes, missiles no. These are important distinctions. It must be nice to grow up in ignorance of such concepts as mutually assured destruction and launch on warning.
We are edging ever closer to conflict with Iran over its weapons program. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran is pushing hard to build its centrifuge program. But no one who knows anything is betting on them getting a working nuke before 2010 at the very earliest. Our dauntless intelligence spooks have produced a "stolen laptop" from Iran, alleged to have weapons plans on it. In English, not Farsi. And Iran's President has declared their nuclear program "a train without brakes," which means he is probably thinks he has us by the short hairs. And he's probably right.
But before we get all shock-and-awe on anyone's ass, let's review shall we? All figures given here are from either the Union of Concerned Scientists or The Center for Defense Information.
All this is deja-vu all over again. Growing up in the 1970's and '80's I studied nuclear arms as an emphasis in my political science days while still entertaining dreams of being a Naval officer. So, it seems stupid and sad to see us going back down this path again.
And yes. I heard Dan Schorr this morning and am ripping him off. This is in the form of a quiz. Answers at the bottom.
1. How many nations possess nuclear weapons?
2. How many nations do not possess nuclear weapons?
3. How many nations have given up nuclear weapons or weapons programs?
4. What states are on the "threshold" of building nuclear weapons and could develop them quickly should they feel the need to do so?
Bonus Questions
5. What is the genreally accepted "total destruction" radius of a 15 kiloton (Hiroshima) bomb?
6. What is the generally accepted "total destruction" radius of a 1MT (standard strategic nuke) bomb?
7. Which produces more fallout and radiation, a truck based bomb detonated at ground level or a military airburst a 1000m?
Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs) mounted under the wing of a B-52.
Answers
1. Nine. Here they are with their known arsenals1. The numbers are in the format: Total Weapons, Strategic high-yield, presumably ICBM delivered/Tactical low-yield, presumably aircraft, IRBM, Cruise Missle delivered,
2. 183 nations are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have vowed not to produce nuclear weapons. To-date only one signatory nation, North Korea, has renounced its status under the treaty.
3. Four. South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus (legacy USSR weapons).
4. Lots. Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Republic of China, Brazil, Syria, and Nigeria are the "threshold" states that one would rather not see have any nukes. Japan and South Korea both are known to have "crash program" plans on the books should the need arise.
5. Pretty much everything 1500 meters in all directions is vaporized. The heat effects will cause most flammable substances (including clothing and flesh) to ignite out to 2300 meters.
6. Blast effects vaporize everything for 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) Heat effects will burn everything that will burn out to 7km radius2.
7. A ground-based explosive of the kind most likely to be used by non-state actors will shorten the damage radius but will "kick up" more of the radioactive debris that contributes to fallout. From a 15kt yield and depending on weather conditions and wind speed, people 30-40 miles downwind will receive doses fatal within days or weeks, those 40-60 miles downwind will have about aa 50-50 chance of survival. Long-term health effects will harm those 60-500 miles downwind.
The Clinton Administration, to its lasting shame, gave both Pakistan and India a slap on the wrist and a pass when they went nuclear. George H. W. Bush has merely added to his unsurpassed, nay eponymous shame by cutting a separate deal with India to let them continue to have the bomb and has let the politics of expediency allow Pakistan to continue its course despite the fact that Pakistan basically opened up a cash-and-carry DIY nuke store in the 1990's.
This shit isn't tiddly-winks with 737's into buildings or a few cc's of sarin or anthrax. When the balloon goes up -- as it assuredly will when some mad sheik or similarly crazy rich asshole finally gets their hands on one -- hundreds of thousands if not millions will die. Feel that pain, Bubba.
Sources:
1. CDI: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html
2. FAS - Nuclear Weapons Effects Calculatior, http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367
Last week I heard some punk political organizer from Iowans for Sensible Priorities repeatedly state that the United States has 10,000 nuclear missiles. After the fourth of fifth time he said this I had to humiliate him in public. Even at the height of the spend-them-into-the-dust years of the arms buildup in the 1980's the U.S. never had more than about 1,000 missiles. Warheads yes, missiles no. These are important distinctions. It must be nice to grow up in ignorance of such concepts as mutually assured destruction and launch on warning.
We are edging ever closer to conflict with Iran over its weapons program. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran is pushing hard to build its centrifuge program. But no one who knows anything is betting on them getting a working nuke before 2010 at the very earliest. Our dauntless intelligence spooks have produced a "stolen laptop" from Iran, alleged to have weapons plans on it. In English, not Farsi. And Iran's President has declared their nuclear program "a train without brakes," which means he is probably thinks he has us by the short hairs. And he's probably right.
But before we get all shock-and-awe on anyone's ass, let's review shall we? All figures given here are from either the Union of Concerned Scientists or The Center for Defense Information.
All this is deja-vu all over again. Growing up in the 1970's and '80's I studied nuclear arms as an emphasis in my political science days while still entertaining dreams of being a Naval officer. So, it seems stupid and sad to see us going back down this path again.
And yes. I heard Dan Schorr this morning and am ripping him off. This is in the form of a quiz. Answers at the bottom.
1. How many nations possess nuclear weapons?
2. How many nations do not possess nuclear weapons?
3. How many nations have given up nuclear weapons or weapons programs?
4. What states are on the "threshold" of building nuclear weapons and could develop them quickly should they feel the need to do so?
Bonus Questions
5. What is the genreally accepted "total destruction" radius of a 15 kiloton (Hiroshima) bomb?
6. What is the generally accepted "total destruction" radius of a 1MT (standard strategic nuke) bomb?
7. Which produces more fallout and radiation, a truck based bomb detonated at ground level or a military airburst a 1000m?
Answers
1. Nine. Here they are with their known arsenals1. The numbers are in the format: Total Weapons, Strategic high-yield, presumably ICBM delivered/Tactical low-yield, presumably aircraft, IRBM, Cruise Missle delivered,
- United States; ˜10,500, 7,200/3,300
- Russia: ˜10,000, 4,000/6,000
- France: 464, 384/80
- People's Republic of China: 410, 20/390
- Israel: ˜200, 0/200
- United Kingdom: 180, 185/0
- India: ˜60?, 0/60
- Pakistan: ˜20?, 0/20
- North Korea: ˜8? 0/8
2. 183 nations are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have vowed not to produce nuclear weapons. To-date only one signatory nation, North Korea, has renounced its status under the treaty.
3. Four. South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus (legacy USSR weapons).
4. Lots. Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Republic of China, Brazil, Syria, and Nigeria are the "threshold" states that one would rather not see have any nukes. Japan and South Korea both are known to have "crash program" plans on the books should the need arise.
5. Pretty much everything 1500 meters in all directions is vaporized. The heat effects will cause most flammable substances (including clothing and flesh) to ignite out to 2300 meters.
6. Blast effects vaporize everything for 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) Heat effects will burn everything that will burn out to 7km radius2.
7. A ground-based explosive of the kind most likely to be used by non-state actors will shorten the damage radius but will "kick up" more of the radioactive debris that contributes to fallout. From a 15kt yield and depending on weather conditions and wind speed, people 30-40 miles downwind will receive doses fatal within days or weeks, those 40-60 miles downwind will have about aa 50-50 chance of survival. Long-term health effects will harm those 60-500 miles downwind.
The Clinton Administration, to its lasting shame, gave both Pakistan and India a slap on the wrist and a pass when they went nuclear. George H. W. Bush has merely added to his unsurpassed, nay eponymous shame by cutting a separate deal with India to let them continue to have the bomb and has let the politics of expediency allow Pakistan to continue its course despite the fact that Pakistan basically opened up a cash-and-carry DIY nuke store in the 1990's.
This shit isn't tiddly-winks with 737's into buildings or a few cc's of sarin or anthrax. When the balloon goes up -- as it assuredly will when some mad sheik or similarly crazy rich asshole finally gets their hands on one -- hundreds of thousands if not millions will die. Feel that pain, Bubba.
Sources:
1. CDI: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html
2. FAS - Nuclear Weapons Effects Calculatior, http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367
posted by -cman- at 2/25/2007 09:21:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home