Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Sociology

US nuclear forces, 2013

Profile image of Robert Standish NorrisRobert Standish Norris

2013, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340213477999
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

As of early 2013, the United States has continued to reduce its nuclear stockpile, and retirement alone has accounted for a dip of over 250 warheads since last year. Of the total stockpile of approximately 4,650 warheads, an estimated 2,150 warheads are deployed. The arsenal is composed of roughly 1,950 strategic warheads deployed with approximately 800 missiles and bombers, as well as nearly 200 nonstrategic warheads deployed in Europe. In this article, the authors scrutinize the US nuclear arsenal.

Related papers

U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2010
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure
Amy Woolf

2006

The Bush Administration conducted a review of U.S. nuclear weapons force posture during its first year in office. Although the review sought to adjust U.S. nuclear posture to address changes in the international security environment at the start of the new century, it continued many of the policies and programs that had been a part of the U.S. nuclear posture during the previous decade and during the Cold War. This report, which will be updated as needed, provides an overview of the U.S. nuclear posture to highlight areas of change and areas of continuity. During the Cold War, the United States sought to deter the Soviet Union and its allies from attacking the United States and its allies by convincing the Soviet Union that any level of conflict could escalate into a nuclear exchange and, in that exchange, the United States would plan to destroy the full range of valued targets in the Soviet Union. Other nations were included in U.S. nuclear war plans due to their alliances with the Soviet Union. After the Cold War, the United States maintained a substantial nuclear arsenal to deter potential threats from Russia. It would not forswear the first use of nuclear weapons in conflicts with other nations, such as those armed with chemical or biological weapons, and formed contingency plans for such conflicts. The Bush Administration has emphasized that the United States and Russia are no longer enemies and that the United States will no longer plan or size its nuclear force to deter a "Russian threat." Instead, the United States will maintain a nuclear arsenal with the capabilities needed to counter capabilities of any potential adversary, focusing on "how we will fight" rather than "who we will fight." Furthermore, U.S. nuclear weapons will combine with missile defenses, conventional weapons, and a responsive infrastructure in seeking to assure U.S. allies, dissuade U.S. adversaries, deter conflict, and defeat adversaries if conflict should occur. During the Cold War the United States maintained a "triad" of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers in a strategic nuclear arsenal of more than 10,000 warheads. During the 1990s, the United States reduced the size of this arsenal to around 7,000 warheads , but maintained all three legs of the triad. The Bush Administration has announced that the United States will further reduce its arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 "operationally deployed" warheads, but that it will not eliminate many delivery vehicles while reducing its force and it will retain many nondeployed warheads in storage as a "responsive force" that could be added to the deployed forces if conditions warranted. The Bush Administration has also announced that it will expand and enhance the infrastructure that supports U.S. nuclear weapons, so that the United States could respond to unexpected changes in the status of its arsenal or the international security environment. Analysts and observers have identified several issues raised by the Administration's Nuclear Posture Review. These include the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy, how to make the U.S. nuclear deterrent "credible," the relationship between the U.S. nuclear posture and the goal of discouraging nuclear proliferation, plans for strategic nuclear weapons, and the future of non-strategic nuclear weapons.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. nuclear forces, 2005
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Resource Paper on the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal
William Arkin

Bulletin of the atomic scientists, 1984

Since its inception the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has sought to increase public knowledge of nuclear weapons issues. This supplement-a condensation and updating of the 340-page first volume of the authors' Nuclear Weapons Databook-continues that tradition. Published earlier this year under the auspices of the Natural Resources Defense Council, volume one of the Databook is a comprehensive and detailed compilation of U.S. nuclear forces and capabilities. (The second volume, The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Complex, is in preparation.) This condensed version is a concise reference work of nine sections: the Reagan Administration's nuclear weapons buildup; the current US. stockpile; the land-based missile force; the sea-based missile force; the strategic bomber force; nonstrategic nuclear forces on land; the Navy's non-strategic nuclear weapons; and weapons research and development. The authors conclude by outlining the future.shape of US. nuclear forces; they note that the Reagan Administration does not appear to consider arms control a viable way of improving U.S. security. The Bulletin acknowledges the support of the Ruth Mott Fund in the preparation of this supplement.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2002
William Arkin

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
The Current State of the US Nuclear Arsenal
Maxx Villotti

2016

The US nuclear arsenal has reached a critical point in its existence. Approaching the end of their service lives, the weapons that make up the current arsenal must either be upgraded or replaced in order to maintain their effectiveness as deterrents. Nuclear deterrence is still necessary to prevent other states from deploying nuclear weapons, and the arsenal in its current state will not be able to serve this purpose in the near future. To create a long-term, reliable nuclear deterrent, it is recommended that the current weapons in the US nuclear arsenal be replaced with a Reliable Replacement Weapon. Current Life Extension Programs are short-term solutions that do not guarantee the United States will have a modern, reliable nuclear force well into the twenty-first century.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. nuclear forces, 2008
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. nuclear forces, 2009
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2017
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2017

The authors estimate that as of mid-2017, there are nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, located at some 107 sites in 14 countries. Roughly, 9400 of these weapons are in military arsenals; the remaining weapons are retired and awaiting dismantlement. Nearly 4000 are operationally available, and some 1800 are on high alert and ready for use on short notice. This article reviews the locations of nuclear weapons in all nine nuclear-armed states, as well as those of US weapons deployed outside the United States.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure [Updated February 23, 2004]
Amy Woolf

2004

Military; Military/Defense policy and doctrine; Military/Military roles; Military/War and warfare; Politics and government; Politics and government/Intergovernmental relations; Politics and government/International relations; Weapons and weapon systems; Weapons and weapon systems/Nuclear and radiological weapons; Weapons and weapon systems/Warheads

View PDFchevron_right

References (26)

  1. Air Force Global Strike Command (2012) Year of the B-52. Inside AFGSC, May 3. Available at: http:// tinyurl.com/bzr4xcb.
  2. Air Force Magazine (2011) No weapon storage area for Barksdale. February 23. Available at: www. airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/ February%202011/February%2023%202011/ NoWeaponsStorageAreaforBarksdale.aspx.
  3. Balken S (2012) 91st MW successfully completes simu- lated launch. Air Force Print News Today, May 9. Available at: www.minot.af.mil/news/story_ print. asp?id¼123299257.
  4. Brougham WJ (2012) Ohio replacement program: Report presented to the 2012 Navy Submarine League. October 18. Available at: http://news.usni. org/news-analysis/documents/ohio-replace- ment-program.
  5. Cook D (2013) Hearing of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Federal News Service, February 14.
  6. Defense Department (2010) Nuclear Posture Review Report. Office of the Secretary of Defense, April. Available at: www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010% 20Nuclear20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf. Defense Department (2012a) Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. January. Available at: www.defense.gov/news/ Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf.
  7. Defense Department (2012b) Report on the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the Russian Federation Pursuant to Section 1240 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. May. Available at: www.fas. org/programs/ssp/nukes/ nuclearweapons/DOD2012_RussianNukes.pdf.
  8. Donilon T (2011) The Prague agenda: The road ahead. Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, March 29. Available at: geneva. usmission.gov/2011/03/31/donilon-future- nuclear-policy/.
  9. Draper Laboratory (2006) Keeping Trident ever ready. Explorations (Spring): 8"10.
  10. Ferrell J (2012) No nukes at BAFB creates readiness worries. KSLA-TV, February 16. Available at: www.ksla.com/story/16955777/no-nukes-at-bafb- global-strikes-home.
  11. Grossman E (2012) US Air Force approves concept for future ICBM, eyes Navy collaboration. Global Security Newswire, June 1. Available at: www.nti. org/gsn/article/us-air-force-approves-concept- future-icbm-eyes-navy-collaboration/.
  12. Kristensen HM (2011a) British submarines to receive upgraded US nuclear warhead. FAS Strategic Security Blog, April 1. Available at: www.fas.org/ blog/ssp/2011/04/britishw76-1.php.
  13. Kristensen HM (2011b) B61 LEP: Increasing NATO nuclear capability and precision low-yield strikes. FAS Strategic Security Blog, June 15. Available at: www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2011/06/b61-12.php.
  14. Kristensen HM (2012a) DOD: Strategic stability not threatened even by greater Russian nuclear forces. FAS Strategic Security Blog, October 10. Available at: www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/10/ strategicstability.php.
  15. Kristensen HM (2012b) New detailed data for US nuclear forces counted under New START Treaty. FAS Strategic Security Blog, November 30. Available at: www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2012/11/ newstart2012-2.php.
  16. Kristensen HM (2012c) Modernizing NATOÕs nuclear forces: Implications for the allianceÕs defense pos- ture and arms control. Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg. November. Available at: http://tacticalnuclear weapons.ifsh.de/pdf/Nuclear_Policy_Paper_ No11.pdf.
  17. Kristensen HM and Norris RS (2011) Reviewing nuclear guidance: Putting ObamaÕs words into action. Arms Control Today, November. Available at: tinyurl. com/7x3oamq.
  18. Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division (2008) Underwater wonder, submarines: A powerful deterrent. Warfighter Solutions (Fall): 13.
  19. Norris RS and Kristensen HM (2011) US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, 2011. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1(67): 64"73.
  20. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2012) Deterrence and defense posture review. Press release 063, May 20. Available at: www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/ official_texts_87597.htm?mode¼pressrelease.
  21. OÕRourke R (2012) Navy Ohio replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarine program: Background and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, December 10. Available at: www.fas.org/ sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf.
  22. Pampe C (2012) Life extension programs send missiles into the future. Inside AFGSC, October 24. Available at: www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story. asp?id¼12332 3606.
  23. Richard M (2012) 102nd Air Operations Group aug- ments 608th Air Operations Center during ÔGlobal Lightning 2012.Õ Air Force Print News Today, June 18. Available at: www.102iw.ang.af. mil/news/story_ print.asp?id¼123306280.
  24. Smith RJ (2013) Obama administration embraces major new nuclear weapons cut. Center for Public Integrity, February 8. Available at: www. publicintegrity.org/2013/02/08/12156/obama- administration-embraces-major-new-nuclear- weapons-cut.
  25. State Department (2012) New START treaty imple- mentation update. Fact sheet, May 17. Available at: www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/183335.htm.
  26. Tryon M (2012) Another year, another SELM test com- plete for the Mighty Ninety. Air Force Print News Today, October 12. Available at: www.afgsc.af.mil/ news/story_print.asp?id¼123322003.

Related papers

US nuclear forces, 2012
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2012

As of early 2012, the United States maintained an estimated 2,150 operational warheads. The arsenal is composed of roughly 1,950 strategic warheads deployed on 798 strategic delivery vehicles, as well as nearly 200 nonstrategic warheads deployed in Europe. In addition, the United States maintains approximately 2,800 warheads in reserve, bringing the total stockpile to nearly 5,000 warheads. In this article, the authors take a hard look at the US nuclear arsenal, and explore the next steps in the nationÕs nuclear strategy.

View PDFchevron_right
US nuclear forces, 2011
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2011

The Obama administrationÕs disclosure of its stockpiled and dismantled warhead numbers through September 2009 was, apparently, a Òone-time releaseÓ; thus, the question remains as to how quicklyÑor slowlyÑthe countryÕs arsenal will decline. Turning to the Nuclear Posture Review and New START, the authors assess what can be expected in terms of force levels and counting rules, and they provide clear analysis of US land-based ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, strategic bombers, and nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Development, and Issues [February 23, 2009]
Amy Woolf

2009

During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to less than 6,000 warheads today, and is slated, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, to decline to 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. The United States and Russia are discussing a potential new treaty that will further reduce U.S. forces to between 1,500 and 1,675 deployed warheads. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 450 Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with between one and three warheads, for a total of 1,200 warheads. The Air Force has deactivated all 50 of the 10-warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs; it plans to eventually deploy Peacekeeper warheads on some of the Minuteman ICBMs. It has also recently deactivated 50 Minuteman III missiles. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components. The Air Force had expected to begin replacing the Minuteman missiles around 2018, but has decided, instead, to continue to modernize and maintain the existing missiles. The U.S. ballistic missile submarine fleet currently consists of 14 Trident submarines; each carries 24 Trident II (D-5) missiles. The Navy has converted 4 of the original 18 Trident submarines to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles. The remaining submarines currently carry around 2,000 warheads in total, a number that will likely decline as the United States implements the Moscow Treaty. The Navy has shifted the basing of the submarines, so that nine are deployed in the Pacific Ocean and five are in the Atlantic, to better cover targets in and around Asia. It also has undertaken efforts to extend the life of the missiles and warheads so that they and the submarines can remain in the fleet past 2020. The U.S. fleet of heavy bombers currently includes 20 B-2 bombers and 94 B-52 bombers. The B-1 bomber no longer is equipped for nuclear missions. The 2006 QDR recommended that the Air Force reduce the B-52 fleet to 56 aircraft; Congress rejected that recommendation, but will allow the fleet to decline to 76 aircraft. The Air Force has also begun to retire the nuclear-armed cruise missiles carried by B-52 bombers, leaving only about half the B-52 fleet equipped to carry nuclear weapons. Congress has reviewed the Bush Administration's plans for U.S. strategic nuclear forces during the annual authorization and appropriations process. It has reviewed a number of questions about the future size of that force. For example, some have questioned why the United States must retain 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads. Congress may also question the Administration's plans for reductions in the Minuteman force and B-52 fleet. This report will be updated as needed.

View PDFchevron_right
United States nuclear forces, 2018
Robert Standish Norris

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2018

The US nuclear arsenal remained roughly unchanged in the last year, with the Defense Department maintaining an estimated stockpile of some 4,000 warheads to be delivered via ballistic missiles and aircraft. Most of these warheads are not deployed but stored, and many are destined to be retired. Of the approximately 1,800 warheads that are deployed, roughly 1,650 are on ballistic missiles or at bomber bases in the United States, with another 150 tactical bombs deployed at European bases.

View PDFchevron_right
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues
Amy Woolf

2006

During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to less than 6,000 warheads today, and is slated, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, to decline to 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. The United States and Russia are discussing a potential new treaty that will further reduce U.S. forces to between 1,500 and 1,675 deployed warheads. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 450 Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with between one and three warheads, for a total of 1,200 warheads. The Air Force has deactivated all 50 of the 10-warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs; it plans to eventually deploy Peacekeeper warheads on some of the Minuteman ICBMs. It has also recently deactivated 50 Minuteman III missiles. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components. The Air Force had expected to begin replacing the Minuteman missiles around 2018, but has decided, instead, to continue to modernize and maintain the existing missiles. The U.S. ballistic missile submarine fleet currently consists of 14 Trident submarines; each carries 24 Trident II (D-5) missiles. The Navy has converted 4 of the original 18 Trident submarines to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles. The remaining submarines currently carry around 2,000 warheads in total, a number that will likely decline as the United States implements the Moscow Treaty. The Navy has shifted the basing of the submarines, so that nine are deployed in the Pacific Ocean and five are in the Atlantic, to better cover targets in and around Asia. It also has undertaken efforts to extend the life of the missiles and warheads so that they and the submarines can remain in the fleet past 2020. The U.S. fleet of heavy bombers currently includes 20 B-2 bombers and 94 B-52 bombers. The B-1 bomber no longer is equipped for nuclear missions. The 2006 QDR recommended that the Air Force reduce the B-52 fleet to 56 aircraft; Congress rejected that recommendation, but will allow the fleet to decline to 76 aircraft. The Air Force has also begun to retire the nuclear-armed cruise missiles carried by B-52 bombers, leaving only about half the B-52 fleet equipped to carry nuclear weapons. Congress has reviewed the Bush Administration's plans for U.S. strategic nuclear forces during the annual authorization and appropriations process. It has reviewed a number of questions about the future size of that force. For example, some have questioned why the United States must retain 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads. Congress may also question the Administration's plans for reductions in the Minuteman force and B-52 fleet. This report will be updated as needed.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology

    • Cited by

    Global nuclear weapons inventories, 1945–2013
    Robert Standish Norris

    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2013

    The authors calculate that some 125,000 nuclear warheads have been built since 1945, about 97 percent of them by the United States and the Soviet Union and Russia. The nine nations with nuclear weapons now possess more than 10,000 nuclear warheads in their military stockpiles, the authors estimate, with several thousand additional US and Russian retired warheads in storage, awaiting dismantlement. The nuclear stockpiles of China, as well as Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, are minuscule in comparison with the US and Russian arsenals, but more difficult to estimate. Still, the authors believe that ChinaÕs nuclear weapons stockpile has surpassed Great BritainÕs. Although the total number of nuclear warheads in the world is decreasing because of US and Russian reductions, all the nations with nuclear weapons continue to modernize or upgrade their nuclear arsenals.

    View PDFchevron_right
    How Nuclear-Weapon States Parties to the Non-proliferation Treaty Understand Nuclear Disarmament
    Jorge Morales Pedraza

    Public Organization Review, 2016

    Disarmament measures included in the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) are, for most of the nuclear-weapon states, an objective to be reached in a very long-term. Based on this position, the current nuclear-weapon states parties to the NPT believe that they do not have to show, at this stage, the necessary political will to begin the nuclear disarmament process at the multilateral level and under international supervision, as requested so many times by the international community on the basis of article VI of the NPT. For this reason, all of them are in the process of modernising their nuclear weapons arsenals, ignoring their commitments and obligations as NPT states parties.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved