Who has the most nukes?

[Skroe]

What about Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea? (as in, why are they not in the chart, I don't think they'd win).

Russia has most nukes, followed by USA and then at a huge difference the others.

Pakistan, Israel, India and North Korea all have the same two problems.

(1) None of them have mastered thermonuclear weapons.
Of them, the most advanced is India, whose largest warhead is 60kt. Pakistan's largest warhead is 40kt. North Korea may be about 5kt, if that.

By comparison, US warheads range from 250kt to 450kt to 1.5Mt. Russia and China are even larger

Except for the US, UK, France, Russia and China, the nuclear-followers rely almost exclusively on Fission weapons or small Fission-boosted fusion bombs. But many times smaller than the older 5s yield.



(2) Their missiles mostly are garbage.

Rocketry is hard. Most countries in the world rely on liquid fueled rockets for ballistic missiles and space missiles. Historically, aside from the most primitive of rockets, liquid engines came first. This is because you can control the reaction via valves and injectors, like an engine. This contrasts with Solid Fueled, which once the fuse is lit, will fire until the fuel is expended.

Solids are much harder, and plenty of launch pads have been blown up testing them.

The countries you listed do have solid rockets. But they're all very limited ranged and usually based on heritage soviet designs. Their longer ranged ones are invariably liquid fueled. But liquid fueled missiles are worthless against any country that has long range solid fueled missiles - they will simply launch while you are fueling your missiles.

For India and Pakistan, which are really only interested in potentially nuking each other (and in India's case, China sometimes), there is no real need to spend lavishly on long range solid missile technology because Pakistan is in range of it's existing solids. The driving motivation would be economic: solids are cheaper to own (but again, difficult to master).

Solids are also very desirable for missiles in Submarines, but not essential (Delta IVs use liquid missiles).

[Slant]

Your talking to a poster who supports a would-be bricklayer as president, aka not the sharpest tool in the box.

I know, but I can't be arsed to handle infractions any longer for people like him. He and his kind are not worth it.

[Milchshake]

Your talking to a poster who supports a would-be bricklayer as president, aka not the sharpest tool in the box.

You need adult-sized hands to be a bricklayer. Though his candidate could work with Duplo bricks, just perfect for baby hands.

Anyways I love information graphics like this. Never realized that Russia was hanging onto such a large stockpile. Though despite Putin's guff about AMB, his stockpile is still on a downwards trend.

[Ulmita]

That claim - about nuclear apocalypse - is very questionable, at best, and, as far as I know, no scientific researches have been made that have proven this hypothesis. So, likely, yes, it it relevant.

There are plenty of scientific researches out there. I am very curious, do you really think earth will be the same after a full nuclear exchange between USA and Russia?

1. Environmental consequences of nuclear war (Owen B. Toon, Alan Robock, and Richard P. Turco)
Brian Toonis chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the laboratory for atmospheric and space physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Alan Robockis a professor of atmospheric science at Rutgers University in NewBrunswick, New Jersey. Rich Turcois a professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

A relatively modest 5 Tg of soot, which could be generated in an exchange between India and Pakistan, wouldbe sufficient to produce the lowest temperatures Earth has experienced in the past 1000 years—lower than during the post-medieval Little Ice Age or in 1816, the so-called yearwithout a summer. With 75 Tg of soot, less than half of what we project in a hypothetical SORT war, temperatures would correspond to the last full Ice Age, and precipitation woulddecline by more than 25% globally.

2. The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange, National Research Council, USA
Read Full Book Here

3. Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

O. B. Toon1, R. P. Turco 2, A. Robock 3, C. Bardeen 1, L. Oman 3, and G. L. Stenchikov 3
1.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado,

Boulder, CO, USA
2. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, USA
3. Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ, USA


4. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences

Twenty years ago, the results of climate model simulations of the response to smoke

and dust from a massive nuclear exchange between the superpowers could be summarized
as ‘‘nuclear winter,’’ with rapid temperature, precipitation, and insolation drops at the
surface that would threaten global agriculture for at least a year. The global nuclear arsenal
has fallen by a factor of three since then, but there has been an expansion of the number of
nuclear weapons states, with additional states trying to develop nuclear arsenals. We use a
modern climate model to reexamine the climate response to a range of nuclear wars,
producing 50 and 150 Tg of smoke, using moderate and large portions of the current
global arsenal, and find that there would be significant climatic responses to all the
scenarios. This is the first time that an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model has

been used for such a simulation and the first time that 10-year simulations have been
conducted. The response to the 150 Tg scenario can still be characterized as ‘‘nuclear
winter,’’ but both produce global catastrophic consequences. The changes are more
long-lasting than previously thought, however, because the new model, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, is
able to represent the atmosphere up to 80 km, and simulates plume rise to the middle and
upper stratosphere, producing a long aerosol lifetime. The indirect effects of nuclear

weapons would have devastating consequences for the planet, and continued nuclear
arsenal reductions will be needed before the threat of nuclear winter is removed
from the Earth.

Can keep linking non stop for hours.

[GreenJesus]

LUL. I read this as "the most nudes"

[Deleted]

Pakistan, Israel, India and North Korea all have the same two problems.

(1) None of them have mastered thermonuclear weapons.
Of them, the most advanced is India, whose largest warhead is 60kt. Pakistan's largest warhead is 40kt. North Korea may be about 5kt, if that.

By comparison, US warheads range from 250kt to 450kt to 1.5Mt. Russia and China are even larger

Except for the US, UK, France, Russia and China, the nuclear-followers rely almost exclusively on Fission weapons or small Fission-boosted fusion bombs. But many times smaller than the older 5s yield.



(2) Their missiles mostly are garbage.

Rocketry is hard. Most countries in the world rely on liquid fueled rockets for ballistic missiles and space missiles. Historically, aside from the most primitive of rockets, liquid engines came first. This is because you can control the reaction via valves and injectors, like an engine. This contrasts with Solid Fueled, which once the fuse is lit, will fire until the fuel is expended.

Solids are much harder, and plenty of launch pads have been blown up testing them.

The countries you listed do have solid rockets. But they're all very limited ranged and usually based on heritage soviet designs. Their longer ranged ones are invariably liquid fueled. But liquid fueled missiles are worthless against any country that has long range solid fueled missiles - they will simply launch while you are fueling your missiles.

For India and Pakistan, which are really only interested in potentially nuking each other (and in India's case, China sometimes), there is no real need to spend lavishly on long range solid missile technology because Pakistan is in range of it's existing solids. The driving motivation would be economic: solids are cheaper to own (but again, difficult to master).

Solids are also very desirable for missiles in Submarines, but not essential (Delta IVs use liquid missiles).

Thank you for explaining that. What of Israel though?

- - - Updated - - -

No. Just no.

Only idiots advocate the reduction of nuclear weapons to numbers where they would not have any global impacts. You know why? Because the threshold for actually using nuclear weapons would be lower.

I advocate the reduction of nuclear weapons. Because there's no need for so many nukes... in fact, I do believe there's barely any need for any nukes at all. On all sides.
And I believe that because I don't live in paranoia-land, thinking everyone has 100s of nukes hidden somewhere and is just waiting to nuke me. Russia and USA are special cases since they reached those huge numbers each to show the other they're better. Thankfully they're lowering the numbers, but really, countries like UK, France have a reasonable amount of nukes.

[Deleted]

Anyone shitting it over nuclear winter needs to remember that thousands of nukes have already been detonated, a few thousand more will barely make a difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

[Breccia]

Who smokes the most cigarettes.

Nah man, those are creamsicles.

[Ulmita]

Anyone shitting it over nuclear winter needs to remember that thousands of nukes have already been detonated, a few thousand more will barely make a difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

Highly irrelevant as most of them were
a) controlled
b) underground or undersea
c) not setting cities on fire, airborne
d) in a minuscule scale in comparison to a nuclear war
e) read the researches from all these universities, Nobel awarded academics, and national institutes..

at this point its as if i am reading people that don't believe in global warming... its ridiculous

[caervek]

That claim - about nuclear apocalypse - is very questionable, at best, and, as far as I know, no scientific researches have been made that have proven this hypothesis.

Scientists proved it back in the 1980's, it's what made the MAD concept irrelevant because a country launching a nuclear first strike would be screwed even if the enemy never managed to launch a response. The resulting nuclear winter would be a near extinction level event.

Here's a quick explanation:

In a nuclear explosion, most of the energy of the bomb is released as pure heat, the nuclear tests of the 1950s and beyond were all carried out in deserts and in the atmosphere where nothing flammable really exists. If you "nuke" a large city with a modern nuclear weapon, a city full of materials, chemicals, plastics, woods, factories, etc - it releases a colossal amount of debris into the atmosphere. If you do this to many cities at once the result is that so much stuff ends up in the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet - the whole northern hemisphere drops.

The temperature in the northern hemisphere drops 10-20 degrees in the first 6-12 months, due to the smoke in the atmosphere.
All crops fail due to temperature/poor sunlight and can't be re-grown, no food. (this is happening to most of the planet)
The atmosphere is full of radioactive dust, water is poisoned and remains poisoned for a long time.
Due to reliance on food-aid, nearly all 3rd world countries perish, due to America having no crops to provide aid.

Basically the effect on the climate, of unleashing that many nuclear weapons upon that many cities in one go - wouldn't be that far off an extinction level event, billions die, nobody needs to retaliate - and this is why in the 1980s, the scientific community including Russian and American scientists all agreed, that a pre-emptive strike is suicide, even if the other side doesn't get a single warhead away.

[Ulmita]

Absolutely wrong. Again.

Total yield of nuclear test conducted in the atmosphere is about 500-600 megatons. The total yield of the world's operational and tactical is about 3200 megatons.

A fucking sixth of that amount has already been detonated in the atmosphere, and as so selflessly demonstrated by you, the average Joe hasn't got a fucking clue that it even happened.

I am not absolutely wrong, read the fucking links i posted. Its not me that i am saying it, its Nobel awarded physicists, universities, national USA organizations etc.
Get over it. I back up my claim you provide JACK SHIT as a counter argument.


SHOW ME A FUCKING OFFICIAL / ACADEMIC RESEARCH that backs up your claim. JUST ONE

[Deleted]

You can have some morbid fun with this to see effects of many types of nukes, including fallout projection etc....

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[Ulmita]

There cause you obviously can NOT read:

Twenty years ago, the results of climate model simulations of the response to smoke and dust from a massive nuclear exchange between the superpowers could be summarized as ‘‘nuclear winter,’’ with rapid temperature, precipitation, and insolation drops at the surface that would threaten global agriculture for at least a year. The global nuclear arsenal has fallen by a factor of three since then, but there has been an expansion of the number of nuclear weapons states, with additional states trying to develop nuclear arsenals. We use a modern climate model to reexamine the climate response to a range of nuclear wars,
producing 50 and 150 Tg of smoke, using moderate and large portions of the current global arsenal, and find that there would be significant climatic responses to all the scenarios. This is the first time that an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model has been used for such a simulation and the first time that 10-year simulations have been conducted. The response to the 150 Tg scenario can still be characterized as ‘‘nuclear winter,’’ but both produce global catastrophic consequences. The changes are more long-lasting than previously thought, however, because the new model, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, is able to represent the atmosphere up to 80 km, and simulates plume rise to the middle and upper stratosphere, producing a long aerosol lifetime. The indirect effects of nuclear weapons would have devastating consequences for the planet, and continued nuclear arsenal reductions will be needed before the threat of nuclear winter is removed from the Earth.

Edit: And the link

Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences

[Deleted]

Dunno if we are more or less safe since peak warhead at 1986.

I don't think there is a difference between burning the whole world twice or trice.

[Rafoel]

And nobody takes into account that the main targets of nuclear warheads will be the launchers of nuclear warheads? Long before even 5% of land is damaged, there will be nothing to shoot with.

[caervek]

Total yield of nuclear test conducted in the atmosphere is about 500-600 megatons. The total yield of the world's operational nuclear weapons is about 3200 megatons.

A ****ing sixth of that amount has already been detonated in the atmosphere

And the reason that 500-600 megatons was detonated in deserts/etc where the was nothing to burn is because the negative effects of doing it for real on a proper target are magnified massively. It's true that a 1/6th of the total 3200 has already been detonated but due to the controlled manner in which it was done the actual effect is far less than 1/100th would be.

[bladeXcrasher]

And nobody takes into account that the main targets of nuclear warheads will be the launchers of nuclear warheads? Long before even 5% of land is damaged, there will be nothing to shoot with.

That's because people are too busy posting copy-pastes of stuff that happened years ago as if it hasn't happened yet.

[Ulmita]

Absolutely wrong. Again.

Total yield of nuclear test conducted in the atmosphere is about 500-600 megatons.

The total yield of the world's operational nuclear weapons is about 3200 megatons.

Hahahahah where do you got that number exactly from?

No nation has officially declared the contents of its nuclear arsenal. That silence is a major impediment to controlling war-heads and preventing proliferation. Nonetheless, for China,France, Russia, the UK, and the US, various treaties and otherdata on delivery systems have allowed Robert Norris (NaturalResources Defense Council) and Hans Kristensen (Federation of American Scientists) to report regularly in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientistsabout numbers of warheads.

Source: Environmental consequences of nuclear war, page 40

The reality is that no one knows how many megatons any of nuclear countries poses. So dream on.


Bottom line Gabriel is this:

You kept screaming how an all out nuclear war would do shit. I proved you wrong with multiple sources of the highest level which have world renown researchers and scientists working on them from physicists to environmentalists, atmospheric and oceanic researchers etc, even nobel awarded people and official govermental agencies. They are all saying the same thing. No suck it up and admit you were wrong.

Here is another research for you to read: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...iAmJan2010.pdf

from top-in-their-specialization scientists.

All the research i linked have one thing in common: They revised, recalculated, reapproached the 1980's big research on the nuclear winter and not only they find it correct by they explain it even better with decade long simulations, experiments etc.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because people are too busy posting copy-pastes of stuff that happened years ago as if it hasn't happened yet.

"Nobody takes in consideration that:"

a) Most nukes are on mobile launchers (trains, trucks, ships, planes, subs) which makes them impossible to hit even in surprise nuke attack (thus why they put them in mobile platforms)
b) The silo nuke are the vast minority and are EXTREMELY hardened. In fact there are so hardened which you need special kind of missile to hit them. That means you need a plane to fly close and guide it with laser which wont happen in a nuclear exchange.

"According to Western estimates, the SS-18 was deployed in a silo with a hardness of at least 4,000 psi (281 kg/sq. cm; 287 bar), and possibly as high as 6,000 psi (422 kg/sq. cm; 430 bar)."

[Skroe]

There cause you obviously can NOT read:



Edit: And the link

Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences

I think a bit of context needs to be put into this quote (and others). While personally I find what you're linking, which I've seen before, fairly compelling, nuclear weapon environmental effects, politics, use in warfare, strategy is all historically highly politicized. Disarmament groups obviously emphasizing that their entirely unusable and other groups advocating their normalization as just-another-weapon.

Right now for example, the Obama Adnimistration is backing the development of a next generation air launched cruise missile to replace the AGM-86 ALCM (and the newer AGM-129 ACM that was retired on cost grounds a few years ago). And the various parties are at work trying to explain why a new nuclear cruise missile would be a terrible thing despite being in the arsenal since 1974, or by contrast, be supremely useful and essential, despite the advanced AGM-129 being a resistance-free cut for marginal cost savings, even though it is vastly more capable than the older AGM-86.

It's highly political. So when sources say that a nuclear war would light the atmosphere on fire or in fact, nothing bad would happen at all or something, look very carefully at who is writing the article. More carefully than you normally would. There are few defense policy subfields where agendas are so blatant.

What is fairly definitive though is that modern models of human population growth show that the human race could wipe out 2 billion people mid century due to some cause (such as a nuclear war), and the global human population would fully recover within 50 years (by 2100).

[Independent voter]

North Dakota was a world major nuclear power at one time.