Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

fas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 363 posts

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#21

Post by trynumber9 »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #12

3000 nukes is better than Cold War highs, but it's still massive overkill. Even with a 90% interception rate, 300 nukes would be enough to kill tens of millions of citizens of any country from the blast alone. If an enemy leader isn't deterred by that, 2700 extra nukes aren't going to change their mind.

They aren't targeting cities anymore but Russian and Chinese weapon installations. Consider the number of these. And that the ballistic missile defense is concentrated at these locations. It is surely more than 300.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#22

Post by bamboozled »

philipkglass wrote: post #7
FredPret wrote: post #2

Max warheads = 31k Current warheads = 3.7k I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts - ie, how much work does it take to maintain a stockpile of x nukes, and if you can turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily.

It takes quite a bit of work to maintain nuclear warheads. All active US weapons contain plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,100 years. It's radioactive by alpha decay, which leads to changes in the material properties due to energetic collisions and the buildup of microscopic helium bubbles (alpha particles are merely ionized helium nuclei, so stopped alpha particles become helium). Since the US stopped testi…

I really wonder what the state of Russia's nuclear arsenal is like then? Better or worse? Maybe that still have a lot of the old Nuclear power stations running to better supply the materials to maintain their warheads ?

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#23

Post by dekhn »

jiggawatts wrote: post #5
FredPret wrote: post #2

Max warheads = 31k Current warheads = 3.7k I wonder how long a nuke in storage lasts - ie, how much work does it take to maintain a stockpile of x nukes, and if you can turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily.

> how long a nuke in storage lasts Decades, certainly. All but the first few generations of bombs were designed for long periods of storage. Notably, many of the TOP500 supercomputers were built with the singular goal of simulating the ageing of nuclear weapons in storage. If a supercomputer is owned by the DoE or SANDIA, then that's what it is for. > turn those swords into ploughshares relatively easily. Yes! Cold-w…

While many supercomputers were funded by stockpile stewardship, the goal was to produce high performance computers capable of a wide range of simulation needs.

One good example would be NERSC at LBL- it's unclassified research only, and their series of supercomputers were never intended to simulate ageing nuclear weapons.

Hard to say exactly what goes on in the classified supercomputers, but they certainly weren't spending much of their time simulating aging nuclear weapons- that was the ostensible reason.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#24

Post by pythonguython »

skellington wrote: post #15
transcriptase wrote: post #11

Every time I’ve seen nuclear stockpiles and the reduction thereof discussed, I’ve wondered: Assuming for some reason the United States needed to ramp back up to an absurd number of warheads (ignore the MAD/political practicalities), how quickly could they do so? What’s the lead time or rate limiting factors in production? Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of ti…

There is no form of full scale nuclear war where the production apparatus for anything becomes a factor.

Agreed. It’s over in half a day. Ramping up production is a rung on the escalation ladder. It’s generally good to have more rungs.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#26

Post by _visgean »

transcriptase wrote: post #11

Every time I’ve seen nuclear stockpiles and the reduction thereof discussed, I’ve wondered: Assuming for some reason the United States needed to ramp back up to an absurd number of warheads (ignore the MAD/political practicalities), how quickly could they do so? What’s the lead time or rate limiting factors in production? Because if they could start churning out a dozen or a hundred a week within a short period of ti…

Isnt the enriching process super slow? https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/how-do-countries-cre... this article puts somewhere in months, but you are still limited by the number of centrifuges and probably some other factors.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#27

Post by ianburrell »

johnohara wrote: post #25

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?

Nuclear warhead is a single nuclear device.

Are you thinking MIRV where multiple nuclear warheads are mounted to missile? The US has down rated lots of SLBMs and ICBMs recently. Many of the warheads in storage are from missiles. They could put them back, but then they would show in the active count.

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#29

Post by alexb23 »

johnohara wrote: post #25

Is it possible that over the years the number of nuclear devices per warhead has increased? 1, 4, 8, etc. per warhead, thereby increasing your capability while claiming a reduction?

No, a MIRV [1] missile has multiple warheads, each warhead has a single device and is counted as such.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targe...

Re: United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency

#30

Post by dyauspitr »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #12

3000 nukes is better than Cold War highs, but it's still massive overkill. Even with a 90% interception rate, 300 nukes would be enough to kill tens of millions of citizens of any country from the blast alone. If an enemy leader isn't deterred by that, 2700 extra nukes aren't going to change their mind.

Good. It needs to be a threat with plenty of teeth.
Post reply on HN