Nine Nations Have Nukes — Here's How Many Each Country Has

[W!nston]

This was interesting to me. I thought others might find it interesting as well.

Nine Nations Have Nukes — Here's How Many Each Country Has
BUSINESS INSIDER | AMANDA MACIAS | JUN. 17, 2014, 12:08 PM

According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total.

Under the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), Russia and the United States have reduced their inventories but still account for more than 93% of all operational nuclear warheads.

SIPRI notes that "all five legally recognized nuclear weapon states — China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA— are either deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programs to do so."

SIPRI notes that "all five legally recognized nuclear weapon states — China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA— are either deploying new nuclear weapon delivery systems or have announced programs to do so."

Here are nine countries with nuclear weapons:

 

[theseeker]

Is it just me, or does anyone else have this trailer:

play in their heads too the moment nuclear weapons are mentioned?

Nukes are really awesome plot devices in fiction, but I don't think they have any place in this world...

 

[dargelos]

The greatest scientists of several generations have squandered their genius on nuclear fission projects, civilian as well as military. With that much mental capacity expended across 70 years on clean energy projects instead, we would have never become dependant on oil. That means the Bush family would never have become rich enough to buy George W his presidency, Qatar would not have enough money to bribe FIFA, and Putie wouldn't be able to use his energy supplies as a bullying tactic.
Add in all the other resources consumed by the atom bomb and we would have the money to end hunger, end disease, supply everyone with clean water, safe housing and free porn. A world that dosen't need to fight because everybody is happy.
Why do that when you can build a giant suicide machine instead?

 

[theseeker]

The thing is: they don't have to use nuclear fission for weapons of war (or worldwide annihilation), they could totally use it all as a cleaner energy source. Sure it isn't as clean (and renewable) an energy source as stuff like solar energy, but it would have reduced the pollutants we're pumping into the air, and climate change wouldn't be as pronounced as it is now.

But dangerous, you say? Not totally unfounded, but highly exaggerated: http://anon.projectarchive.net/?http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/15/fossil-fuels-do-far-more-harm-than-nuclear-power/

 

[dropem]

It doesn't matter how many have nukes it's all madness!!:angry:

 

[dargelos]

Dangerous, did I say dangerous, no, nuclear fission is perfectly safe;
"What could possibly go wrong?"
That question is rather a technical one for this forum. Instead I wanted to mention the way civil and military nuclear are in bed together.
The cost of developing nukes seems amazingly high, and it is, but the true cost is even higher because some of the bill was picked up by the civil nuclear programme to make the cost seem a little more palatable to the taxpayer. Pay a little more now and get dirt cheap electricity in the future. That, as well as lasting world peace, was the promise. Cheap? my leccy bill goes up more times than Ben Lovebone's cock. World peace? that joke isn't funny.

 

[buffpaul]

I am in my retirement. I have no say anymore, and I am comfortable with that.
It is time for others to watch closely, step-up and hold all accountable. God Speed !

 

[tonka]

There is a positive aspect of all this.
The USA and Russia have cut their nukes by a lot ( with America footing much of the bill for the Russian reduction). The numbers are still crazy high, but less all the same.
The other positive thing...these weapons were used twice by America, at the end of the second world war. Never since.

States with any stake in the future will not use these crazy things. But what about others?
Crazy states? I'm looking at you, North Korea? Who knows?
And what about failing states? It's not that they will use them. It's that people will sell them or steal them. ISIS with some nukes?

 

[theseeker]

Dangerous, did I say dangerous, no, nuclear fission is perfectly safe;
"What could possibly go wrong?"
That question is rather a technical one for this forum. Instead I wanted to mention the way civil and military nuclear are in bed together.
The cost of developing nukes seems amazingly high, and it is, but the true cost is even higher because some of the bill was picked up by the civil nuclear programme to make the cost seem a little more palatable to the taxpayer. Pay a little more now and get dirt cheap electricity in the future. That, as well as lasting world peace, was the promise. Cheap? my leccy bill goes up more times than Ben Lovebone's cock. World peace? that joke isn't funny.

Nah, I wasn't talking about you. What I meant was most people will immediately think of a big mushroom cloud and the Fallout series (like I did) the moment the word "nuclear" is mentioned. That's why NMRI was changed to just MRI to appease patients using the machine. Of course, all necessary precautions must still be taken, and I'm not asking governments to put a nuclear reactor right at the center of major cities and settlements. But clean energy is still at its infancy, and when you put the facts of current energy sources and nuclear energy side by side, nuclear energy is the lesser of the two evils.

But science and technology are really just tools, they have no moral right or wrong. We could have (and had) used our knowledge of rocket science to build rockets to send man to the moon, or ICBMs to destroy countries a world away. Someone could use their knowledge of chemistry in life-saving advances like the pharmaceutical industry, or start a life-wrecking drug empire. It's up to us to decide what to do with that knowledge. Like they say: with great power comes great responsibility :rofl:

 

[brmstn69]

What you should really worry about are all the nuclear devices that are "missing" or unaccounted for...

Even more disturbing are the types of nuclear weapons that are missing. Backpack nukes!

During the 60's and 70's both the US and USSR had weapons programs developing small, portable low-yield nuclear devices. According to a high ranking Soviet official that defected, about 20 such devices are unaccounted for. It is believed that they were smuggled into the US and other nations and hidden away, waiting to be detonated in the event of war. They are all booby trapped in case of discovery as Swiss authorities discovered when one was found in a wooded area outside Bern. Others have also been found but many remain hidden...

The US also developed such devices, most notably the W54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition) approx 400 of which were made. While the US government claims all are accounted for, other sources claim as many as a dozen are missing...

 

[dargelos]

What drugs were they on when they thought baby nukes were a good idea? They have no deterence value, they have no worth as bargaining chips, but they are god's gift to a terrorist. We may only hope that they were never fully tested and after all this time would fail to fully detonate.