What size are other countries' nukes?

[laruemtt]

are theirs strategic or tactical? any idea if they decide to hit us preemptively or in self defense what size we're talking about? i can't believe i'm actually asking this question...........................................

[valerief]

1. Does size matter? n/t

[Tesha]

16. Everybody (in the big-boys club) has city-killers.

Everybody (in the big-boys club: US, Russia, UK, and France)
has city-killer thermonuclear weapons ("H-bombs"). The typical
modern thermonuclear nuke has a yield of between 100 and 500
kilotons (with lots of them offering "selectable yield" in
those sorts of ranges).

Best intelligence says Israel has 100 - 200 "boosted" fission
bombs. These are probably <50 KT.

India, Pakistan, and (probably) North Korea have small numbers
of fission bombs.

South Africa used to have nuclear weapons but has since renounced
them.

Benchmark:

"Little Boy" (Hiroshima) was ~15 KT.
"Fat Man" (Nagasaki) was ~21 KT.

Tesha

[liberal N proud]

2. Size doesn't matter when the bomb is dropped on you

[laruemtt]

3. i know size doesn't matter, but

this is uncharted territory in my brain - to actually consider the possibilities. will it all be over with one hit?

[AndyTiedye]

19. If It's Dropped ON You It Doesn't Even Have to be a Nuke

A large rock would probably do.

How big the weapon is might matter somewhat if it is dropped somewhere in the region.

A significant nuclear exchange would be pretty much the end of the world anyway though.

[DUHandle]

4. Delivery System

word



edit reason: caps lock was on

[IChing]

5. The planet has enough to destroy the world 20 times over

And who the f*ck is

"they"

you are talking about?

[laruemtt]

6. well, i guess iran for starters.

with the talk of them possibly having the bomb in 16 days, what size bomb? can they get it here? and then there's North Korea........

[liberal N proud]

7. North Korea... Now there is a real concern

but they don't have any oil, so bu$h will not pay attention to them.

[IChing]

9. Christ read this post

and stop buying into their fear-mongering

On a recent, quite incredible Fox News special, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: "If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the U.S. will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?" to which McInerney replied casually: "Well, I would put 1 percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade, and I would put up 50 to 60 percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites." He also observed casually that Iran wouldn't dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? Fox News, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq.

Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is "absolutely not," at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling Stephen Rademaker to "reform" the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone

THE GUY WHO SAID 16 DAYS IS A HENCHMAN FOR BOLTON!!!!!!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=914297&mesg_id=914549

[endarkenment]

11. Iran has no bombs and that report was total bullshit.

Go read it again. If Iran build a facility capable of generating enough weapons grade uranium fast enough then they could have a bomb in 16 days, or 8 days or 12.5 minutes. However there is no evidence at all that they have such a facility or the raw material to put in the front end of it. Stop falling for their bullshit.

Nuclear forces:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/

here are some numbers from '99:
Deliverable weapons
US 6,750
Russia 5,426
UK 200
France 444
China 325
Israel 200
India 50
Pakistan 25


These numbers are obviously old - add around 6 for NK and the big ZERO for Iran. Plus there is considerable speculation that Israel should be considered #3.

[bananas]

15. "Iran Can Now Make Glowing Mickey Mouse Watches"

They can't make a bomb - but they can make Glowing Mickey Mouse Watches.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x914131

WilliamPitt Wed Apr-12-06 09:28 AM

Iran Can Now Make Glowing Mickey Mouse Watches Updated at 9:28 AM

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Iran Can Now Make Glowing Mickey Mouse Watches
Juan Cole
Informed Comment

Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

<snip>

[spuddonna]

8. Here's a site I found...

The Federation of American Scientists 'about us':"FAS was founded by members of the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions, especially pertaining to the technology they unleashed - the Atomic Bomb. FAS members build on an honorable history of insisting that rational, evidence based arguments be heard."
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/index.html

Here's a link to the list of countries with nukes or chemical threats:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

Here's a link to what they show Iran as having missile-wise:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

[DrDebug]

10. Known countries with nukes

All estimations, because the numbers vary a lot

China: +/- 400 nuclear weapons
France: +/- 350
Germany: +/- 60 (NATO owned/controlled)
India: unknown (not many)
Israel: +/- 100
The Netherlands: +/- 20 (NATO owned/controlled)
North Korea: unknown
Pakistan: unknown
Russia: +/- 16,000
South Africa: 6
United Kingdom: +/- 110
United States: +/- 12,000

[laruemtt]

12. thanks for all these posts.

my thinking is that with all the saber-rattling * likes to do, one of these countries might decide for the good of the world, we need to be hit to take out the threat - us.

[theboss]

13. Most don't have missles with the range to do it.

Russia can hit the US.
China may be able to hit the West Coast.
North Korea may be able to hit the West Coast.

Of course, all three would be obliterated if they tried that.

The rest of the countries in the nuclear club would require the tactical assistance of the US to - well - hit the US with a nuclear weapon.

[patcox2]

17. France and Great Britain could hit us.

But you are correct, noone else could throw one far enough.

What they could do is instigate a regional nuclear conflict with the possibbility of escalating to armegeddon. WWI started because of the conflict between the serbs and croats. A conflict between Israel and anyone else on earth immediately becomes a conflict between that party and the US, and since Israel has the proven capacity of provoking and antagonizing every other nation on earth, it gets messy.

[patcox2]

18. An emerging power would probably come up with a hiroshima size device.

It takes a hydrogen bomb to create a huge "city killer." Thats a big step beyond making a fission bomb. As far as fission bombs, making a really big one is quite difficult and would require lots of experiments and tinkering and test shots, and making small ones is tricky too, the default size is probably hiroshima sized, what was that, 18000 kilotons?

[theboss]

22. France and Great Britain cannot hit us

They don't have the capability from a trans-Atlantic strike without US assistance.

[theboss]

14. There are two dangerous nuclear scenarios for the US

One, that a nuclear weapon falls into the hands of terrorists, is smuggled into the US, and is detonated. But even this is a slightly exaggerated fear. It is unconscionable, of course, that the Administration has not worked with Russia to secure all their weapons yet.

Two, in its dying gasps, the regime in North Korea launches a missle at the West Coast or Hawaii.

[spuddonna]

20. Totally agree... North Korea and the loose Russian nukes...

... are the only real threats, and extrememly low probability ones at that.

Now, the USA attacking Iran via *'s Messiah complex - that's a different story... :(

[Swede]

21. Russia has citybusters that yield 50-60 megatons.

I am not familiar with what the Chinese weapons yield is.