Where The Bombs Are
****************************
Courtesy Of: The Federation Of American Scientists
Posted By: Hans Kristensen
On: November 9, 2006
01:05 AM
Ever wondered where all those nukes are stored?
A new review published in the November/December issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shows that the United States stores its nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads at 18 locations in 12 states and six European countries.
The article's authors - Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council - identified the likely locations by piecing together information from years of monitoring declassified documents, officials statements, news reports, leaks, conversations with current and former officials, and commercial high-resolution satellite photos.
The highest concentration of nuclear warheads is at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific in Bangor, Washington, which is home to more than 2,300 warheads – probably the most nuclear weapons at any one site in the world.
At any given moment, nearly half of these warheads are on board ballistic-missile submarines in the Pacific Ocean.
Approximately 1,700 warheads are deployed on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines operating in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and about 400 warheads are at eight bases in six European countries – Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Great Britain.
For more information on U.S. warheads in Europe, go to:
The United States is the only nuclear weapon state that deploys nuclear weapons in foreign countries.
Consolidation of U.S. nuclear storage sites has slowed considerably over the past decade compared to the period between 1992 and 1997, when the Pentagon withdrew nuclear weapons from 10 states and numerous European bases.
Over the past decade, the United States removed nuclear weapons from three states – California, Virginia and South Dakota, and from one European country - Greece.
The overview finds that more than two-thirds of all U.S. nuclear warheads are still stored at bases for operational ballistic missiles and bombers, even through the Cold War ended more than 16 years ago.
More than 2,000 of those warheads are on high alert, ready to launch on short notice. Only about 28 percent of U.S. warheads have been moved to separate storage facilities. The largest of these, an underground vault at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, stores more than 1,900 warheads.
The 10 U.S. sites that currently host nuclear weapons are: the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, Bangor, Washington; Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada; Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota; Pantex Plant, Texas; Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri; and the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, Kings Bay, Georgia. (See map.)
Full article available from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists here.
Go on a Nuclear Google Trip:
Based on the information in the Bulletin article, FAS and NRDC have created a virtual satellite image tour of the 18 nuclear weapons storage facilities in the United States and Europe.
To take the tour you need to have GoogleEarth installed on your computer. (GoogleEarth is available for free here.) Once you're set up, click here or on the link below the Google map below to begin.
When GoogleEarth has finished loading, check the "Where the Bombs are, 2006" box in the "Places" window to the left to activate the placemarks, click once on a placemark to get an overview of the nuclear weapons stored at the base, and click twice to zoom in on the facility.
The U.S. government refuses to disclose where it stores nuclear weapons, but the researchers emphasize that all the locations have been known for years to house nuclear weapons.
Safety of nuclear weapons is determined not by knowledge of their location but by the military's physical protection of the facilities and that the weapons cannot be detonated by unauthorized personnel.
Background: Where the Bombs are, 2006 Status of World Nuclear Forces
Posted by Hans Kristensen on November 9, 2006 01:05 AM
Posted by Hans Kristensen on November 9, 2006 01:05 AM
Comments:
DP: Are any of the nuclear weapons on submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf?
Reply: Very little is known about the patrol pattern of ballistic missile submarines. They are thought to mainly operate in the North Pacific where their targets primarily are in China and Russia. North Korea is thought to be a lesser target.
Yet targeting Iran from the Pacific would require a Trident missile to overfly China, India and Pakistan (and other countries) to reach its target in Iran. For this reason, targeting Iran would probably require the submarines to deploy to the Indian Ocean. Each patrol lasts more than 70 days, so there is plenty of time to reach the Indian Ocean, but I have not seen indications that ballistic missile submarines do so. Even if they did, I do not believe they would venture into the Persian Gulf.
Having said that, however, the first Ohio-class submarine may soon enter the Indian Ocean - not with ballistic missiles but as a converted cruise missile and Special Operations Forces platform. In total, four Ohio-class submarines are being converted to this role. They are known as SSGNs, each equipped with up to 154 conventional Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles. The first will become operational early in 2007 and all four by 2008. Two SSGNs will be based in the Pacific and two in the Atlantic.
The four surplus Ohio-class submarines became available because the Clinton administration decided to reduce the ballistic missile submarine fleet to 14. Instead of retiring the submarines, the Congress agreed to provide the billions of dollars to convert the submarines, accepting the Navy's argument that the missile-boats are needed against rogue states and terrorists. Critics argue that the expensive SSGNs are unnecessary because hundreds of cruise missiles are already forward deployed on multi-mission cruisers, destroyers and attack submarines. For more information, go here.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: DP November 14, 2006 03:42 AM
Posted by: DP November 14, 2006 03:42 AM
DB: How many people asked how the Federation of American Scientists credibly claims its implied intellectual ability while not mentioning the nukes in Alaska?
Reply: There are no nuclear weapons in Alaska. The last nuclear weapons (about 24 B57 depth bombs) were removed from the state (Naval Air Station Adak) in the mid-1990s after the Pentagon decided to eliminate the nuclear anti-submarine warfare mission. For more information go here.
Hans M. Kristensen
Posted by: DougBuchanan.com November 14, 2006 06:13 AM
Posted by: DougBuchanan.com November 14, 2006 06:13 AM
MH: Why are there no nukes in Alaska or Hawaii? These are 2 strategic locales to say the least.
Why are none on S America? or in the Bahamas?
Why are none in Asia or Africa?
Seems they need relocate these nukes.
Afterall you have nukes in the axis of evil China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and possibly India who would turn.
And yes Israel is a part of the axis of evil and has 200 nukes at Diamona they would use on America and is the main reason nations like Iran wants them.
Why are none on S America? or in the Bahamas?
Why are none in Asia or Africa?
Seems they need relocate these nukes.
Afterall you have nukes in the axis of evil China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and possibly India who would turn.
And yes Israel is a part of the axis of evil and has 200 nukes at Diamona they would use on America and is the main reason nations like Iran wants them.
Reply:The United States withdrew nearly all of its nuclear weapons from forward locations in 1991-1992. These were all tactical weapons intended to fight a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. After the demise of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the first Bush administration decided that these missions were no longer needed. The Clinton administration canceled additional missions and denuclearized all surface ships.
U.S. nuclear weapons have never been deployed in South America, although nuclear weapons frequently entered the region during the Cold War aboard warships and submarines. Nuclear weapons were also deployed in Africa (Morocco), but only for 10 years between 1953 and 1963.
U.S. nuclear weapons have never been deployed in South America, although nuclear weapons frequently entered the region during the Cold War aboard warships and submarines. Nuclear weapons were also deployed in Africa (Morocco), but only for 10 years between 1953 and 1963.
As for Asia, nuclear weapons were deployed in South Korea, the Philippines and Japan at various stages between 1954 and 1991. The last weapons were nuclear artillery shells and bombs withdrawn from South Korea in late 1991. Since then, nuclear weapons have also been withdrawn from Guam, Hawaii and Alaska.
Only Europe still has U.S. nuclear bombs deployed on eight bases in six countries. But they are truly weapons without a mission. Go here for background.
Neither the Pentagon nor the administration seems to have any interest in redeploying nuclear weapons to those areas. The assessment is that long-range nuclear weapons are more than adequately to deter anyone that can be deterred. The United States says that it retains a nuclear umbrella over Japan and South Korea.
As for the Axis of Evil, that term included Iraq, Iran and North Korea when it was first articulated by the Bush administration in 2002. Since then, Iraq has fallen off the list.
As for Israel, the number you use if probably too high. We estimate they have no more than 100 warheads. I don't think America is a target for Israeli nuclear weapons, but you're probably correct when saying that they are the main reason Iran wants them.
As for Israel, the number you use if probably too high. We estimate they have no more than 100 warheads. I don't think America is a target for Israeli nuclear weapons, but you're probably correct when saying that they are the main reason Iran wants them.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: MH November 14, 2006 10:19 AM
Posted by: MH November 14, 2006 10:19 AM
The Ohio class trident submarines refurbished to carry Tomahawk cruise missals (redesigned SSGN) will be serviced at a little known Navy facility, Indian Island Naval Magazine about 50 miles from Bangor, Washington. NAVMAG Indian Island is on Port Townsend Bay where Puget Sound meets the Strait of San Juan de Fuca. Indian Island has been a munitions handling dock since World War II. Local activists are asking the Navy for an Environmental Impact Statement concerning the Navy’s recent changes at Indian Island. So far the Navy has refused. Rear Admiral William D. French, commander of Navy Region Northwest has also refused to allow Navy participation in a local public informational forum.
Posted by: Bill Dunaway November 14, 2006 11:57 AM
DH: Any nukes still deployed with the B-1s at Dyess AFB (Abilene, Texas)? The Where the Bombs Are link made no mention of it, but since I was stationed there in the mid-1980s I'm more than a little curious.
Reply: No, the nukes were moved from Dyess AFB in 1997, after the B-1B was removed from the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). The aircraft was officially "denuclearized" although the Air Force continued to maintain a B-1 Nuclear Rerole Plan that could restore nuclear capability on the B-1B if so decided. I disclosed the existence of that plan in December 2001. Later that month, the Bush administration's nuclear posture review (NPR) decided to cancel the Rerole Plan. The NPR Implementation Plan from March 2003 formally directed the Air Force to end the B-1 Nuclear Rerole Plan.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: DH November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
JA: Are there any weapons of mass destruction in Puerto Rico?
Reply: No, but there used to be. The United States deployed nuclear weapons in Puerto Rico between 1956 and 1975. Two types of weapons were deployed in two periods: nuclear bombs (June 1956-June 1972), and nuclear depth charges (April 1961 through June 1975). For more information, go here.
Reply: No, but there used to be. The United States deployed nuclear weapons in Puerto Rico between 1956 and 1975. Two types of weapons were deployed in two periods: nuclear bombs (June 1956-June 1972), and nuclear depth charges (April 1961 through June 1975). For more information, go here.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: Anonymous November 14, 2006 03:33 PM
WU: A very interesting topic, and a simple question: Why in the world do we still have 10,000 nuclear weapons and 2,000 on high alert? The Cold War ended 15 years ago, and the only conceivable value of nuclear arms would seem to be in deterring an offensive attack or invasion (nuclear or otherwise) on one's own country.
Our possession of nukes, after all, hasn't made us any more capable of winning wars-- our one major defeat (Vietnam) and smaller defeat in Lebanon, in 1983, as well as quite possibly two more major defeats (in Iraq and Afghanistan), have all occurred in spite of our nuclear arsenal. Indeed, we haven't even been sheltered from attack:
The September 11, 2001 attacks were the first attack by a foreign power on mainland US soil since the British in the War of 1812, and these occurred despite our nuclear arsenal!
For this purpose, just having a few hundred nukes would probably deter any country from trying to invade, as e.g. France and Britain (and I suspect Iran!) are fully aware.
For this purpose, just having a few hundred nukes would probably deter any country from trying to invade, as e.g. France and Britain (and I suspect Iran!) are fully aware.
This, again, seems to be the only true value of a state possessing nuclear weapons. Otherwise, our own possession of such a massive arsenal only makes us sound like hypocrites when we hector e.g. Iran to give up their own arsenals-- we're only helping to fuel further proliferation and the potential acquisition of nuclear arms by terrorists, which does not make us safer!
10,000 nuclear weapons seems ridiculously excessive, to say the least, and the maintenance of such an overlarge arsenal is probably bankrupting us. Wouldn't it make sense to more aggressively push reductions of this arsenal, in conjunction with Russia?
At the very least, it seems we should be removing all of our nuclear weapons from Europe-- they no longer serve any purpose on European soil!
Reply: The 10,000 warheads stockpile is partly a leftover from the Cold War and partly a result of resistance to cut too deep too fast. It is interesting you say a couple of hundred warheads would be sufficient; that is also the number a Maryland University poll a couple of years ago found most Americans believe there are in the stockpile. Most thought we could do with 100.
The large number is also a result of warhead dismantlement having slowed down considerably compared with the 1990s. Less than 100 retired warheads are dismantled annually today compared with 1,000-1,500 each year during the 1990s. With the June 2004 decision to cut the stockpile "nearly in half" to about 6,000 warheads by 2012, even more retired warheads will pile up and the future stockpile will remain high. Since warhead life-extension and rebuild have priority, dismantlement of the retired warheads will take a very long time.
Unfortunately, because of this decade-and-a-half hesitation to cut deep, Russia and China have also reassessed their future arsenals on the basis that the United States will continue to have thousands of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. All this "hedging" has prevented everyone from making a commitment to deep cuts and a clearly reduced role of nuclear weapons, and given proliferators a powerful excuse to reject criticism of their own nuclear aspirations. Not a smart policy.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: Anonymous November 14, 2006 10:35 PM
BB: Were there ever any nuclear weapons stored at the joint Canadian/US air force base in Comox (on Vancouver Island, Canada)?
Reply: Yes. The Genie air-to-air missile was deployed at CFB Comox from 1965 to 1984. The history of nuclear weapons in Canada is described in detail in John Clearwater, Canadian Nuclear Weapons, The Untold Story (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998). A brief outline of Clearwater's findings is here, and information from the Pentagon itself is here.
Hans M. Kristensen.
Posted by: Anonymous November 14, 2006 11:53 PM
SS: I live now with my wife in Ukraine. It is said the UA has no longer any nukes on its soil is this true?It is said Israel has nukes as you said above maybe 100 or so. Now the public info says they have zero. Do you think other regions or states in the MID EAST have nukes besides Pakistan and India? And would it really be difficult to buy or trade nuke weapons from these places. I often think of Iran and how the media says they want to build a bomb.... Why not just buy one? Would that not be easier?
Reply: Yes, there are no longer any nuclear weapons Ukraine. A brief history of Russian nukes in Ukraine is available here.
As for the Middle East, only Israel is thought to possess nuclear weapons (Pakistan and India are not considered Middle East but South Asia). Yet nuclear weapons are also present in Turkey, where the United States stores roughly 90 nuclear bombs at Incirlik Air Base near the border with Syria. Go here for background.
You're right that buying a nuclear weapon would be easier than building one. However, trading nuclear weapons fortunately has proven far less problematic than was feared after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The good news is that countries that build nuclear weapons seem to want to keep them. The bad news is that if a nuclear weapon state breaks up, you can't be certain the weapons won't end up in the wrong hands. North Korea and Pakistan are the two nuclear weapon states where some fear such a scenario could potentially happen.
Hans M. Kristensen.
No comments:
Post a Comment