What you probably didn't know about WMD

[KillerMuffin]

As of Jan 1, 1999

Nuclear Weapons:

Russia:
  Stockpiled: 21,000
  Deliverable: 5,426
  ICMB delivery systems: 756

USA:
  Stockpiled: 12,000
  Deliverable: 6,750
  ICBM delivery systems: 500

France:
  Stockpiled: 500+
  Deliverable: 444

China:
  Stockpiled: 500+
  Deliverable: 444
  ICBM delivery systems: 20

United Kingdom:
  Stockpiled: 200
  Deliverable: 200

Israel:
  Stockpiled: 200
  Deliverable: 200

India:
  Stockpiled: 50+
  Deliverable: 50

Pakistan:
  Stockpiled: 25
  Deliverable: 25

Countries with Nuclear Weapons Capabilites or known to be in possession of 20 or fewer nuclear weapons (manufactured in country or through trading):

Iran
Iraq
North Korea
Algeria
Chechnya
Cuba
Libya
Serbia
Sudan
Syria
Argentina
Austrailia
Belarus
Brazil
Egypt
Japan
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Taiwan
Romania
Ukraine

Countries who have chemical and biological weapons capabilities:

Australia
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Cuba
Ethiopia
Egypt
France
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Laos
Libya
Myanmar
North Korea
Pakistan
Romania
Russia
Serbia
South Africa
South Korean
Sudan
Syria
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
United Kingdom
United States

Countries possessing missile delivery systems for chemical and biological and nuclear weapons:

China
Egypt
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Libya
North Korea
Pakistan
Russia
South Africa
South Korea
Syria
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States



See any surprises on this list?


This information is gleaned from US State Department releases, START II treaties, the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and the Security and Intelligence Studies Group in London.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[modest mouse]

Do you have a link?

Its hard to put much weight in a list that is four years old, 'gleaned' from data that is ever older. Knowing whats out there is so difficult.

 

[KillerMuffin]

www.state.gov

Have fun looking through their database. Took me nearly three months when I wrote the report.

I'll have to check the rest back out of the library on Monday. Say, you got $8.50 I can borrow? I haven't paid my overdue book rent yet.

 

[modest mouse]

CB, Im not positive but I believe South Africa no longer has functional warheads. They made a decision not to.

EDIT:

South Africa is the first and to date only country to build a nuclear arsenal, and then voluntarily dismantle its entire nuclear weapons program. The South African experience demonstrates that at least under some conditions, unilateral disarmament can improve a nation's security. South Africa's nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile programs reflected its perception of internal and external threats stemming from its policy of apartheid and, to a lesser extent, the country's advanced state of technical development. Pretoria developed nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles but relinquished them in the early 1990s; it is the only country to ever build and then voluntarily disarm itself of a nuclear arsenal. South Africa undertook a joint chemical and biological weapons program, code-named Project Coast, which was ostensibly rolled back in the early 1990s, although many questions remain as to the extent, achievements, and fate of this program. While the proliferation legacies of South Africa's nuclear and missile programs were effectively resolved through verified disarmament measures that won international acclaim, dismantlement of the country's CBW capabilities was not verified to a comparable degree of certainty.

Source. January, 2003

 

[Ishmael]

Good post KM. I'll be sure to link to it as my series on "There Will be War" progress'.

Ishmael

PS The only surprise is Romania.

 

[70/30]

What should surprise every American: GWB only proposed $41million for FY04 to assist Russia in the disposal of plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium. Meanwhile in that same budget, USA corps get $281million to assist in transferring some of our plutonium and HEU reserves into nuclear reactor fuel (MOX). Somehow--spending $100billion or more to prevent Saddam from obtaining that same material seems unfounded.

 

[Guest]

 

[Lancecastor]

You left out the fine print after the nuke list that says N. Korea was thought to have 2 nukes in '99 with mid range delivery missiles of uncertain reliability...I posted the same chart a day or two ago.

Lance

 

[KillerMuffin]

I think most countries have the capacity to develop chemical and biological weapons, even if they don't actively pursue such progams.

Delivery systems capabilities are another matter altogether, of course.

This is true.

However, to get onto this list, they must possess the capability to manufacture these weapons, not just the capacity to develop them. The countries on this list either possess, have possess, or possess the technology to start up a factory in the morning.

Luxemborg, for example, doesn't have the technology, though they could develop it if they want to.

Australia doesn't possess nuclear weapons, though they do possess weaponized chemical and biological material. They did have nukes, but they destroyed them. However, if they so chose, they could start up a factory to make the tomorrow.


North Korea does not have ICBMs. They are trying to develop a Limited Range ICBM based on the Iranian Sahab chassis. However, they haven't actually accomplished it yet. They do have working Intermediate range ballistic missiles. I don't pay that much attention to you Lance, I have no idea what you have or haven't posted beyond a drama that I had no interest in.

 

[70/30]

If anyone is interested in a base on NPT from a seemingly reliable source

http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/index.html

 

[Guest]

You could grow Ricin in a window box.

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

If anyone is interested in a base on NPT from a seemingly reliable source

http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/index.html

Not reliable 70/30.

I'll tell you why. The UN and it's charter organizations and subsequent treaties are like anyother political organization. They want to make themselves, and their works look good. That's fine and to be expected. I take no particular issue with them in that regard.

Hoiwever, when assessing threats and capabilities you not only deal with the realities of the world, but the probabilities as well.

Treaties are nothing more than pieces of paper backed by the goodwill, if any, of the signatory parties. North Korea is a signatory to that document. Getting the picture?

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

You could grow Ricin in a window box.

Not really, Castor Bean plants are really big. But they make great ornamental plantings and the ricin is relatively easy to refine from the beans. Oleandar is another excellent source of highly toxic chemicals. The list is long and easily obtained.

Ishmael

 

[KillerMuffin]

But I think it also needs to be highlighted that it isn't difficult to achieve C & B capabilities, and threats don't necessarily stem solely from state sponsored capabilities.

Agreed.

In my mind, state sponsored developments are a concern because splinter groups, while dangerous, aren't dangerous on such a global scale.

The concern is weaponized and mass deliverable C&B by governments because they're the ones who sign non-proliferation treaties.

The good news is that most of the globe has signed on to non-proliferation. By the year 2008, maybe 2006 (I can't remember) we'll have reduced our deliverable and stockpiled nukes by another 2,000.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

notice how Canada is not on any list?

all part of our plan for world domination

send in your inspectors you will never find what we have until it's to late for you.


MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[70/30]

DPRK recently pulled out, that is why the USA demands the UN deal with the issue. France seems upset and Japan is extremely upset. France might be trying to diffuse the Iraq deal or they might really be mad. Fact is: GWB won't directly talk with DPRK no matter how many smart comments Daschle makes or how many stupid things Rumsfeld ends up revealing on international television. It's easy for GWB to double play the UN--as a nation we are extremely divided on its significance.

 

[Ishmael]

DPRK recently pulled out, that is why the USA demands the UN deal with the issue. France seems upset and Japan is extremely upset. France might be trying to diffuse the Iraq deal or they might really be mad. Fact is: GWB won't directly talk with DPRK no matter how many smart comments Daschle makes or how many stupid things Rumsfeld ends up revealing on international television. It's easy for GWB to double play the UN--as a nation we are extremely divided on its significance.

Look, if you don't treat me like an idiot. I won't treat you as one.

Of course they pulled out. It was on the news. But it was after they admitted building the nuclear weapons that they promised they wouldn't in the treaty that they signed. Damn.

Ishmael

 

[70/30]

Fine but 187 other nations are supposed to get mad about it. It is kinda hard for the UN to follow through since everyone must get sufficiently mad at Saddam first. GWB is undermining the UN--he's showing their hesitance to start a war on Saddam while also trying to show its ineffectual means to contain DPRK. Creates great fodder for ultraloyalists and plants seeds in the middle. GWB wants to cut ties and shred treaties--I don't think it is the ultimate answer--most countries do abide them in good faith.