The Wikipedia article on countries with nuclear weapons is sobering reading. This map is from the article, although the color-coding is a bit misleading. (3quarksdaily points to more maps.)
- The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and the People’s Republic of China are the five nuclear powers recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Not coincidentally, they are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The US and Russia have about 6,000 active warheads each, while the others have a few hundred each. According to the NPT, only these countries are permitted to have nuclear weapons, and they are prohibited from sharing weapons technology with other countries.
- India did not sign the NPT, and exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1974 (in a test perversely named “Smiling Buddha“). In 1998 they tested “weaponized” nuclear warheads (I don’t know what that means) in Pokhran-II. Numerous complaints and sanctions followed, none of which had any appreciable effect, and the controversy eventually died down. Possession of nuclear weaponry is considered to be a crucial part of India’s self-image as a world power. They are now recognized by the US as a “responsible nuclear state.”
- Pakistan is also not an NPT signatory. They performed their first nuclear test in 1998, in response to India’s test. In 1999 they signed accords with India, agreeing to a bilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. A.Q. Kahn, leader of the Pakistani program, confessed to being involved in a clandestine network to share nuclear weapons technology with Libya, Iran, and North Korea; he was pardoned by President Perez Musharraf in 2004. There is some evidence that his network was also collaborating with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
- Israel has not acknowledged possessing a nuclear arsenal, but it is an open secret; Israel is not an NPT signatory. (In fact, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only sovereign states not to ratify the NPT — although see below.) They probably have several hundred warheads, comparable to the stockpiles of China, France, and the UK.
- North Korea, in contrast to Israel, has publicly claimed to have nuclear weapons, although some analysts remain skeptical. After ratifying the NPT in 1985, they withdrew in 2003; no other countries have ever withdrawn from the treaty. In September 2005 they agreed to scrap their existing nuclear weapons and rejoin the NPT, but later stated that no such steps would be taken unless they were supplied with a light water reactor.
- Iran is of course an interesting question.
- South Africa produced a few nuclear weapons in the 1980’s, but later dismantled them. They are the only nation to build nuclear weapons themselves and later give up the capability.
- Saudi Arabia has stated that they might need to develop nuclear weapons, although they deny actually having done so. Some recent reports claim that the Saudis have embarked on a weapons-development program, with aid from the Pakistani nuclear program.
- Several republics of the former Soviet Union found themselves in possession of nuclear missiles upon the collapse of the USSR in 1991: Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. All have subsequently transferred the weapons to Russia and signed the NPT, and are currently nuclear-free. Concerns persist over the possibility that weapons technology was sold through the black market; Ukraine, in particular, was known to be active in selling at least conventional technology.
- Several industrialized nations are thought to be capable of putting together nuclear weapons with very little effort, including Canada, Italy, Germany, Lithuania, and Japan. For the most part there is no evidence that these countries have any desire to pursue such a course. However, former German defense minister Rupert Scholz has argued that Germany should consider nuclear weapons as a way to respond to terrorist attacks.
- Iraq, of course, had a program to develop nuclear weapons that suffered a number of setbacks, notably the Israeli air strike on the Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. After the 2003 invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the nuclear program had been abandoned in 1991, along with most other WMD programs, but that Saddam Hussein had plans to re-start the program once multilateral sanctions were lifted.
- As part of NATO agreements, the US provides tactical nuclear weapons for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
- A number of countries are known to have begun programs to develop nuclear weapons, only to abandon them and eventually sign the NPT; these include Sweden, Switzerland, Egypt, Philippines, Libya, Australia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, and Yugoslavia.
What are the chances, with all those weapons out there, that someone will use one, say in the next fifty years? Extremely high, I would guess. None has been used in the last fifty years, it’s true, but for most of that time we lived in a bipolar world with clearly defined lines of engagement and relatively symmetrical capabilities and liabilities. (The above list doesn’t even mention non-state groups, of course.) A more fragmented situation exponentially increases the number of events that could lead to a nuclear strike, including the possibility of accidents. And the number of nuclear-capable states shows little signs of decreasing in the near future.
For what it’s worth, Russia, India and China have officially adopted a No-First-Use policy regarding nuclear weapons; the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have declined to do so. In the 2005 revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, the Pentagon listed the conditions under which a nuclear first strike could be requested, which includes basically any situation in which someone might want to use them. The Doctrine itself was originally published freely on the Pentagon web site, before being cancelled — that is, removed from the site, but not necessarily revised as doctrine. The original document can be read here. Britain and France have similarly asserted the right to nuclear first-use. It is hard to imagine that countries generally thought of as less responsible than the US, UK and France would feel much compulsion against using nuclear weapons if they felt threatened.
Once any country strikes another using nuclear weapons, the presumption against further use will be considerably lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine, simply for being so terrifying.
Lubos: In response to your comment#9, I would like to add to my comment #12. If the nature of Pandora’s box is based on chaos, then the nature of nuclear strategy is based on chaos. Consequently, I disagree with your comment#14 that one can estimate the outcome of Pandora’s box. Therefore, just as one cannot estimate the outcome of a particular Pandora’s box, one cannot estimate the outcome of a particular nuclear strategy. As a closing comment, I will argue that all nuclear strategies lie in the infinite realm of the null and the void.
Dear Cynthia,
the validity of your conclusion depends on the definition of the null and the void. 😉 Whatever their boundaries are, the conclusion can be used in both ways. Iran is working on some nuclear program and has certain strategies, too. Don’t they lie in the infinite realm of the null and the void, too? And what about the strategy not to react to the events in Iran in any way? Does not this strategy lie in the same infinite realm, just because of the rules of logic?
There are many uncertain things in every situation. But it does not mean that we can’t try to think. We should always try to think and reduce the uncertainty.
Best
Lubos
IMO, it is because of arguments like that of Science that every nation will eventually feel it must have nuclear weapons.
Let us examine Science’s argument in some more detail, too:
Hiroshima had a population of some 255,000. An estimated 66,000 people died. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm. Estimates vary.
This page http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Japan/save/blane/blane.htm says 140,000 died. Let’s go with the low figure). The bomb on Hiroshima had a yield of 13,000 tons of TNT.
So, let’s see:
England – 18,000 tons – mostly on London – 40,553 fatalities
Hiroshima – 13,000 tons – 66,000 fatalities – no one knows for sure, the destruction was so massive.
We now look at this statement and scratch our heads:
Of course, one explanation is that to Science, the killing of people is not damage.
Do you not think that if Hitler had managed to put one 10,000 ton bomb into the middle of London that Great Britain would not have surrendered? Or at least, that organized British resistance would have come to an end?
I repeat – if Science is representative of the decision-makers in a country, then every responsible national government should seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
http://www.nukefix.org/nukepix.html#350to800
That is roughly 400 megatons of Russian nukes – most of them being half a megaton. Half as many bombs could kill more than half of the 94 million people, hitting the more densely populated areas first.
271 bombs, each of four times the punch of the Russian arsenal, could killed more than 47 million people if targetted as above. That many people did not die in WWII bombings.
Arun,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country says 62 million died in World War II.
The bomb stopped it. Because of the “overkill” close to the detonation, collateral damage is reduced. By conservation of energy, the blast can’t do work in demolishing buildings and not lose energy in the process.
“Overkill” reduces the number of fatalities by concentrating most of the energy close to the explosion.
Hiroshima set off a firestorm because the man in charge on Tinian, Colonel Tibbets, had learned while bombing Europe earlier in the war that the only way to make an impact is to focus on dry wooden houses – for example the medieval area of Hamburg was old 4-6 storey wooden houses and was ignited. I don’t see cities built like that these days, do you?
The anti-nuclear hysteria is bad for three reasons: (1) it drives fraudulent anti-physics or at least generally anti-nuclear (pro-ignorance) public feeling about the knowledge of the facts of nuclear energy, (2) it ridicules civil defence which would be particularly effective in a terrorist attack or a limited war, at least to minimise casualties from burns, glass and debris and fallout, and (3) it puts a nasty stigma on the big bang cosmology, reducing public interest in the big bang (which is totally absurd, if you see supernovae and compare the energy release to Hiroshima, you see how crazy anti-nuclear fanatism is).
In a controlled sample of 36,500 Hiroshima-Nagasaki irradiated survivors, 89 people got leukemia over a 40 year period, above the number in the unexposed control group. Published in Radiation Research volume 146:1-27, 1996, see http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq2
Over 40 years, in 36,500 survivors monitored, there were 176 leukemia deaths which is 89 more than the control (unexposed) group got naturally. There were 4,687 other cancer deaths, but that was merely 339 above the number in the control (unexposed) group, so this is statistically a much smaller rise than the leukemia result.
Natural leukemia rates, which are very low in any case, were increased by 51 % in the irradiated survivors, but other cancers were merely increased by just 7 %.
Adding all the cancers together, the total was 4,863 cancers (mainly natural), which is just 428 more than the unexposed control group. Hence, the total increase over the natural cancer rate was 9 %, spread over 40 years.
As Arun says, if Science is correct in his view of the world, then given the cold, hard facts of realpolitik, ” . . . every responsible national government should seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent.”
No one has answered my question yet. If you were making the decisions in Iran, would you build the bomb?
Or, leaving Iran, the mullahs, Islamic fundamentalism, Israel, the Palestinians, and the rest of it out of the question, if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield were threatening your country with a nuclear attack, and if you had the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, would you build one?
I find a bit confusing to mix countries with H and A bombs. It is very different tech.
Lubos:
As has already been pointed out, the justifiability of bombing Hiroshima was debatable, but bombing Nagasaki was inexcusable.
Furthermore it is not the case that neuclear weapons are “less painful”. 60 years on, people are still dying of cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting from the bombs.
It’s hardly perfectionism and luxury!
To everyone using Wikipedia references: accuracy is not guaranteed. Usual caveats apply to info you find online that could have been written by any old dude who thinks they know something.
–IP.
“… people are still dying of cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting from the bombs.”
The 40-year total leukemias from radiation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 89 persons out of 36,500 irradiated survivors. http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq2
The real worry is that future leaders and politicians of these countries will not understand, or simply forget, the unimaginable power of these weapons. Indeed, most people even today simply have no conception. I remember that CND people I knew at university did not even know what “thermonuclear” actually meant. Fortunately, there has been a lot of amazing restoration work of old footage (previously classified) of tests from the 50s now on a stunning dvd “Trinity and Beyond”:
http://www.vce.com/trinity.html
There is also a brilliant pbs documentary “Race for the Superbomb”:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb
Anyone interested in issues related to nuclear weapons–whether you are for or against–should see these films on a big widescreen tv. As a physicist I am afraid I do have to admit to having a morbid fascination for nuclear weapons. In particular, both films feature digitally restored and very powerful footage of the terrifying 10Mt Ivy Mike and 15Mt Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb shots in the Pacific, set to rather effective and haunting music. Witnesses talk about it being like sticking your head in a blast furnace, even though they were 50-60 miles away. The fireball expanded to 4 miles in a few seconds and vaporised about 120 million tons of coral and seawater. Where the test island was you later see a blue crater in the ocean miles across and deep enough to submerge a skyscraper. It is fascinating albeit scary stuff.
The biggest nuclear weapon ever detonated, by the Soviet Union in the artic circle, the Tsar hydrogen superbomb at 60Mt, is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Scrolling down to the bottom there is a link to the “video of the event”. (It takes a few minutes to load.) What is really scary is that this was a scaled-down version of a 100Mt+ design. Anyway, here’s hoping that the only place where anyone ever sees these things again is on these films.
Dear Lubos, I apologize for my delay response to your questions. My response to your questions from comment#27 is as follows: as long as nuclear strategy only lies in the realm of “thought” and does not transition to the realm of “action,” nuclear war can be held at bay. Since mankind has created this high risk game of nuclear (uncertainty) chance, I believe the best strategy to pursue is a strategy to maintain a maximum degree of (uncertainty) chance. Regarding the specific issue of Iran, as long as we simply “think” about reducing the uncertainty but do not “act” to reduce uncertainty, we can preserve a steady-state of relative calm in the world. However, at the end-point in this nuclear game of chance, attempting to produce certainty from uncertainty would be an act of suicide to the existence of all complex life on earth. Speaking with certainty, I am certain that no nuclear strategy – which encompasses finely-tuned variables – can win a real battle ( as opposed to a virtual battle) against the inherent uncertainty in nuclear tactics. A closing comment: as long as hawks stay confined to the virtual world of uncertainty, hawks will not impose hazard upon us. In contrast, when hawks cross over to the real world of certainty, hawks will impose hazard upon us. Best Wishes
“… the terrifying 10Mt Ivy Mike and 15Mt Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb shots in the Pacific, set to rather effective and haunting music. Witnesses talk about it being like sticking your head in a blast furnace, even though they were 50-60 miles away. …” SteveM comment #36
Dr Carl F. Miller, who worked for the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory at later nuclear tests to measure fallout on ships with washdown safeguards that were sailing under the expanding mushroom clouds, hit out in the February 1966 magazine Scientist and Citizen:
‘Reliance on the Effects of Nuclear Weapons has its shortcomings… I was twenty miles from a detonation … near ten megatons. The thermal flash did not produce the second-degree burn on the back of my neck, nor indeed any discomfort at all.’
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/samuel-glasstone-and-philip-j-dolan.html
Miller’s declassified fallout report: http://worf.eh.doe.gov/data/ihp1d/78192e.pdf