DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Updated September 3, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33640 U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Summary Even though the United States has reduced the number of warheads deployed on its long-range missiles and bombers, consistent with the terms of the 2010 New START Treaty, it also plans to develop new delivery systems for deployment over the next 10-30 years. The 116th Congress will continue to review these programs, and the funding requested for them, during the annual authorization and appropriations process. During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer-range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. With the implementation of New START completed in February 2018, the United States is limited to 1,550 accountable warheads on these delivery vehicles, a restriction that will remain in place at least through 2021, while New START Treaty remains in force. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 400 land- based Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with one warhead, spread among a total of 450 operational launchers. This force is consistent with the New START Treaty. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components, so that they can remain in the force through 2030. It plans to replace the missiles with a new Ground-based Strategic Deterrent around 2029. The U.S. ballistic missile submarine fleet currently consists of 14 Trident submarines. Each has been modified to carry 20 Trident II (D-5) missiles—a reduction from 24 missiles per submarine—to meet the launcher limits in the New START Treaty. The Navy converted 4 of the original 18 Trident submarines to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles. Nine of the submarines are deployed in the Pacific Ocean and five are in the Atlantic. The Navy also has undertaken efforts to extend the life of the missiles and warheads so that they and the submarines can remain in the fleet past 2020. It is designing a new Columbia class submarine that will replace the existing fleet beginning in 2031. The U.S. fleet of heavy bombers includes 20 B-2 bombers and 40 nuclear-capable B-52 bombers. The B-1 bomber is no longer equipped for nuclear missions. This fleet of 60 nuclear-capable aircraft is consistent with the U.S. obligations under New START. The Air Force has also begun to retire the nuclear-armed cruise missiles carried by B-52 bombers, leaving only about half the B-52 fleet equipped to carry nuclear weapons. The Air Force plans to procure both a new long- range bomber, known as the B-21, and a new long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile during the 2020s. DOE is also modifying and extending the life of the B61 bomb carried on B-2 bombers and fighter aircraft and the W80 warhead for cruise missiles. The Obama Administration completed a review of the size and structure of the U.S. nuclear force, and a review of U.S. nuclear employment policy, in June 2013. This review advised the force structure that the United States will deploy under the New START Treaty. The Trump Administration completed its review of U.S. nuclear forces in February 2018, and reaffirmed the basic contours of the current U.S. force structure and the ongoing modernization programs. The Trump Administration has also called for the development of a new low-yield warhead for deployment on Trident II (D-5) missiles. Congress will review the Administration’s plans for U.S. strategic nuclear forces during the annual authorization and appropriations process, and as it assesses the costs of these plans in the current fiscal environment. Congressional Research Service U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background: The Strategic Triad ..................................................................................................... 2 Force Structure and Size During the Cold War ......................................................................... 2 Force Structure and Size After the Cold War ............................................................................ 4 Current and Future Force Structure and Size ............................................................................ 7 Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles: Post-Cold War Reductions and Current Modernization Programs .............................................................................................................. 9 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) ............................................................................. 9 Peacekeeper (MX) .............................................................................................................. 9 Minuteman III ................................................................................................................... 10 Minuteman Modernization Programs ............................................................................... 13 Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) ...................................................................... 17 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles .................................................................................. 21 The SSGN Program .......................................................................................................... 22 The Backfit Program ......................................................................................................... 23 Basing Changes ................................................................................................................. 23 Warhead Loadings ............................................................................................................ 24 Modernization Plans and Programs .................................................................................. 24 The Ohio Replacement Program (ORP) Program ............................................................. 28 Bombers .................................................................................................................................. 32 B-1 Bomber ....................................................................................................................... 32 B-2 Bomber ....................................................................................................................... 33 B-52 Bomber ..................................................................................................................... 35 B-21 Bomber ..................................................................................................................... 40 Sustaining the Nuclear Weapons Enterprise............................................................................ 43 Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 46 Force Size ................................................................................................................................ 46 Force Structure ........................................................................................................................ 48 The Cost of Nuclear Weapons ................................................................................................. 53 Figures Figure 1. U.S. Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 1960-1990 ................................................................... 3 Figure 2. U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: 1991-2019 ....................................................................... 5 Tables Table 1. U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces Under START I and START II .......................................... 6 Table 2. U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces under New START ............................................................ 8 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 55 Congressional Research Service U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Introduction During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons, including short-range missiles and artillery for use on the battlefield, medium- range missiles and aircraft that could strike targets beyond the theater of battle, short- and medium-range systems based on surface ships, long-range missiles based on U.S. territory and submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States. The short- and medium-range systems are considered nonstrategic nuclear weapons and have been referred to as battlefield, tactical, and theater nuclear weapons. The long-range missiles and heavy bombers are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. In 1990, as the Cold War was drawing to a close and the Soviet Union was entering its final year, the United States had more than 12,000 nuclear
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SPACE and DEFENSE
    SPACE and DEFENSE Volume Three Number One Summer 2009 Space Deterrence: The Delicate Balance of Risk by Ambassador Roger G. Harrison, Collins G. Shackelford and Deron R. Jackson with commentaries by Dean Cheng Pete Hays John Sheldon Mike Manor and Kurt Neuman Dwight Rauhala and Jonty Kasku-Jackson EISENHOWER CENTER FOR SPACE AND DEFENSE STUDIES Space and Defense Scholarly Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editor-in-Chief: Ambassador Roger Harrison, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Academic Editor: Dr. Eligar Sadeh, [email protected] Associate Academic Editors: Dr. Damon Coletta U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Michael Gleason U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Peter Hays National Security Space Office, USA Major Deron Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Collins Shackelford U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Colonel Michael Smith U.S. Air Force, USA Reviewers: Andrew Aldrin John Logsdon United Launch Alliance, USA George Washington University, USA James Armor Agnieszka Lukaszczyk ATK, USA Space Generation Advisory Council, Austria William Barry Molly Macauley NASA, France Resources for the Future, USA Frans von der Dunk Scott Pace University of Nebraska, USA George Washington University, USA Paul Eckart Xavier Pasco Boeing, USA Foundation for Strategic Research, France Andrew Erickson Wolfgang Rathbeger Naval War College, USA European Space Policy Institute, Austria Joanne Gabrynowicz Scott Trimboli University of Mississippi, USA University
    [Show full text]
  • Military Assessment of Nuclear Deterrence Requirements Committee
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–11] MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 8, 2017 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24–683 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETO O’ROURKE, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SAM GRAVES, Missouri A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEPHANIE N.
    [Show full text]
  • SIPRI Yearbook 2018: Armaments, Disarmament and International
    world nuclear forces 267 VI. Indian nuclear forces shannon n. kile and hans m. kristensen India is estimated to have a growing arsenal of 130–40 nuclear weapons (see table 6.7). This figure is based on calculations of India’s inventory of weapon-grade plutonium and the number of operational nuclear-capable delivery systems. India is widely believed to be gradually expanding the size of its nuclear weapon stockpile as well as its infrastructure for producing nuclear warheads. Military fissile material production India’s nuclear weapons are believed to be plutonium-based. The plutonium was produced at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Trombay, Mumbai, by the 40-megawatt-thermal (MW(t)) heavy water CIRUS reactor, which was shut down at the end of 2010, and the 100-MW(t) Dhruva heavy water reactor. India operates a plutonium reprocessing plant for military purposes at the BARC.1 India plans to build six fast breeder reactors by the 2030s, which will significantly increase its capacity to produce plutonium that could be used for building weapons.2 An unsafeguarded 500-megawatt-electric (MW(e)) prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) is being built at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) complex at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu. The PFBR is expected to be commissioned in mid-2018 following a series of technical delays.3 The IGCAR has announced that a fast reactor fuel cycle facility will be built at Kalpakkam to reprocess spent fuel from the PFBR and future fast breeder reactors. The plant is scheduled to be commissioned by 2022.4 India is currently expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Strategic Non-Nuclear Deterrence Capabilities, Limitations and Challenges
    Russia and strategic Briefing Paper non-nuclear deterrence Russia and Eurasia Programme Capabilities, limitations July 2021 and challenges Summary — An analysis of Russian military theory and practice suggests that Russia’s views have undergone an evolution, moving from reliance on nuclear deterrence towards a greater emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence. The development of Russia’s new long-range precision-guided weapons strongly supports the notion of such a shift. — At the same time, Russia is pressing ahead with the development of both non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities. It ceaselessly emphasizes its nuclear weapons, and its nuclear projects continue to proliferate. — In Russian theory and practice, nuclear and non-nuclear (conventional) deterrence are inextricably linked. A picture emerges of a flexible package of capabilities, with non-nuclear strategic systems complementing non-strategic and strategic nuclear weapons. — In anything less than large-scale high-intensity warfare, Russia’s non-nuclear strategic deterrent is valid conceptually and has clear practical utility. — This paper examines Russian non-nuclear deterrence in its primary, military manifestations. It outlines the capabilities involved in the exercise of non-nuclear deterrence and explores its potential limitations as well as its ambiguities. Studying these nuances offers a way to gain a fuller understanding of the challenges that they present, including for NATO. Valeriy Akimenko Russia and strategic non-nuclear deterrence Capabilities, limitations and challenges Introduction An analysis of Russian military theory and practice suggests that Russia’s views have undergone an evolution, moving from reliance on nuclear deterrence towards a greater emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence. Uncertainty surrounds this emphasis, both conceptually and practically.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Th SOPS to Schriever: Bring It On! Easter Services Available the 50Th Space Wing by Staff Sgt
    Spring Fling: egg-citing! More than 1,200 people came out to enjoy the 2007 Spring Fling, which featured a petting zoo, egg scrambles and more. See story and photos on pages 12 and 13. VOL. 9, NO. 14 April 5, 2007 Colorado Springs, Colo. www.schriever.af.mil News Briefs 4th SOPS to Schriever: Bring it on! Easter services available The 50th Space Wing by Staff Sgt. Don Branum Chaplain Support Team 50th Space Wing Public Affairs will conduct a Good Friday worship service Friday at 11 The challenge is on again—who can come a.m. and an Easter Sunday in “fourth”? service Sunday at 8 a.m. in The 4th Space Operations Squadron has the Building 300 Audito- invited everyone on base to take part in the rium here. second-annual 4-Fit Challenge, scheduled for For information on these April 27 at 9:44 a.m. at the Main Fitness Center or other religious ser- and track here. vices, contact the 50th SW The numerology behind the date and time Chaplain Support Team at is signifi cant: April 27 is the fourth Friday of 567-3705. the fourth month. The time corresponds to 4:44 a.m. in the Yankee Time Zone, just east of the Build your relationship International Date Line. Fourth place is the new The Schriever Airman fi rst place; other spots are fi rst, second and third and Family Readiness runners-up. Center, in partnership with This year’s events include a men’s and wom- the Peterson Air Force Base en’s 4x400m relay as well as a 4x1600m coed Spouses Club, will offer two relay.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues
    Order Code RL33640 U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Updated January 24, 2008 Amy F. Woolf Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Summary During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to around 6,000 warheads today, and is slated, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, to decline to 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of between 450 and 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with between one and three warheads, for a total of 1,200 warheads. The Air Force recently deactivated all 50 of the 10-warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs; it plans to eventually deploy Peacekeeper warheads on some of the Minuteman ICBMs and has begun to deactivate 50 Minuteman III missiles. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components. The Air Force had expected to begin replacing the Minuteman missiles around 2018, but has decided, instead, to continue to modernize and maintain the existing missiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) Concept Calls for a Strike (CPGS) Capability Would U.S
    February 2011 STRATEGIC FORUM National Defense University About the Author Conventional Prompt M. Elaine Bunn is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for Global Strike: Strategic Strategic Research (CSR), Institute for National Strategic Studies, at Asset or Unusable Liability? the National Defense University. Vincent A. Manzo is a Research Analyst in CSR. by M. Elaine Bunn and Vincent A. Manzo Key Points ◆◆ A Conventional Prompt Global he Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) concept calls for a Strike (CPGS) capability would U.S. capability to deliver conventional strikes anywhere in the world be a valuable strategic asset for some fleeting, denied, and in approximately an hour. The logic of the CPGS concept is straight- difficult-to-reach targets. It would forward. The United States has global security commitments to deter and re- fill a gap in U.S. conventional T strike capability in some plausible spond to a diverse spectrum of threats, ranging from terrorist organizations to high-risk scenarios, contribute to near-peer competitors. The United States might need to strike a time-sensitive a more versatile and credible U.S. target protected by formidable air defenses or located deep inside enemy ter- strategic posture, and potentially enhance deterrence across a di- ritory. Small, high-value targets might pop up without warning in remote or verse spectrum of threats. sensitive areas, potentially precluding the United States from responding to the ◆◆ A small number of CPGS systems situation by employing other conventional weapons systems, deploying Special would not significantly affect the size of the U.S. deployed nuclear Operations Forces (SOF), or relying on the host country.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretary of Defense Task Force on Dod Nuclear Weapons Management
    Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Phase I: The Air Force’s Nuclear Mission September 2008 Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Chairman The Honorable James R. Schlesinger Task Force Members General Michael P. C. Carns, USAF (Ret) The Honorable J. D. Crouch II The Honorable Jacques S. Gansler Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN (Ret) The Honorable John J. Hamre The Honorable Franklin C. Miller Mr. Christopher A. Williams Executive Director Dr. James A. Blackwell, Jr. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON DOD NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANAGEMENT 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, CRYSTAL MALL 4, SUITE 900-D, ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4521 PHONE: (703) 602-1450 FAX: (703) 602-0968 The Honorable Robert M. Gates 12 September 2008 Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 Dear Mr. Secretary: The Task Force you appointed on 12 June has completed the first phase of its work, addressing the nuclear mission of the Air Force. The attached Phase I Report provides independent, professional advice on our findings and our recommended improvements in Air Force organization and stewardship. Such improvements are essential both to sustain public confidence in the safety and surety of our nuclear weaponry and to bolster clear international understanding in the continuing role and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. As compared to its role in the Cold War, the nuclear mission is both different and more circumscribed. Nonetheless, it remains crucial. Other nations have substantial capabilities; some of which are growing. The number of nuclear states may be increasing—making the challenge of deterrence ever more complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Nuclear Triad – a Threat Or Propaganda?
    Pulaski Policy Papers Komentarz Międzynarodowy Pułaskiego ISSN 2080-8852 Warsaw, 21.03.2017 Author: Rafał Lipka Russian nuclear triad – a threat or propaganda? Despite the financial crisis, economic sanctions and technological difficulties, the Russian Federation is modernizing the Armed Forces within the framework of the State Armaments Program 2011-2020 (Rus. GPW 2020). The modernization of the strategic nuclear forces is considered in Russia as one of the priorities, since the nuclear forces determine Kremlin’s prestige and the position as a superpower. Currently, the nuclear war seems to be a strictly theoretical problem, particularly as far as strategic nuclear strikes are concerned. However, Russia perceives nuclear weapons as a political tool, which may be used against other countries. On December 26, 2014, President Putin approved the new The modernization of the strategic nuclear forces is one of the priorities for Russia’s defence ‘Military Doctrine of the Russian industry. Despite economic difficulties, Russians Federation’, which states that “the are modernizing all branches of the Armed Forces Russian Federation shall reserve the and increasing their capabilities in terms of right to use nuclear weapons in response nuclear weapons. The risk of nuclear conflict to the use of nuclear and other types of remains hypothetical, however, it cannot be weapons of mass destruction against it entirely excluded. Modern strategic and tactical and/or its allies, as well as in the event of nuclear weapons are also intended to strengthen aggression against the Russian Russia’s position in global politics. Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”.
    [Show full text]
  • 100819 Minot Task Force 21 and Geostrategic Analysis Triad Nuclear
    100819 Minot Task Force 21 and Geostrategic Analysis Triad Nuclear Modernization Conference with former Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Jack Weinstein MR. PETER HUESSY: Good morning, everybody. My name is Peter Huessy and this is the 18th symposium we’ve done on nuclear deterrence since September of 2012. These are events I’ve put together with our great friends from Minot, North Dakota to inform the professional nuclear community about the current state of the nuclear enterprise, current nuclear policy issues, nuclear developments that affect U.S. security, arms control futures, industry contributions and technology developments and challenges we are facing, including some Congressional views. One event each year is at or near a U.S. military base with significant nuclear responsibilities, with participation and partnership with the base commander and officials. Though it’s not final yet, next July we will probably be doing our next triad event at Global Strike Command in Louisiana. We’ve also done these conferences in Minot, North Dakota, Kings Bay, Georgia, Kitsap‐Bangor, Washington, Hill Air Force Base, and three times in Crane, Indiana. Every year we also do an event here in Washington, D.C. in the first week of October, co‐sponsored by Task Force 21 and Geostrategic Analysis. I could not do these events ‐‐ including my breakfast seminars, which now number about 1,800 that we’ve done since March of 1983 – I could not do it without the support of my friends in industry. Particularly today I would like to thank the Aerospace Corporation, Boeing, General Dynamics Electric Boat and General Dynamics Mission Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypersonic Weapons
    HYPERSONIC WEAPONS A Challenge and Opportunity for Strategic Arms Control A Study Prepared on the Recommendation of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research HYPERSONIC WEAPONS A Challenge and Opportunity for Strategic Arms Control A Study Prepared on the Recommendation of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research New York, 2019 Note The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs is publishing this material within the context of General Assembly resolution 73/79 on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme in order to further an informed debate on topical issues of arms limitation, disarmament and security. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or its Member States. Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. These documents are available in the official languages of the United Nations at http://ods.un.org. Specific disarmament- related documents can also be accessed through the disarmament reference collection at www.un.org/disarmament/publications/library. This publication is available from www.un.org/disarmament UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Copyright © United Nations, 2019 All rights reserved Printed at the United Nations, New York Contents Foreword v Summary vii Introduction 1 I. Current state of technology 3 Scope and general characteristics 3 Past and current development programmes 7 United States 7 Russian Federation 10 China 12 India 12 France 13 Japan 13 Possible countermeasures 13 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Status Report Additional Nonproliferation Resources
    NUCLEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FISSILE MATERIAL, AND STATUS EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION REPORT NUMBER 6 JUNE 2001 RUSSIA BELARUS RUSSIA UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN JON BROOK WOLFSTHAL, CRISTINA-ASTRID CHUEN, EMILY EWELL DAUGHTRY EDITORS NUCLEAR STATUS REPORT ADDITIONAL NONPROLIFERATION RESOURCES From the Non-Proliferation Project Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Russia’s Nuclear and Missile Complex: The Human Factor in Proliferation Valentin Tikhonov Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction with Routledge Joseph Cirincione, editor The Next Wave: Urgently Needed Steps to Control Warheads and Fissile Materials with Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom Matthew Bunn The Rise and Fall of START II: The Russian View Alexander A. Pikayev From the Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions Jonathan Tucker, editor International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Proliferation and Defenses Scott Parish, editor Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Options for Control UN Institute for Disarmament Research William Potter, Nikolai Sokov, Harald Müller, and Annette Schaper Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes Updated by Tariq Rauf, Mary Beth Nikitin, and Jenni Rissanen Russian Strategic Modernization: Past and Future Rowman & Littlefield Nikolai Sokov NUCLEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, FISSILE MATERIAL, AND STATUS EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION REPORT NUMBER 6 JUNE
    [Show full text]