How many nuclear weapons still exist in the world and post cold-war, where are they aimed?
345358
Stockpiled    Deliverable\nUS:   10,640         6,390\nRussia  16,000       3,242\nBrit     200           200\nFrance   350           350\nChina   ~400           ~325\nIsrael   200           200\nIndia    150           110\nPakis     75            75\nN.Korea   ~13          ~13\n\nWhere are they aimed? Here's a brief summary: (but as you can imagine, it's only best guess)\n\nN.Korea: Seoul is within tactical range,limited capacity for direct attack on continental USA, unless from medium range missile fired from a ship or sneaked-on weapon to US port. Most likely target is US forces in S.Kor and Japan.\n\nIran: poses little threat to continental US, largest threat is strike at Israel, main threat is future years when they do possess an operational nuke.\n\nPakistan: ally now but an unstable one, possibility their nukes can be taken over by terrorist elements against the US.\n\nIndia: Ally but more stable, continued confrontation over Kashmir raises the possibility of a nuclear war, under a war situation, fanatical elements could put the control of weapon systems into their hands.\n\nTerrorists: this is a new post-Cold War threat, not involve state actors or rational leaders.  Many terrorists seek martyrdom and would see a US strike on a Muslim target as a positive step toward turning Muslim world against the US.\n\nBritain,France,Israel: have sizable arsenals, concern is over the theft,pilfreage or diversion, as well as unauthorized or ciminal action to launch, which would have negative consequences for the US.\n\nUS: strategy is twofold: countervalue and counterforce targeting. The first on major cities,industrial complexes, and critical economic modes, with reduncy.  The 2nd targets weapons systems before they can be launched, success relied on preemptive strike and maintenance of high alert forces, ready to launch on warning...ie, hair triggers.  \n\nThese are general guidances, the actual targest are kept on list contained on the highly classified Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). At the moment of decision, only the President can issue the command based on his reading of the SIOP.  The world is continuously less than 30 minutes away from full scale nuclear war, unfortunately still at this time.\n\nAnd now, the assessment for our friend in Russia:\nFrom the point of bview of strategic nuclear weapons, Russian is the main concern.  The end of the Cold War has brought a sobering awareness of the vulnerabilitys of their nuclear complex, their security is downgraded with some assets left in new and unstable countries.  Old habits die hard, the suspicions of US intentions are still there, look at the post-Cold War incident on Jan. 25, 1995 - \n\nRussia almost launched a nuclear attack after a Norwegian missile launch for scientific research was detected from Spitsbergen and thought to be an attack on Russia, launched five minutes from Moscow.  For the first time in history the Soviat briefcase is activated.\n\nGetting back to targeting, the presence of highly survivable mobile systems, both in the US and Russia, vis-a-vis land-based systems, bombers and subs. has made countervalue and counterforce targeting obsolete. Both sides have recognized MAD and any launch would be national suicide.  The only threat from Russia then is the irrational actions of rogue commanders or accidental launches from an aging control-command system.\n\nAnd finally China: has some long range capability, covering most of continental USA. they have stated a "no-first-use' policy, even over the impending Taiwan crisis. Their real competition is economic and political, threatening to dominate the world markets.  Russia is trying to sell strategic bombers and nuclear subs which would be of concern.  There is some potential for future nuclear confrontation, but presently we are in a nuclear standoff with them.
404607
I think it's intuitive that more countries with nukes is something that should be discouraged by the world community, but the countries that already have them don’t want to get rid of them unless its mutual as with Russia and the US over the past decade.  I also think it’s a matter of the stability of the countries that now may obtain nuclear weapons.  Russia and China are downright stable compared to Iran and N Korea.
276208
Yes it has. It has had a nuclear weapon since the 70s. The main plant is called Daydamona and there are others.
325249
Anybody, the US has thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons, so nuclear war would go very badly for Iran. China has about 4000 nuclear weapons, Britain has nuclear weapons, as does France and Russia.
33660
It all depends on the country and the number of missiles with the nuclear warheads on them. It the country only had about 10 bomb it would definitely be possible. A country like Russia or China with 1000s of warheads it would be nearly impossible.
381796
The Nuclear Club is a term given to countries possessing nuclear weapons.\n\nThe major powers, USA, Russia, China, UK want this club to remain exclusive.  That's why these powers get upset when countries like India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and N. Korea try to obtain them.
330604
A couple of issues with your question.\n\nThe US is no longer testing nuclear weapons, and production is limited to what is required to replace older systems that are obsolete (read the SALT-II treaty).\n\nNext, of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons I would say the ones most likely to use them are Pakistan (which would lead to its anihilation) and Russia, out of desperation and impotence.  The chances of the US using nuclear weapons is fantastically small.\n\nThe US, and the UN for that matter (if you come up out of your hate america haze long enough you would realize that France, Germany and the UN are the ones leading the charge against Iran) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it seems very likely that they will use them on their neighbors.\n\nBesides, would you give a loaded pistol to a three year old and expect no one to get hurt?  Same idea with Iran.
1114372
Well, let's see...I don't know all of them but...I'll put what I think I know...\n1-Korea\n2-I don't know if you count this, but I think we were still testing the Atomic Bomb in 1950. If we were, you could probably count the US on this list. Ya gotta test those a-bombs somewhere. \n3-Vietnam\n4-Cambodia\n5-Libya\n6(and maybe 7)-I don't know if we bombed Panama or Guam, but we invaded them both\n8-Iraq\n9-Quite possibly Kuwait while driving out the Iraqis in '91 (or was it '92?)\n10-Serbia \n11-Sudan (do missile strikes count?)\n12-Afghanistan\nThat's all that I can recall off-hand. I know there was at least one more, but I can't recall it. If our excitable friend would quit name-calling and calm down long enough to make a point he could tell you that the vast majority of these bombings and invasions were done with incredible restraint. There is not a nuclear wasteland where Vietnam (or even Afghanistan) used to be. I'm pretty sure, however, Gen. MacArthur wanted to invade China with tactical nuclear support when they entered into the Korea conflict. Rarely (unfortunately not never) in modern US history have we attacked a country spuriously. Generally, the US public is not in favor of the complete annihilation of rival civilizations, despite the fact that some of those civilizations would not extend us the same courtesy. That having been said, it is never a good day when the bombs start to fall.
491884
Perhaps you were lost somewhere in recent history, but the Cold War ended for a reason. \n\nThere is no reason to consider the use of nuclear weapons on Iran. Look at Iraq. How can you possibly trust the intelligence the Bush Administration would rely on in order to initiate a pre-emptive nuclear strike? \n\nThe US can no longer use might and must learn again how to use diplomacy. This is not a democrat vs. republican issue. This is an issue that involves all of humanity.\n\nUse of nuclear weapons is harmful to everyone, not just the country or entity on which the weapons are used. Look at what the US did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the lasting impact it has had on the environment and the people of Japan. The US should be ashamed of testing nuclear weapons in that way!!\n\nAnyone still advocating the use of nuclear weapons needs to read up on diplomatic strategy and look at the inevitability of the fall of the US empire as well as global warming, cancer statistics among survivors and countless other issues. Nuclear weapons are even harmful for the US to store. \n\nSoon the US will no longer be in control in the world forum, as hard to believe as that is, the writing is on the wall.
299348
The U.S. has three kinds of ICBM:\n\nMinuteman III: Up to 3 warheads, each with 335-350Kt yield. \nPeacekeeper: Up to 10 warheads, each with 300kt yield \nTrident D-5 (sub-launched): Up to 8 warheads, each with 300-475kt yield.\n\nDue to arms control treaties, few ICBMs carry their full number of warheads anymore.  Most or all of the land-based force is being converted down to only carry a single warhead per missile, and I think the sub force is being reduced to 5 warheads per missile.  Yield of the individual warheads remains the same.\n\nYou don't see many of the big multi-megaton warheads anymore.  Modern ICBMs are accurate enough that they don't need a warhead that large to destroy hardened targets.
567302
Not at all...what kind of double standard sh*t is this? we bomb the hell out of iraq and afghanistan with uranium bombs killing civilians, let Israel develop nuclear arms, and yet we don't allow another country develop nuclear power...start looking at this from an international point of view, we are killing people with nuclear arms and yet we banned other countries from developing nuclear technology! so if we want to disarm countries why don't we start with Israel, Korea and China...use common sense this was all planned years ago, then we would go after Syria, Jordan, Russia, this is just pure hypocrisy.
902546
I just followed up lucky2balive's good wikipedia link.\n\nCountry Warheads active\nUnited States:  5,735 to 9,960\nRussia Russia (formerly the Soviet Union): 5,830 to 16,000\nFrance: 350\nUnited Kingdom: <200\nPeople's Republic of China:  130\nIndia:  60\nPakistan:  24-48\nNorth Korea: 1-10
78527
yes, they are developing "bunker buster" cruise missles that "dig" underground and explode. They also make "tactical nukes" which are essentially low yeild nukes fired from a cannon. and there is of course the uranium shells used by U.S. tanks in Iraq. They use uranium to harden the steel of the shells to better pierce armor, although these are not specifically "nukes" they have a lot of the nasty side effects like cancer causing radiation. I don't know if the U.S. still makes ICBM's, but I'm pretty sure they do. I know the most recent ICBM's are multiple warheads essentially 7 nukes in one, each with a blast zone exponentially larger than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
503047
192 countries exist in the world as of now
18393
USA, Russia, France, Britain, China, India and Pakisthan have weapons and ICBM's to deliver those.\nIsrael might have a few, North Korea and Iran might be developing as Pakisthan and China and Russia might've sold secrets.\nUSA and Russia have 1000's while France, Britain, China  have hundreds.\nIndia's count is unknown but is suspected to rival China as they have been producing in secret since 1970's (Indira Gandhi)\nMany countries like South Africa and Canada have technology but don't build them.\nWith Canada, France, USA's and Russia's help India might rival almost everyone.
108685
wrong cause all unprovoked nucleat attack is stupid.also nuclear weapons kill civilians and not military targets.
457093
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.