StarDestroyer.Net BBS

phongn wrote:1. The total US nuclear arsenal at it's height in the 1960s was only 20GT and has been coming down ever since (mainly due to increased accuracy of delivery systems). I find it highly unlikely that the world's total arsenal is 60GT.

You're correct, the US and USSR had a combined arsenal of 40,000 MT, with the rest of the nuclear power accounting something like 15,000 or more in the 1960s. And yes, arms reduction has gutted these stockpiles by something like half IIRC.

2. Are you referencing Sagan's TTAPS study? That one has been generally discredited.

Man, I completely forgot about that! I'm too young to have been phased very much to to the early debates on nuclear winter. By the time I got to college and took Postal's special weapons course, TTAPS 100 MT nuclear winter had been of a case study in earlier flawed models for ten years or more.

Rev Prez

I'd be surprised if the US arsenal was even 5GT now (and even less for Russia's badly deteriorating arsenal); everyone else seems to only field a few hundred megatons.

EDIT: If every warhead in the world's arsenal was 1MT -- and the average is much lower than that -- we'd still not have anywhere near 60GT. How did you come up with that number?

As for your previous assertion as to 60GT being 7.5X the amount neccessary to induce nuclear winter, I find that an extraordinary claim -- it's far too low.

phongn wrote:I'd be surprised if the US arsenal was even 5GT now (and even less for Russia's badly deteriorating arsenal); everyone else seems to only field a few hundred megatons.

I think it was down to 15,000 MT, but I don't remember where I got that figure.

EDIT: If every warhead in the world's arsenal was 1MT -- and the average is much lower than that -- we'd still not have anywhere near 60GT. How did you come up with that number?

You'll note these are present day numbers. As for my source, it was from here: "In a context of such lunacy where each side sought to terrorise the other, the United States and the Soviet Union had each at one point over 30 000 nuclear warheads, with a total energy yield at their highest levels of 30 000 megatons, the equivalent of 2.5 million Hiroshima bombs!"

As for your previous assertion as to 60GT being 7.5X the amount neccessary to induce nuclear winter, I find that an extraordinary claim -- it's far too low.

I got it from class, from a Foreign Affairs article written back in 1986. Apparantly it's repeated in these class notes here. If you happen to run across the original source, I'd like to see it--it would help immensely in another discussion.

Rev Prez

revprez wrote:I think it was down to 15,000 MT, but I don't remember where I got that figure.

Your own source gives 5GT for the US arsenal and 8GT for the Soviet arsenals, and this during their 1980s level!

You'll note these are present day numbers.

You specifically said the "global nuclear stockpile," which implied present numbers.

If you happen to run across the original source, I'd like to see it--it would help immensely in another discussion.

Ugh. The cite is not especially useful (NCAR 1986 could be any number of things). Furthermore, it also says "nuclear winter or autumn," not just nuclear winter as you noted earlier.

phongn wrote:Your own source gives 5GT for the US arsenal and 8GT for the Soviet arsenals, and this during their 1980s level!

So 13,000 MT.

You specifically said the "global nuclear stockpile," which implied present numbers.

Yes, I apologized for the slip up. I should have noted that 60,000 MT was the peak.

Ugh. The cite is not especially useful (NCAR 1986 could be any number of things).

Good spot. Here is the Foreign Affairs article I was talking about. Unfortunately, it's a pay site.

Furthermore, it also says "nuclear winter or autumn," not just nuclear winter as you noted earlier.

4000 to 8000 MT encompasses the range from autumn to winter.

Rev Prez