US announced significant reductions in nuclear arsenal

October 6 2021

Washington continues to gradually reduce US nuclear warheads. As follows from the data released by the State Department, as of September 2020, America possessed 3750 nuclear warheads.

The United States reported a significant reduction in the country's nuclear arsenal. According to the report, between 1994 and 2020, the United States reduced the number of nuclear warheads by 11683 units, and another 2 warheads are currently decommissioned and awaiting dismantling and disposal. At the same time, it is noted that the maximum level of the number of nuclear warheads was reached by the United States in 1967, when 31255 warheads were in service. In 1989, there were already 22217 in the US arsenal.

As of September 2020, the US nuclear warhead arsenal consisted of 3750 warheads (...) about 2 more nuclear warheads are currently decommissioned and awaiting dismantling

- said in the report of the State Department.

It is emphasized that since 1991, the arsenal of nuclear non-strategic weapons The US has shrunk by more than 90%.

Recall that in the framework of the extended START-3 treaty, Russia and the United States in April this year exchanged new data on the nuclear arsenals of the two countries. At the same time, Russia accused the United States of violating the treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Americans have underestimated the real number of deployed and non-deployed launchers and strategic bombers.

According to Russian data, the number of American launchers and heavy bombers exceeds the number allowed by the treaty by 101 units. The United States unilaterally removed 56 launchers of SLBMs (ballistic missiles of submarines) and 41 strategic bomber B-52H from the offset so that it is impossible to confirm their unsuitability for the use of nuclear weapons.

Military Reviewin Yandex News

Military Reviewin Yandex Zen

Popandos 6 October 2021 07: 32
+3

6

3
Americans underestimated the real number of deployed and non-deployed launchers and strategic bombers

With the striped ones, they either agree about something, do not respect themselves, anyway, they will not fulfill something from their obligations.
1. Grandfather 6 October 2021 07: 48
  +1
  
  2
  
  1
  in principle ... just enough is needed to erase this world, everything.
  1. Yngvar 6 October 2021 07: 56
    
    0
    
    1
    
    1
    
    Ours also need to declare the reduction! And that's it! Calm down on this! There is no need to arrange "Sary Ozek - 2", sample 1990-1991.
    1. hrych 6 October 2021 10: 27
      
      +2
      
      5
      
      3
      
      Strategic nuclear forces are good, but TNW we have more than all combined, and SBS, in particular, some anti-ship missiles - megaton class. Also, our tactical nuclear weapons in range reach thousands of kilometers, not counting carriers, and crosses the line of its class. It also reached hypersound, previously it was only available to the combat units of the strategic nuclear forces. Another problem for the United States is that the Wow-Know program, i.e. in fact, as reparations for the defeat of the USSR, they killed the American enrichment industry. And apart from nuclear power plants, they have all aircraft carriers and submarines - nuclear-powered ships. And they seem to be digesting themselves, have practically gobbled up their tactical weapons, and now, while reducing their strategic nuclear forces, weapons-grade uranium is being converted into reactor fuel. If Russia succeeded in making a compact reactor of high power, as the President declared and made Kiriyenko a hero, then the volume of nuclear fuel burned in the reactors will also decrease several times. Taking into account the world leadership of the Russian Federation in the enrichment sector, the forecast is favorable.
      1. Shurik70 6 October 2021 12: 44
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        In 2000, the United States and Russia signed an agreement to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium.
        However, the United States did not comply with the agreement. And in 2016 Russia withdrew from the agreement.
        So weapons-grade plutonium in the United States has been and is being produced.
        And having it, you can very quickly make the right amount of nuclear weapons
        Reduction of warheads is a fiction.
        
        hrych 6 October 2021 13: 32
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        The point is, to produce plutonium, you need to spend uranium. Plutonium is produced in reactors. Plutonium itself, in turn, is a nuclear fuel. And when disassembling warheads, they use it as well as fuel. If uranium is mined from ores and enriched by centrifugation, etc., then plutonium is synthesized from uranium through neptunium. Therefore, the direct dependence of plutonium on uranium.
  2. bk0010 6 October 2021 11: 49
    
    +3
    
    3
    
    0
    
    Quote: Dead Day
    it takes just enough to erase this world, everything.
    We need 20 times more: in case we miss the preemptive strike. 95% will be destroyed, it is necessary that the remaining 5% be enough for everyone, so that "no one leaves offended."
2. The comment was deleted.
3. Yaro Polk 6 October 2021 07: 54
  +1
  
  4
  
  3
  These mattress covers have not even destroyed their chemical weapons until now, according to an agreement with Russia, and Russia destroyed it, destroyed it for 10 years, a special plant was built for the disposal of missiles with chemical weapons ............ and there and then nits make claims which are to us.
4. unhappy 6 October 2021 08: 11
  +5
  
  5
  
  0
  What has changed in the world? Vikings came to our cities to trade and it was beneficial to everyone, but when they saw weak "partners" they attacked and robbed.
  They trade and abide by contracts with a strong and ready to hit back (in the teeth) man!
Aurel 6 October 2021 07: 40
0

4

4
We know their "reduction". They removed the warheads from the missiles and stored them in the arsenal.
1. Egoza 6 October 2021 07: 43
  +1
  
  3
  
  2
  Quote: Aurel
  We know their "reduction". They removed the warheads from the missiles and stored them in the arsenal.
  
  The United States announced a reduction .... And were there any observers from the nuclear powers? Oh, no, well, so "let me not believe you!"
2. bayard 6 October 2021 09: 35
  +2
  
  2
  
  0
  Quote: Aurel
  We know their "reduction". They removed the warheads from the missiles and stored them in the arsenal.
  
  Even if the warheads are dismantled, they do not carry out any plutonium disposal. Everything is stored and ready for the reproduction of new warheads. Another thing is that after 30 years or more, transuranic elements have accumulated there and they need to be processed and purified. And they still do not have a production base (radiochemical plant).
  But they should start soon.
  As for the utilization of Uranium-235 from reduced warheads, they are processed at Ros-Atom facilities into TVELs for nuclear power plants in the United States.
Yaro Polk 6 October 2021 07: 42
+1

3

2
These idiots cannot have such a weapon at all, these idiots have already lost about six nuclear bombs for their microhistory ...
rocket757 6 October 2021 07: 43
+2

3

1
US announced significant reductions in nuclear arsenal
Well, yes, not to plow the entire planet three times, but two and a half !!! A comforting prospect ...
1. Yves762 6 October 2021 08: 18
  +2
  
  3
  
  1
  Quote: rocket757
  Well, yes, not to plow the entire planet three times, but two and a half !!! A comforting prospect ...
  
  That's right!
  The stock must be at least five times!
  "So that no one leaves offended ..."
  1. rocket757 6 October 2021 08: 27
    
    +1
    
    1
    
    0
    
    So after the first "plowing" few people will be left to regret that they have not reduced to a state of ... half, for example.
2. bayard 6 October 2021 09: 41
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  Quote: rocket757
  Well, yes, not to plow the entire planet three times, but two and a half !!! A comforting prospect ...
  
  There is nothing to "plow" or "glass" the planet - the nuclear warheads available in all countries are already enough for this even for one (!) Time of guaranteed destruction. The number of nuclear warheads was reduced by at least an order of magnitude, and the power of each of them ... also by an order of magnitude.
  And in some cases, two. Order.
  There are no more bombs in the tens of MT. ... even just a megaton is gone.
  1. rocket757 6 October 2021 11: 22
    
    0
    
    0
    
    0
    
    Okay, they didn't glaze, they didn't move from orbit, and what, there isn't enough deadly mud for everyone? that's enough, and even the descendants will have ...
    1. bayard 6 October 2021 11: 30
      
      +1
      
      1
      
      0
      
      If a war happens between the United States and the Russian Federation, then the Southern Hemisphere will not even notice this - the air flows to the Southern Hemisphere will not mix.
      Therefore, South America, Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa were considered the survival zone at that time.
      But during the Cold War, the parties had huge fleets that would also have fought and could bring something to the south. Now Russia has NO Fleet, and its shadow can not be taken into account.
      But if there is a war with China, yes, in 10 years, when it will equalize its nuclear potential, then yes - the infection will spread. China has a fleet.
      1. rocket757 6 October 2021 12: 14
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Do not guess, hope that it will carry you by ...
        
        bayard 6 October 2021 12: 16
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        On the contrary, it can push someone with the hope of surviving at least partially.
        Who has already lost everything and is ready for a nuclear exchange.
dzvero 6 October 2021 08: 09
0

2

2
Why do they cut it? So wanted? Money bye-bye? Or is there nowhere to take new charges for replacement?
1. faiver 6 October 2021 08: 22
  +6
  
  6
  
  0
  The shelf life seems to be running out of junk, so they reduce it ...
2. Mountain shooter 6 October 2021 08: 23
  0
  
  2
  
  2
  Quote: dzvero
  Why do they cut it? So wanted? Money bye-bye? Or is there nowhere to take new charges for replacement?
  
  And all at once. Specialists have grown old, and young people do not go to hazardous industries. Warheads cannot just lie, they require periodic maintenance. And this is almost inevitable exposure.
  Nothing has been heard about the assembly of new warheads for a long time ... True, minke whales did not dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, but were stored ... Well, well-known sharpshooters.
Ross xnumx 6 October 2021 08: 13
0

4

4
US announced significant reductions in nuclear arsenal

Has the supply of weapons-grade plutonium from Russia really decreased (stopped)?
AML 6 October 2021 08: 20
+1

1

0
Quote: ROSS 42
US announced significant reductions in nuclear arsenal

Has the supply of weapons-grade plutonium from Russia really decreased (stopped)?

No one supplied them with weapons-grade plutonium. They were supplied with uranium for nuclear power plants made from weapons-grade uranium.
They are unloaded because plutonium degrades rapidly.
Avior 6 October 2021 08: 26
+1

4

3
The reduction in the nuclear arsenal, which has been observed since the late 60s, is now in jeopardy.
in my opinion there are three reasons
1. The emergence of new nuclear states. So far, this process is more or less controlled, but at some point it may get out of control. Nuclear weapons are not that complicated and expensive, right now there are about a dozen states capable of producing them, and if you set yourself the goal of creating them, then even much more. The temptation is strong if the spread gets out of control.
2. The growth of the nuclear arsenal and the specifics of China's delivery vehicles. Previously, the USSR and the United States had a deliberately overwhelming advantage over the rest and could negotiate with each other, not really considering the rest. Now China will not agree to limit its nuclear potential until it is equal to that of Russia or America. It is much more difficult for three parties to agree than for two. And if Britain and France also join this race, which are not prevented by anything from building up nuclear weapons, since they have only self-restraint, then the situation will become even more threatening.
3. With the reduction of strategic armaments, the role of tactical nuclear weapons has sharply increased, which is not limited by anything, there is no agreement either on their number or on the nomenclature. And this is the most serious threat in fact, since it greatly underestimates the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and the transition of a war to a nuclear one with unpredictable consequences. The strategic decision-making bar for its use is incomparably higher than with the tactical one, and this potentially poses a great threat.
BAI 6 October 2021 08: 27
+3

3

0
It is emphasized that since 1991, the US arsenal of nuclear non-strategic weapons has decreased by more than 90%.

It only remains to add that this is not the free will of the United States, but a write-off due to old age. But why they cannot compensate is an interesting question.
Troll 6 October 2021 08: 28
+1

2

1
I do not know what they have reduced there, but they are not going to destroy chemical weapons, which also belong to weapons of mass destruction.
riwas 6 October 2021 09: 07
+1

1

0
Washington continues to gradually reduce US nuclear warheads. As follows from the data released by the State Department, as of September 2020, America possessed 3750 nuclear warheads.

And why more, extra expenses. And there are many of these, which are needed to guarantee the destruction of the planned targets. In addition, the non-nuclear military potential of the United States is enormous: the navy, aviation and missiles.
voyaka uh 6 October 2021 09: 15
-3

3

6
A-y-yay ... cut and cut ...
Isn't the US planning a surprise attack on Russia?
1. dzvero 6 October 2021 13: 15
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  I would be surprised if there are no such plans in their headquarters (as well as in the General Staff of the Russian Federation) Doctrine is doctrine, but the air will have to be hit first from around the corner ... As for the reduction of YABG, the question is purely technical - how to beat once there is no knife - with reinforcement, a profile, a board from a fence or sand-lime brick.
rotmistr60 6 October 2021 09: 43
0

0

0
Why waste resources on a huge amount of non-strategic nuclear weapons if the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons are enough to destroy the world several times. So they are engaged in eyewash - look how peace-loving we are, that we are reducing nuclear weapons. All "progressive" humanity applauds and pokes its fingers at the "aggressive" Russians and Chinese.
Reserve buildbat 6 October 2021 18: 56
-1

0

1
"According to the report, between 1994 and 2020, the United States reduced the number of nuclear warheads by 11683, and another 2 warheads are currently decommissioned and awaiting dismantling and disposal."
And how many warheads have been disposed of during this time? None again?