Military Review

Report: Nuclear Weapons on Earth Become Less

60
The world continues to reduce the number of nuclear weaponsbut at the same time it is being upgraded RIA News report from the press service of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).




“None of the nuclear weapon states is ready to completely abandon nuclear arsenals in the foreseeable future,” the press release said.

According to the press service, the SIPRI annual report states that “at the beginning of 2016, nine countries, namely, the USA, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, were in possession of approximately 15395 units nuclear weapons ”, which is“ slightly less than the 2015 year, at the beginning of which there were about 15850 weapons ”.

At the same time, “of the weapons mentioned above, approximately 4120 units were considered operational,” the experts noted.

Researchers have been fixing the decrease in the number of nuclear weapons, which occurs mainly due to the reduction of the arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States (they account for 93% of all nuclear weapons stocks).

“However, the process is proceeding at a slow pace, despite the existing international agreements,” the institute believes.

Moreover, “in the long-term programs of both countries further modernization of nuclear weapons systems is indicated. The United States, for example, plans to spend 358 billions of dollars in the period from 2015 to 2024 to maintain and upgrade its nuclear forces, ”the report says.

“Despite the continuing reduction in the number of weapons, the prospects for genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament remain bleak,” the press service of the SIPRI project on nuclear weapons, Shannon Kyle, quotes.

The agency’s reference: “The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute was founded in 1966 and is an independent think tank dealing with conflict, weapons, arms control and disarmament research.”
Photos used:
http://warnet.ws
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. CORNET
    CORNET 13 June 2016 13: 26
    +9
    In the 90s, we refused everything ..... The result is disappointing ..!
    1. poquello
      poquello 13 June 2016 13: 32
      +17
      Quote: CORNET
      In the 90s, we refused everything ..... The result is disappointing ..!

      and the zero option of nuclear disarmament against the background of current affairs looks, if not suicide, then a guarantee of the start of full-scale wars
      1. Kosta153
        Kosta153 13 June 2016 14: 17
        +4
        Exactly, it's scary to imagine what would begin now!
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 13 June 2016 13: 48
      +9
      Quote: CORNET
      In the 90s we gave up everything ...
      Well, the SNAO was smart enough not to give up. Although, if another subject were in place of EBN, with a lesser lust for power, but a greater thirst for money (like Yegorushka Gaidar), the situation could have been quite sour. I will never forget the words of Yegor Timurovich: "If the army has nothing to feed, it should be disbanded"
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 13 June 2016 14: 30
        +4
        When we have weapons based on new physical principles, superior in power to nuclear weapons, then it will be possible to talk about nuclear disarmament.
        1. poquello
          poquello 13 June 2016 14: 43
          +1
          Quote: SRC P-15
          When we have weapons based on new physical principles, superior in power to nuclear weapons, then it will be possible to talk about nuclear disarmament.

          it will not be possible)))) to speak, they should be afraid of him, and to be afraid of showing him, etc.
        2. CORNET
          CORNET 13 June 2016 15: 20
          +1
          Quote: SRC P-15
          When we have weapons based on new physical principles, superior in power to nuclear weapons, then it will be possible to talk about nuclear disarmament.

          In my opinion, we already have it (quietly, otherwise they will squeal again ..) .... That's just the west, it doesn't hear us! Anyway.... bully
          Let's wait! bully
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 13 June 2016 17: 35
            -2
            If such a weapon appears then it will be "clean" - which means I don't want to use it.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 13 June 2016 17: 38
              +3
              Quote: Vadim237
              If such a weapon appears then it will be "clean" - which means I don't want to use it.

              Do you hear yourself? fool
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 June 2016 19: 57
                0
                I meant that it will not leave radioactive contamination, which means that it will be flexible in application for the military.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 13 June 2016 20: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  I meant that it will not leave radioactive contamination, which means that it will be flexible in application for the military.

                  That is, the temptation to use it will be many times greater than nuclear weapons? Dear Vadim, does the term "CONTAINMENT" tell you something? For more than 60 years, nuclear weapons have been such due to the fact that using it means making a planet for many thousands of years not fit for life.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 14 June 2016 00: 06
                    0
                    Well, we have nuclear weapons in conflicts, for example - they do not use them in the Middle East - and they will use this new one - that's what flexible means - use it in all conflicts on a par with conventional weapons.
            2. poquello
              poquello 13 June 2016 17: 41
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              If such a weapon appears then it will be "clean" - which means I don't want to use it.

              and other weapons of mass destruction are used anywhere?
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 13 June 2016 16: 24
          +4
          Quote: SRC P-15
          When we have weapons based on new physical principles, superior in power to nuclear weapons, then it will be possible to talk about nuclear disarmament.

          Do you think then it will become easier to live? If nuclear weapons are capable of leveling cities to the ground, then if the "new weapon" is capable of destroying islands and continents, this will make life quieter?
          1. NDR-791
            NDR-791 13 June 2016 16: 35
            +4
            Unfortunately you are right. A stick, a bow, a musket, a Mignier bullet, a Gatling machine gun, an airplane, A-bombs - and all this was said to be super-fatal - capable of stopping wars or destroying humanity. What will be added to the list tomorrow is unknown, maybe some railgun, or maybe they will say so again about the stick ???
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 13 June 2016 16: 39
      +2
      Only the prospect of getting in the teeth with a yedryonbaton can cool hot heads. And there are no fewer of them, hot heads, from something.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 13 June 2016 16: 47
        +1
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        And there are no fewer of them, hot heads, from something.

        Despite the fact that not only in the West, but also in our country. There is no certainty that tomorrow some stubborn "Khrushchev" will not come and, God forbid, Mother Kuzkin will not show the whole world by unleashing a war.
        We, like an adversary, have people on the key of nuclear weapons, not cars, and decisions are made by people too.
        1. kotvov
          kotvov 13 June 2016 17: 44
          +3
          "Khrushchev" will not show, God forbid, Kuzkin-mother to the whole world, unleashing a war. ,,
          you can treat Khrushchev as you want. But under him the Cuban missile crisis was resolved. But if it were either E. Gaidar or Kudrin, they would merge both interests and nuclear weapons.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 13 June 2016 17: 52
            +4
            Quote: kotvov
            you can treat Khrushchev as you want, but under him the Cuban missile crisis was resolved

            By the name "Khrushchev" I meant a person who was not quite balanced. As for the personally given general secretary, let's remember that both sides were catching up with political hysteria before Cuba.
            And thank God that there were sane people on both sides who did not allow a nuclear Armageddian at that time.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 13 June 2016 17: 38
        +1
        So they believe that their missile defense will protect, from retaliatory, missile attacks from Russia.
  2. Crucian
    Crucian 13 June 2016 13: 29
    +3
    I hope this quantity turns into quality, and with us!
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 June 2016 13: 32
    +5
    What can be summarized. Our SNW performs its function. Stops all thoughts of our enemies about real aggression against Russia.
    How did we not drink our SNAO EBN? It's amazing. And now - even more so.
  4. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 June 2016 13: 39
    +6
    All this decrease at the level of arithmetic error, there are always tricks that show how to count, etc. But the fact remains that the presence becomes a factor, only because the Ball is not yet all star-striped.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 13 June 2016 16: 26
      +3
      Quote: avg-mgn
      All this reduction is at the level of arithmetic error, there are always tricks, what to show, how to count, etc.

      I believe that soon Russia will withdraw from the START-3 treaty, and then it will be necessary to count the CD with anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads ...
    2. NDR-791
      NDR-791 13 June 2016 16: 43
      +4
      In fact, nuclear weapons are such a pain in the storage, maintenance, maintenance, etc., that the less those charges, the less problems. BUT!!! Defeat with scatter in 2km and with scatter in 3meter - things are already very different! This alone leads in reality to a reduction in quantity. And even less carrier vulnerability, a non-ballistic trajectory, false targets and much more, lead primarily to increased accuracy and, as a result, to a decrease in the number.
  5. megafair
    megafair 13 June 2016 13: 45
    +6
    I believe that in replacing each decommissioned warhead, for the guardians of our Fatherland and our principles of life, in which we do not want to see 3.14 doras, any liberators, and other scum ... That more effective weapons will be released to replace them, FOR - IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE WEAPON, which the pind0sy fear, THEN WE WILL DESTROY ... they dream about it.
    1. poquello
      poquello 13 June 2016 14: 03
      0
      Quote: megafair
      FOR - IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE WEAPON, which the pind0sy fear, THEN WE WILL DESTROY ... they dream about it.

      small amendment - they will try to destroy
    2. 34 region
      34 region 13 June 2016 15: 23
      -2
      Megafire! 13.45. What is the most effective weapon today and how is the war being waged today? What does war mean? Air raid, tank wedges, infantry? How are they fighting today? Aviation of the media inflicts massive information strikes, tank wedges with banks and funds rip open the enemy's economy, infantry divisions of transnational companies finish off the enemy on the ground. And why use nuclear weapons here? Was the USSR defeated with nuclear weapons? Are they hitting Syria with nuclear charges?
  6. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 13 June 2016 13: 49
    +6
    Nuclear weapons keep the peace. Until it falls into the hands of psychopaths.
  7. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 13 June 2016 13: 50
    +6
    And that SIPRY knows exactly how many warheads Pakistan, India, Israel, China have? All the figures are approximate, and the report is worthless.
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 13 June 2016 14: 46
      0
      Has anyone seen nuclear weapons from Israel or North Korea? Show the photo. bully The nuclear devices that Eun tested are not quite weapons yet.
  8. Crucian
    Crucian 13 June 2016 13: 58
    +6
    Quote: megafair
    I believe that in replacing each decommissioned warhead, for the guardians of our Fatherland and our principles of life, in which we do not want to see 3.14 doras, any liberators, and other scum ... That more effective weapons will be released to replace them, FOR - IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE WEAPON, which the pind0sy fear, THEN WE WILL DESTROY ... they dream about it.

    I agree completely. For those who think "the less nuclear weapons, the better": yes, but not for the modern world. We have nuclear weapons of a deterrent nature, because we, and, unfortunately, in my opinion, only we are now perfectly aware that our nuclear weapons are in reliable and adequate hands! Yes, we can get drunk and do all sorts of everyday stupid things, we can sleep in shorts in the snow, we can break each other's schnobels for fun in our wall-to-wall fun, we can send "to" or "to". BUT we will never shoot or even threaten someone with our available arsenal, let alone use it in order to take something away from someone. Let the mongrels yelp about the aggression of an inadequate Russia, let it! Let the beaters scream and the dogs bark until they vomit, but today is not the same as yesterday! They overlaid us, overlaid, but the "huntsmen" will be left with nothing!
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 13 June 2016 14: 02
    +4
    There are fewer nuclear weapons on Earth, this is good, the main thing is that Russia does not become less wink
    The most interesting thing is that the United States and Russia are reducing their nuclear weapons, but China, Britain, India and so on do not, it turns out theoretically that their nuclear potential in relation to Russia and the United States is growing, and this is not good
    1. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 13 June 2016 14: 07
      +2
      Quote: Yak28
      There are fewer nuclear weapons on Earth, this is good, the main thing is that Russia does not become less wink

      The sword of Damocles must be carried over all countries.
  10. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 13 June 2016 14: 21
    0
    If this goes on, bearing in mind NATO's manners, then there may not be any nuclear weapons anywhere.
  11. EvgNik
    EvgNik 13 June 2016 14: 26
    +5
    record a decrease in the number of nuclear weapons, which occurs mainly due to a reduction in the arsenals of the Russian Federation and the USA

    There is not a reduction in arsenals, but a renewal of nuclear weapons. And this is another story.
  12. Forever so
    Forever so 13 June 2016 14: 56
    +3
    Nuclear weapons are degrading. And all these ammunition must be periodically put on alert. In the USA, these technologies have practically disappeared due to the degradation of society and a decrease in the influx of foreign specialists. I.O. it's still not a TNT bomb from the time of Ochakov and the Crimea. Put in the arsenal and lies a hundred years at the ready. The main thing in Ya.O. this is the ability to contain it. So another 20 years will pass and you see, some countries will fall off themselves)) Yes, and the receipt of high-speed delivery methods allow you to abandon dirty weapons. why soil the soil, if a ton of pig iron gives the same effect on the destruction of the enemy. Again, voluminous ammunition is also being improved. I think soon the deterrence effect will be out of stock. And in the reluctance to litter the territory.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 June 2016 15: 03
      +1
      Perhaps sometime nuclear weapons will replace nuclear weapons. The tendency is that the capacity of the nuclear arsenal is decreasing, and the accuracy is increasing.
    2. ivanovich
      ivanovich 13 June 2016 15: 40
      +2
      Researchers have been fixing the decrease in the number of nuclear weapons, which occurs mainly due to the reduction of the arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States (they account for 93% of all nuclear weapons stocks).


      you write everything right, I will bring a little copy-paste on this subject
      Nuclear charges, unlike conventional bombs and shells, cannot be put into storage and forgotten until the need has come. The reason is the process constantly going on inside the nuclear charges, as a result of which the isotopic composition of the charge changes, and it quickly degrades.

      The warranty period for the operation of a nuclear charge in our ballistic missile is 10 years, and then the warhead must be sent to the plant, since plutonium must be changed in it. Nuclear weapons are an expensive pleasure, requiring the maintenance of an entire industry for the constant maintenance and replacement of charges. Alexander Kuzmuk, Minister of Defense of Ukraine from 1996 to 2001, said in an interview that there were 1740 nuclear munitions in Ukraine (Kuzmuk: “however, the life of those nuclear munitions expired before 1997.”). Therefore, the adoption by Ukraine of a nuclear-free status was nothing more than a beautiful gesture. Kuzmuk said: “Yes, this is a beautiful gesture. But the world, apparently, still does not appreciate beauty. ” Why "until 1997"? Because Gorbachev had already stopped manufacturing new nuclear charges, and the last old Soviet charges had a warranty period of operation in the 90s. Advisor to the Department for Security and Disarmament of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation V.I. Rybachenkov said: “For more than 10 years Russia has not produced weapons-grade uranium or weapons-grade plutonium. Somewhere in 1990, all this was stopped. ”
    3. KVIRTU
      KVIRTU 13 June 2016 15: 48
      -2
      You are absolutely right .
      Let's give the floor to physicists: "From the first day of manufacture, the charge is continuously degrading (plutonium decays);
      it is possible to extend the life of a nuclear charge - by reducing its operational capacity.
      That is, after the warranty period, it will, of course, explode, but with less power due to accumulated mismatches, or less likely "
      And yet, from physicists, with a fair amount of criticism:
      "Unlike the businesslike USSR, the Russian Federation is a country of talkers, marauders, money-sharing masters, incompetent" effective managers "(above) and beggars (below). Can unfortunate racist specialists with beggarly salaries provide all these jobs? Obviously not Yes, and they grow old, they leave, but there is no change. What young man wants to live for decades in poverty, on a salary that only allows him to eat, and even then it is not so tolerable? The same applies to the production of new warheads. The work requires a lot. qualifications, long years of study and practice, and in Russia they pay less for it than for selling cell phones. "
      1. faridg7
        faridg7 13 June 2016 16: 20
        +6
        Well, you read and you can shed a tear. Since when do I think it’s when the poor civilians work with ammunition when it’s always been work 12 of the GUMO?
        Well, yes, ammunition is degrading, but not because of the degradation of fissile components (are you aware of the half-life of plutonium or uranium? What will decay in 10 years is a trifle when it comes to millennia). The timing is due to the degradation of neutron sources and explosives. They must be changed periodically, which is done.
        1. Baby doll
          Baby doll 13 June 2016 17: 23
          0
          I agree with you !!! There were always enough specialists of the necessary qualifications in the 12 "shop"!
        2. KVIRTU
          KVIRTU 13 June 2016 17: 48
          0
          Yes, in the know, so 25000 years for plutonium. And you are talking about the initiators of the process. Clear. I quoted practicing physicists, and not everything is so rosy there, they see better from the inside, they know what they are writing about (but we still won’t find out the truth).
          And you shouldn't be ironic: "The average monthly accrued wages in the Krasnoyarsk Territory in June this year amounted to 37 rubles."
          That's where you need to tear ...
          1. faridg7
            faridg7 13 June 2016 23: 20
            +1
            Average monthly salary? It’s like the average temperature over the ward. Even when I worked for my uncle I earned at least 50,
            If a person works for a minuscule, then this minuscule suits him. I'm not going to get upset for him.
  13. ivanovich
    ivanovich 13 June 2016 15: 10
    +3
    Researchers have been fixing the decrease in the number of nuclear weapons, which occurs mainly due to the reduction of the arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States (they account for 93% of all nuclear weapons stocks).


    There is an objective reason for this, not connected in any way with the dove of the world. There are more than 500 nuclear reactors in the world that devour highly enriched uranium to generate energy. Every year, the reserves of uranium 238 are depleted, which means that the costs of processing it into fuel cells consisting of the 235 isotope are growing, so such countries have begun to consciously reduce the excess nuclear weapons, providing them with the operation of nuclear power plants. So in 100-200 years, if everything goes well, the arsenals of the United States and Russia will be no more than 1000 warheads, which is enough for mutual destruction
  14. Barakuda
    Barakuda 13 June 2016 15: 26
    +1
    A whole institute .. And how do they think? Are they sending a report to Shoigu?
  15. Zomanus
    Zomanus 13 June 2016 15: 52
    +1
    Only dude doesn’t say that the appearance of nuclear weapons stopped the world wars,
    when losses exceeded tens of millions.
    Which in turn allowed more than one generation to live in peace.
    So in spite of the excitement of the institution of this - all the rules.
    Americans sort of process their nuclear weapons for fuel for stations ...
    1. Forever so
      Forever so 13 June 2016 16: 27
      +4
      World War II was not stopped by Y.O. Just the Second World War showed that after the third, even with conventional weapons, there will be no one to work and no one will sell their anal values. Moreover, sellers can also be hanged on a string. Here is the Anglo-Saxon liquid banking ass and dances. And they emphasized the corruption of the leadership of the USSR.
  16. 31rus2
    31rus2 13 June 2016 16: 32
    0
    I don’t believe in this news, nor in the fact that nuclear weapons have exhausted themselves as weapons, then why should Russia, China, the USA, NATO countries constantly update their nuclear weapons and keep the button on the ready, but of course you can fantasize
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 June 2016 20: 05
      +1
      Nothing that it has exhausted itself - thermonuclear weapons will exist as long as humanity exists - the time will come when it will be exchanged for a similar one in power.
  17. Old26
    Old26 13 June 2016 22: 08
    +2
    Quote: NEXUS
    That is, the temptation to use it will be many times more than nuclear weapons? Dear Vadim, does the term "MEANS OF DETENTION" tell you anything?

    There is another term. "APPLICATION THRESHOLD". And the higher it is, the better for everyone. Unfortunately, it is gradually decreasing due to the emergence of more nuclear countries. The most h.r.t. will be new when it spreads to a dozen other countries. especially with inadequate regimens. And a nuclear war may start when some Niger, which has a couple of nuclear weapons and territorial claims to some Nigeria, which also has a pair of nuclear warheads, tries to solve its problems with nuclear weapons ...

    Quote: Yak28
    There are fewer nuclear weapons on Earth, this is good, the main thing is that Russia does not become less wink
    The most interesting thing is that the United States and Russia are reducing their nuclear weapons, but China, Britain, India and so on do not, it turns out theoretically that their nuclear potential in relation to Russia and the United States is growing, and this is not good

    It is not known how much China has; the number of nuclear warheads of India and Pakistan is calculated quite simply. Great Britain, the only one of the nuclear countries, except Russia and the USA, which also reduces its nuclear weapons
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 14 June 2016 00: 46
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      There is another term. "APPLICATION THRESHOLD". And the higher it is, the better for everyone. Unfortunately, it is gradually decreasing due to the emergence of more nuclear countries. The most h.r.t. will be new when it spreads to a dozen other countries. especially with inadequate regimens. And a nuclear war may start when some Niger, which has a couple of nuclear weapons and territorial claims to some Nigeria, which also has a pair of nuclear warheads, tries to solve its problems with nuclear weapons ...

      And I’m talking about the same thing. At the same time, I observe such a tendency even here at VO, youth boldly argues so that the Third World War is not so terrible that the consequences are surmountable and that soon afterwards, everything will be as before. the threshold of fear has become higher among the younger generation, for whom it is not only that Hiroshima is not an indicator, but even Chernobyl is not an argument.
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 14 June 2016 01: 05
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        And I’m talking about the same thing. At the same time, I observe such a tendency even here at VO, youth boldly argues so that the Third World War is not so terrible that the consequences are surmountable and that soon afterwards, everything will be as before. the threshold of fear has become higher among the younger generation, for whom it is not only that Hiroshima is not an indicator, but even Chernobyl is not an argument.

        I agree. These idiots do not know what a radioactive rain is, but there too. They would have been shoved into the contamination zone in May 86, but without umbrellas, I would have looked at them. Especially on Vadim in a gas mask. Ugh, I turned on the "last comments" function, and he is with a gas mask right there. crying
  18. Old26
    Old26 13 June 2016 22: 34
    +1
    Quote: Forever so
    Nuclear weapons are degrading. And all these ammunition must be periodically put on alert.

    To maintain nuclear weapons on alert and there are regulations. And the usual explosives also can not be stored for centuries. BB can also degrade ...

    Quote: Forever so
    In the USA, these technologies have practically disappeared due to the degradation of society and a decrease in the influx of foreign specialists.

    Do not come up with what is not. The USA has technologies for extending the life of nuclear weapons and they have not disappeared anywhere. Another thing is that since 1989 they haven’t been producing nuclear warheads - yes, that’s right.

    Quote: EvgNik
    There is not a reduction in arsenals, but a renewal of nuclear weapons. And this is another story.

    Actually, the reduction too.

    Quote: Barracuda
    A whole institute .. And how do they think? Are they sending a report to Shoigu?

    This institute has a fairly powerful analytical center. They work with open sources of information, with IAEA reports, with reviews, etc. But in what specific way I think I will not tell you. However, the ratings of this institute are quoted all over the world (including ours)