Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on August 11, 2017

Bookmark and Share

14,995 nukes: All the nations armed with nuclear weapons and how many they have

14,995 nukes: All the nations armed with nuclear weapons and how many they have thumbnail

North Korea may have more than triple the number of nuclear weapons that experts recently estimated, according to a story by The Washington Post.

The new count comes via a July 2017 report created by the US Defense Intelligence Agency. According to the newspaper, which obtained the document, “up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.” It’s a significant disparity compared to the 10 to 20 North Korean weapons the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated in July.

A separate confidential report obtained by The Post also suggests that the isolated nation — now facing $1 billion of sanctions approved by the UN security council on Saturday — has miniaturized its nuclear warheads to fit on top of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Recent North Korean launch tests, meanwhile, hint that such missiles could reach as far as New York or Washington, DC.

The news comes amid strained relations between the US and Russia nuclear superpowers, which have reached a “low point” due to US accusations that Russia meddled in the US election and is involved with the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

President Donald Trump has also inherited a $1 trillion program to modernize US nukes, and Russia now strains its budget to do the same for its arsenal. (In regard to Russia’s nuclear modernization, Trump has even said, “Let it be an arms race.”)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists took note of such nuclear rhetoric and proliferation in January by advancing its Doomsday Clock 30 seconds. The symbolic shift implies that humanity is now just 2 minutes 30 seconds away from an apocalyptic “midnight.”

Below is a map that shows the best estimates of which countries have them and how many they have.

nuclear weapons nukes map count BI Graphics Skye Gould/Business Insider



46 Comments on "14,995 nukes: All the nations armed with nuclear weapons and how many they have"

  1. sidzepp on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 7:48 am 

    Ten or fifteen years ago there was a lot of tension between India an Pakistan. The media and the public were in a semi-state of panic thinking that these two might nuke each other.

    We have a lot of nukes in the U.S. We are the only country that has deployed them and more than likely we will be the next country that deploys them. Especially when you give a man like the Tweeter-in-chief the codes to launch them. Perhaps he thinks it is similar to filing bankruptcy.

  2. Davy on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 8:02 am 

    Sid, generals are in control now forget the Trump fantasies. Look at the three generals running things from where it matters.

    Sid, what do you mean “the only country that has deployed them”? Do you mean “used them 60 plus years ago in a different time?

    Are you pandering to the anti-Americans and ignoring the fact that plenty of other nations ready to use NUKs?

  3. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 8:03 am 

    Wild West, High Noon.

    Have you ever seen a cowboy carrying 50 guns?

    Of course not. Why not? Because 1 or 2 suffice. 50 guns on your hip looks plain silly and because of its weight it would even put you at a disadvantage.

    One gun and one bullet and poof says the opponent. “Tell Laura I love her…”

    In the world of nukes it is the same. What counts is a minimum number of nukes and the ability to “deliver” world-wide.

    In this sense, France is just as powerful as the US or Russia, powerful in a negative, destructive sense. Fortunately France has traditionally good relations with the US since 1776 and not too bad relations with Russia either, apart from the Napoleon episode. All French nukes are “sea-born”, so nothing is really safe for them. 20 nukes on 20 largest cities of a big country and said country will cease to exist as a territorial unity and become a decapitated country.

    Sooner or later we will need to address this nuclear capabilities, because we can’t expect that this doomsday machine will never go off. In fact the existing nuclear weapons are the best argument for world government or at least for a global understanding. The fight against proliferation is important and smaller countries like Iran and North-Korea, let alone Pakistan, should have no nuclear weapons. The US and China should cooperate over the NK nuclear question. The only solution I see is that China and America (with Japan and Russia in the background) cooperate and agree on a unified, capitalist, democratic and demilitarized Korea without nukes. And US troops withdrawing and bases dismantled.

  4. sidzepp on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 9:11 am 

    Davy. The only country that has used a nuke, forgive the semantics, is our country. No other country has used a nuke, period. It is a straight forward fact. Ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki what they think of a country using nukes. We have a leader who thinks he can say anything he wants without thinking about it and the rest of the world is in fear that his rhetoric alone might provoke the start of a conflict that might spiral out of control.

    Of course there is a positive side to an all-out nuclear war and that is nuclear winter. That will cool things down in a hurry, plus send the stock market crashing.

    If we want to survive as a species and I speak for my children and grandchildren, because my life has been fulfilled many times over, we have to cooperate together. Of course the Paris accords show how well the world works together to tackle a major issue.

  5. Davy on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 10:24 am 

    Right Sid, but that was 72 years ago so you are stretching the severity of that situation. You are stretching the Trump thing also maybe because like others here you guys are emotional about Trump instead of rantional. You choose to turn the other way for the many others who are equally bad or worse in the US government. You can’t blame everything on Trump. There is an establishment involved here.

  6. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 10:32 am 

    Of course there is a positive side to an all-out nuclear war and that is nuclear winter. That will cool things down in a hurry, plus send the stock market crashing.

    What are we waiting for?!

  7. farmlad on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 10:43 am 

    sidzepp Guess hirohima wasn’t bad enough. They turned right around and build fukushima and more on a faultline.

  8. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 11:57 am 

    ” The fight against proliferation is important and smaller countries like Iran and North-Korea, let alone Pakistan, should have no nuclear weapons.”

    While I completely agree that nukes should be completely abolished, who gets the say as to which countries can or cannot defend themselves against the other countries who have them? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Other than the one country in the world that has already used nukes on a civilian population, nukes are a strategic defensive weapon. If Japan had of possessed nukes in 1945, it’s a good bet that Haroshima and Nagasaki never would have been vaporized.

  9. Joe Clarkson on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:03 pm 

    Cloggie,

    The case of nuclear weapons shows why your ecomodernist vision of an energy transition will never happen; if we can’t get together on something as easy as ridding the world of nuclear weapons, how are we going to get everyone together on a huge carbon tax or any other realistic method of leaving fossil fuels in the ground?

    Nuclear weapons are expensive and useful only for one thing, preventing other countries from using theirs. All that is needed to get rid of them is universal agreement to do so, coupled with agreement to universal intrusive inspections to verify compliance. Universal nuclear disarmament is technically easy and very inexpensive.

    Now compare that task with getting everyone to give up fossil fuels and leave them in the ground. The temptation for a country to being a free rider is just too strong. All the economic advantage goes to the countries that don’t convert to renewables.

  10. Darrell Cloud on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:08 pm 

    I am aware of the national averages based on race. To assume that every black man you meet on the street is intellectually below average is a huge mistake. By the same token to assume that every white man you meet on the street is potentially a rocket scientist is also a huge mistake. Get out more often and meet more people. It has been my experience that if I would but step back and listen, in polite conversation the genius and the idiot will soon reveal themselves.
    I have a next door neighbor who is mildly retarded. He for the last 20 years has worked as a landscaper for the local state college. He pulls weeds out of the flower beds and he mows the campus. He makes a decent living with rudimentary skills.
    We should be teaching rudimentary skills to our low end kids rather than burning them out in an algebra class.

  11. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:10 pm 

    Wild West. High noon.

    Your neighbour has a gun, you do not. Your neighbour gets drunk. Poof, you’re dead.

  12. Darrell Cloud on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:15 pm 

    Oops wrong post.

  13. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:18 pm 

    The case of nuclear weapons shows why your ecomodernist vision of an energy transition will never happen; if we can’t get together on something as easy as ridding the world of nuclear weapons, how are we going to get everyone together on a huge carbon tax or any other realistic method of leaving fossil fuels in the ground?

    You are assuming that running a renewable energy base will be something like a burden for those with such an energy base. There is no reason to assume that that will be the case in the longer run when renewable energy will best fossil on price.

    Early adopters will have the enormous benefit of having experience and the patents of the technology. The examples of Britain in the 19th and the US in the 20th century have shown that if you dominate in an energy field (coal, oil or renewable) that that wil go hand in hand with geopolitical clout.

    America is doing itself no favor by withdrawing from “Paris” and concentrate on fossil again.

    Now compare that task with getting everyone to give up fossil fuels and leave them in the ground. The temptation for a country to being a free rider is just too strong.

    Wait until the oil price is at $150 again and any such “temptation” will evaporate.

  14. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:23 pm 

    Davy makes a very good point in another thread.

    “One has to wonder in a twisted perverse way if Kim’s NK is the future. Look at NK by night in Satellite photos. That is the kind of world we need to be in.”

    Instead, we are constantly reminded that the NK way of life is not the one we should all aspire to, but rather the western capitalist model. The model that is sending our species, and most of the rest of the life on this planet, down the road to extinction.

  15. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:33 pm 

    “The examples of Britain in the 19th and the US in the 20th century have shown that if you dominate in an energy field (coal, oil or renewable) that that wil go hand in hand with geopolitical clout.”

    Only after you figure out a way to weaponize alternate electric power to a degree higher than weaponization derived from fossil fuels.

  16. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:41 pm 

    I might add Cloggie,

    When fossil fuels supplies really become problematic, it’s a safe bet that the world’s strongest militaries will be last to have access to them.

  17. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:51 pm 

    Only after you figure out a way to weaponize alternate electric power to a degree higher than weaponization derived from fossil fuels.

    The very fact that conventional oil is depleting and than there is this “Paris” thingy… should play into the hands of the renewables proponents, who are pursuing a form of energy that will become ever cheaper.

    When fossil fuels supplies really become problematic, it’s a safe bet that the world’s strongest militaries will be last to have access to them.

    It sounds as if you want to make a point with that.

    I’m meanwhile a believer in the peak oil demand theory and this site is posting ever more articles with the same gist.

  18. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:57 pm 

    “I’m meanwhile a believer in the peak oil demand theory and this site is posting ever more articles with the same gist.”

    Which in no way counters the point that it sounded to you that I was trying to make above.

  19. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 12:59 pm 

    Which, by the way Cloggie, has been ongoing since the U.S. Peaked in 1973.

  20. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 1:02 pm 

    It was also of great strategic importance during WW2.

  21. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 1:07 pm 

    Business as usual Insider is not a credible ‘news’ source by any measure. Its articles are full patent nonsense even on the subject its purportedly dedicated to, much less topics like this. They simply have been tapped to spread this NK has 60 nuclear weapons figure, which is clearly fake news. Thats how the dis-information\infotainment complex works in the amero-Zionist empire.

    Everyone in the empire beats the war drum in near perfect sync.

    BAU tries to gamely back up its ridiculous claim with this….

    > “It’s a significant disparity compared to the 10 to 20 North Korean weapons the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated in July.”

    Really? How did the SIPR gets ITS esitmate, to start with? Was it credible? Equally doubtful. You can follow the money here if you like.

    https://www.sipri.org/about/funding

    This Swedish ‘peace institute’, has some very hawkish and war-like orgs supporting it, oddly enough….

    For the amerikan public with their 15 min attention spans.

    -Saddam Hussein had WomD (really he did, ok not really).
    – Muammar Gaddafi had viagra issued to his forces to rape his countries own women.
    -Iraqi troops pulled Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and just left them on the floor.
    -Yellow cake, mobile weapons labs roaming around the Iraqi desert (lol).
    -Just to name a (very) few.

    NK does not have ’60’ nuclear bombs. BI gets its agit-prop from the same source all the other liars in the uS ‘free-press’ do. In less than a year or so, we’ve gone from far less than 10, to 60. Find the source for ’60’. Damn thats some pretty hefty threat inflation going on. Find out who claimed the 60 figure, who they are, how they got that ‘intel’, and dont be at all surprised if you find it was the exact same group that told all of us Saddam Hussein wanted to nuke Jew York City back in the 90’s.

  22. GregT on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 1:40 pm 

    The Korean Peninsula within the Framework of US Global Hegemony

    “The US is by no means omniscient or strategically coherent, and it is certainly not omnipotent; the relationship with ‘allies’ and adversaries is under constant negotiation. This means the relationships have to be carefully scrutinised, avoiding simplistic narratives. Nevertheless it is the dominant factor in most circumstances and in general, and in the long term (though not necessarily in the short term) it is the initiator to which other countries respond. The US divided Korea in 1945 as part of its strategy of containing the Soviet Union and protecting its war booty of Japan. The focus has now shifted to China but the basic thrust is the same. The US has a necessary and crucial interest in Korea because of its strategic location and this situation informs its Korea policy. North Korea is far too small to threaten the US, but the US does threaten North Korea and has conducted economic and diplomatic war against it since the late 1940s.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-peninsula-within-the-framework-of-us-global-hegemony/5557415

  23. bobinget on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 1:45 pm 

    Does anyone think, as I do, DJT is over-playing his ‘war card’?
    At first i figured this NK thing, coming out out of the blue as it has, was misdirection.

    Suddenly, NK war talk gets a life of it’s own.
    (Bombers at the ready!)
    Middle schooler DJT, is having far too much fun playing Commander in Chief. At some point Joint Chiefs are going to Congress to have this
    man committed. Certainly, relieved of command.

    Late night jokes around “he’s gonna kill us all”
    are no longer funny.

    Hurry up Special Council, before it’s too late.

  24. Antius on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 2:45 pm 

    “Early adopters will have the enormous benefit of having experience and the patents of the technology. The examples of Britain in the 19th and the US in the 20th century have shown that if you dominate in an energy field (coal, oil or renewable) that that wil go hand in hand with geopolitical clout.”

    That only works if the energy source is high-EROI. We have done that one to death.

  25. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 2:46 pm 

    I see someone still subscribes to the quaint notion that ‘president’ drumpf is the one, and apparently, only, prime mover of the uS war-machines latest spasm….

  26. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 3:09 pm 

    That only works if the energy source is high-EROI. We have done that one to death.

    You have made assumptions a long time ago and never upgraded those.

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/solar-eroi/

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/eroi-of-offshore-wind/

    But thanks for the plug opportunity anyway.

  27. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 3:29 pm 

    cloggen-frauden, there are plenty of other hopium-filled articles you can post your incoherent nonsense. This one, has nothing to do with the ERORI-period. I know reading and comprehension is not your strong, but really….

    Ant, clearly meant that comment for an entirely different, and relevant article(ie not this one). Try at least confine your proselytizing for zion, and flying robo-cars to the relevant topics. Think you can manage that much at least clogged-commode?

    You are easily, one of the worst here, for derailing comments.

  28. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 4:04 pm 

    The low-IQ diesel-trucker (otherwise he wouldn’t be a diesel-trucker) is trying to bluff his way into energy-engineering with the only tool he has: the sneer.

    Ah well, at least he can read, it’s a start.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/detroit-illiteracy-nearly-half-education_n_858307.html

  29. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 4:48 pm 

    Imbeciles that constantly derail comments and openly admit to seldom reading their own, often irrelevant links they post in thread, are in no position to throw stones, or pebbles in your case cloggen-fraud.

    And I dont own a vehicle these days retard, Not for nearly 2 decades. Besides, what do you have against diesels anyhow? You ‘Europeans’ (you are not really European clog-fraud, your tribe hails from a more middle easterly direction…) were pushing ‘clean diesels’, and hard, for many years to boot, as the next ‘big thing’, in clean and efficient private cars.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if your were pitching euro-diesels at your retirement home, at you mental-health group talks,at synagogue, to anyone forced to listen to your nonsense at one point. You’ve migrated to flying electric robo-cars currently of course. Next week, you’ll probably be pushing matter-teleportation as off-the-shelf ready as well.

  30. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 5:23 pm 

    “you are not really European clog-fraud, your tribe hails from a more middle easterly direction”

    You just make it up as you go, liar.

    Oh and sorry about this:

    https://youtu.be/qhPyViDCRbg

    LOL

  31. onlooker on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 5:33 pm 

    Yep, decades ago, the military/industrial/banking complex got effective control of the US. If anyone wants proof of this, follow the policies and actions of the US for the past several decades and this will manifest clearly this fact. Oh and in that sense I wish we can identify more clearly this instead of believing the political puppets are running anything.

  32. Joe Clarkson on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 6:26 pm 

    Wait until the oil price is at $150 again and any such “temptation” will evaporate.

    Cloggie,

    Here is where the supply/demand dynamics break down. If we started to reduce fossil fuel consumption right now, the price would fall. In fact the price would plummet to close to zero. In ordinary times those prices would temp buyers big time, but we have decided to leave the fossil fuels in the ground forever, so buying is restricted by international treaty. Few buyers, lower price. Are you claiming that no one would be tempted to cheat by using ultra-cheap fossil fuels in that kind of situation?

    On the other hand, if prices did go to $150, as I actually expect they will, it will mean that demand is out-stripping supply and producers will be frantically trying to extract fossil fuels as fast as possible. Game over for the climate.

    The only way an energy transition would have worked is if fossil fuel prices were either undercut by renewables decades ago or we had implemented a big carbon tax to do the same thing artificially. Neither happened and it is now too late. We can’t even build out renewable energy infrastructure without using so much fossil fuel to do so that it’s game over again. The only thing that will save the climate is economic collapse, and soon.

  33. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 6:41 pm 

    I could have sworn this article was a piece of BI agit-prop over the alleged number of nuclear weapons NK supposedly has, an not estimates of the EROEI of cloggen-frauds ass-gas.

  34. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 6:42 pm 

    Joe, you only have to look at the exponential growth of renewable energy, that meanwhile constitutes the largest share in new capacity worldwide, to know that renewable energy already won. And then there is Paris. In Europe there is absolutely no discussion that fossil needs to go. And in China as well, albeit with less vigor. As you say, you also expect the price of fossil to grow. The price of renewable will come down, all in all leading to a rush in renewables.

  35. Cloggie on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 6:44 pm 

    Do I hear a llama shitting?

  36. sidzepp on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 7:03 pm 

    Of course all of the hardcore rhetoric might be nothing more than a smokescreen to divert attention from all of the Trump investigations.
    Then again possible back door negotiations.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-diplomacy-idUSKBN1AR1N2?il=0

  37. Anonymouse on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 9:23 pm 

    If that amerikan propaganda piece is accurate, and that too is doubtful, then amerikans are even dumber than we could possibly imagine. There is no ‘point’ to secret negations(for what again?) while you are very publicly threatening the country in question. Only retards, or the amerikan gov’t, would think this is a good strategy. The uS has had 6 decades now to ‘negotiate’, and they consistently either refused to talk, or have actively sabotaged any chances for such talks to succeed.

    Since a sane rational party would skip the war rhetoric entirely, and go straight to diplomacy, we can safety conclude the uS has no interest in any kind of ‘resolution’.

  38. deadlykillerbeaz on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 9:40 pm 

    “Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box.” – Country Joe McDonald

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk68D91hTXw

  39. Makati1 on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 10:55 pm 

    Anon, America has no diplomats. They are trying to bully the world into submission. I think the tide has turned. China just gave them a ‘red line’.

    “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so,”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-11/china-promises-protect-north-korea-regime-change

    The U$ seems to forget that it is Russia and China in this also. Neither one want a U$ controlled Korea. Would the U$ want one of them controlling Cuba? OH, yes, that certain crisis in October 1962 when we were also close to nuclear war. But Americans have no idea of history. Few were even born them. Snowflake idiots all.

  40. Makati1 on Fri, 11th Aug 2017 11:02 pm 

    Deadly, there are 28,000 Americans stationed in S.Korea. They will be the first to return home … in a bag, IF there are any remains to send. Add in 50,000 in japan for starters. Would that wake up the Drugged, ignorant Americans? I doubt if the MSM Iron Curtain ‘news’ would even report the numbers. Just a rerun of some stupid ‘reality’ show with commercials of flag waving idiots. Time for the draft to return. LMAO

  41. sidzepp on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 7:41 am 

    According to the CIA fact book, North Korea is Ranked 213 out of 229 nations economically. So where in the hell did they get the money to develop intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons. Wouldn’t be surprised if American corporations found a way to profit from the mischief.

  42. Makati1 on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 8:52 am 

    sid, According to the UN PPP GDP numbers, North Korea is #110 out of 194 countries at $40+B/year. If N.Korea spends 1/10 of it’s GDP on missiles and tech, it could easily build a lot of nukes. When your labor force makes a few dollars per hour, you can build a lot of stuff.

    Don’t try to compare the U$ with foreign purchasing power. For instance: Haircuts $2, Dental crown $120, Specialist doctor’s visit $12, Pound of rice $0.50, 6″ shrimp $4/lb (still alive) here in the Ps. The use of a backhoe and operator on our farm road is $120 PER DAY, not per hour. We can cut, build and stone, a 10′ wide, 3,000′ long road thru the jungle for less than $6,000.

    A dollar goes a lot farther in many countries.

  43. Davy on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 10:16 am 

    Sid, I guess you are not very well read becuase it has been well known that NK has been buying from the Europeans, Pakies, Chinese, Russians and Iranians on the black market for years. They may be poor but they are some of the most sophisticated traders in the world. NK has little scruples to concern itself with. They are all about fulfilling the great leaders wishes. I am sure some Americans were involved if that makes you feel better.

  44. Davy on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 10:24 am 

    Makat, do you understand global economics or are you more concerned with anti-Americanism? Your explanation above is grey matter lite and limbic system heavy. Your p’s GDP is similar to my state with 16 times the population. That differential has a different dynamics so you need to reevaluate how you compare two different worlds. Cherry picking number for effect is not good reasoning.

  45. paultard on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 10:26 am 

    guys extremist tard leaders and fans are marching in virginia. where is aptard? without semi intelligent tard like aptard how are we going to kill extremist tard preachers?

    aptard you need to exercise and eat protein to stablize yoru mood. addictin to carbs makes u an addict and addicts have little or no control over how they behave.

  46. onlooker on Sat, 12th Aug 2017 10:42 am 

    Makati, Davy is right about that. The population numbers of PHIL are foreboding. Population matters and is inherently behind many of the problems of the human overshoot predicament. Asia is far more populated than any other place. As an example look at water issues now facing that continent. I have said and will continue to say, different regions face a uniquely different suite of problems. And Collapse will be asymmetrical both in time and place

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *