2023 Global Nuke Threat Update

01
2023 Global Nuke Threat Update
02
2023 Nuke Refresher
03
Nuclear Doctrine: The Only Way to Win is by Not Playing
04
United States of America
05
France
06
Russia
07
United Kingdom
08
North Korea
09
India
10
Pakistan
11
Israel
12
China
13
Frequently Asked Questions about Nukes

2023 Global Nuke Threat Update

Which country is most likely to unleash a nuke?

The threat of nuclear war is nothing new. But it's also an ever-present concern for the roughly eight billion people living on Earth.

As discussed in previous articles, the fallout from even a single nuclear detonation could be catastrophic. Even a limited skirmish between India and Pakistan would effectively starve half the world's population of food.

Meanwhile, an all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would reduce global agricultural production by 90%.

This is not an exaggeration. This is not alarmism. These are simply the facts about the incredible power of nukes and the potential devastation we could see if this Pandora's Box is ever opened again.

For almost eighty years now, the world has been living on a knife edge: one where a single mistake on behalf of leadership—or an uncontrolled escalation of conflict—could doom most of the world's population in a matter of hours.

So to combat complacency, we will zoom out and assess the situation from 10,000 feet.

From this perspective, we will evaluate each nation known to have nukes currently. This means that, step by step, we will review each country’s existing inventory, evaluate their respective doctrines for nuclear warfare, and, finally, gauge the probability they might be the first to pull the trigger.

We'll also take a closer look at how this impacts folks on the ground level—and the type of practical CBRN gear you can trust to protect you if and when the nukes start flying.

2023 Nuke Refresher

You're probably already familiar with the basic functioning of a nuclear weapon.

In short, fission nukes use highly unstable uranium isotopes (usually U-233 or U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239). When these isotopes are bombarded by just one free neutron, two or three neutrons are knocked free. Splitting atoms releases a tremendous amount of energy, and the growing chain reaction results in a massive detonation.

Nuclear fission in three steps (Image courtesy of Howstuffworks.com)

Hydrogen bombs (or thermonuclear weapons) take the process one step further, using fission devices to create nuclear fusion. Yes, that means hydrogen bombs are often triggered by built-in nukes, which then combine isotopes like deuterium and tritium to form larger isotopes.

To provide a sense of the immense scale involved, it's worth noting that this is the same process the sun uses to create energy–the very energy that sustains life on earth.

In order to make sense of these massive expenditures, scientists devised a measurement system for gauging explosive power, rating each nuke explosion in terms of kilotons or megatons. To put things in perspective, a kiloton's worth of destructive power is roughly equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT (dynamite). A megaton is equivalent to a million tons of TNT.

Note that the largest yield from a known nuclear weapon, the Tsar Bomba, is 50 megatons—the same as 50 million tons of TNT. All from a weapon just six feet in diameter.

Of course, nuclear weapons technology varies widely from one country to the next.

For example, Russia and the United States have enough warheads and missiles to potentially attack thousands of targets all over the world. Meanwhile, North Korea's latest tests show limited potential for their nuclear prospects.

(Image courtesy of Center for Arms control and non-proliferation)

As a result, these weapons serve a different function in both war and politics—which influences the doctrine that each country has developed around its arsenal.

Nuclear Doctrine: The Only Way to Win is by Not Playing

1983's War Games is more than just great eighties-era nostalgia. The movie also features, in this author’s humble opinion, the single best description of nuclear doctrine ever committed to celluloid.

If you haven't seen it, the film features Matthew Broderick as a proto-hacker who taps into a computer that controls America's nuke arsenal and commences playing a game called “Global Thermonuclear War.” Unaware that the game is in fact a real military stem, Broderick unknowingly brings the country to the brink of nuclear war.

In a bid to prevent this, Broderick asks the computer to find a "winning" strategy for nuclear war.

By way of response, the AI feverishly calculates different scenarios, ultimately arriving at a single, very pointed conclusion: The only way to win a nuclear war is by not playing at all.

Theoretically, at least for a time, it was believed that a pre-emptive "Alpha Strike" could target enemy assets and prevent the threat of nuclear retaliation. But that kind of attack is now primarily regarded as impossible. The level of devastation from retaliation–and the exchange overall–is too great to fathom.

So, in War Games, the computer decided that the only successful scenario is one that avoids nuclear war completely.

That's essentially the core of all nuclear doctrine.

Almost all the countries we'll review today have "deterrence" as the primary purpose for their nuclear arsenal. “Deterrence” is essentially a promise that if a country is attacked with either nuclear or conventional weapons, it may unleash a nuclear response that results in mutually-assured destruction (MAD).

Of course, a country's capability for nuclear war is entirely dependent on its arsenal. As such, doctrine will largely depend on the type of nukes a government has at hand, combined with overarching geopolitical factors.

So a country like India, with just 156 warheads, is committed to a "no first use" rule because the downside of using them could be catastrophic. Thus, they aim to maintain a “credible minimum deterrence,” which means possessing a nuclear arsenal discourage adversaries–chiefly, neighboring Pakistan–from launching a nuclear attack against them.

Meanwhile, India's conventional army substantially outnumbers that of Pakistan. So Pakistan naturally sees its nuclear arsenal as a way to protect itself from a much larger force.

What this shows is that the factors surrounding a country’s nuclear capabilities are complex and nuanced. To further explore this, let’s evaluate the current standing of each of the world's nuke-equipped countries. Note that we're covering these countries in no particular order or ranking.

United States of America

The United States has a lot to lose in an all-out nuclear war. As such, the government has undertaken "not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances."

At the same time, the United States has been the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in conflict, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But in the years since those bombs were dropped, sentiment in America has shifted drastically. And the focus has shifted towards non-proliferation and disarmament.

The end of the Cold War saw a reduction in the United States' nuclear arsenal, reflecting a commitment to arms control and a transition to a more cautious approach.

As a result, the United States' current policy framework concerning nuclear weapons centers around the principles of deterrence, defense, and non-proliferation.

American nuclear doctrine emphasizes deterrence through strength rather than the actual use of nuclear weapons. By maintaining a strong deterrent, the United States seeks to enhance its security and that of its allies, ultimately reducing the need for actual nuclear weapon use.

This policy is further reinforced by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The United States, as a signatory, is committed to pursuing disarmament negotiations in good faith while ensuring its security. The Treaty further reinforces the United States' dedication to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The US' decision-making process also considers the evolving global security landscape. For instance, the emergence of non-state actors and the proliferation of nuclear technology have raised concerns about the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by rogue elements. In response, the United States aims to prevent nuclear proliferation through diplomacy, sanctions, and cooperative threat-reduction programs.

Furthermore, the United States is committed to maintaining alliances and promoting collective security.

Its extensive network of alliances, such as NATO, strengthens deterrence by signaling a collective defense posture. In turn, the United States' nuclear umbrella reassures its allies, reducing the likelihood of them requiring independent nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, technological advancements are crucial in shaping the United States' approach to developing new nuclear weapons.

(Image courtesy of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

The development of precision conventional weapons and emerging technologies, such as cyber warfare capabilities, may provide alternative means of achieving strategic objectives without resorting to nuclear weapons. These advancements reduce the perceived utility and necessity of nuclear weapon use.

America's Arsenal

The United States has a diverse arsenal of nuclear weapons, each designed for specific purposes and capabilities. Here are some examples of nuclear weapons in the U.S. inventory, along with their range and yield:

1. B61 Nuclear Bomb:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (aircraft or ballistic missile)
Yield: Adjustable from a fraction of a kiloton up to 340 kilotons

2.Trident II D5 Ballistic Missile (SLBM):

Range: Over 11,000 kilometers (approximately 6,800 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with a maximum yield of around 475 kilotons per warhead

3. Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM):

Range: Over 10,000 kilometers (approximately 6,200 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads ranging from 300 to 500 kilotons

4. W80 Warhead:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (air-launched or ground-launched)
Yield: Approximately 5 to 150 kilotons

5. W76 Warhead:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (submarine-launched ballistic missile)
Yield: Approximately 90 kilotons

6. B83 Nuclear Bomb:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (aircraft)
Yield: Adjustable from 0.3 kilotons up to 1.2 megatons

7. W88 Warhead:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (submarine-launched ballistic missile)
Yield: Approximately 475 kilotons

America's First Strike Potential

While the United States has a formidable nuclear arsenal, its likelihood of using nuclear weapons remains low due to various factors.

America's historical evolution, policy framework based on deterrence and non-proliferation, and evolving security dynamics all contribute to a pragmatic approach. As the United States prioritizes diplomatic efforts, arms control, and the prevention of nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons will still be a last resort.

Through these multifaceted measures, the United States is committed to ensuring its security and that of its allies while promoting a stable international order. Consequently, the potential of a first strike from the United States is near zero.

France

France's unique and robust nuclear arsenal makes it relatively unique in Western Europe. The country's historical perspective is rooted in its desire to protect national sovereignty and ensure security in an unpredictable international landscape.

The Fifth Republic's relationship with nukes traces back to the aftermath of World War II. Seeking to establish its independent defense capability, France embarked on a path to develop its nuclear deterrent. In 1960, it conducted its first nuclear test, and the program has been growing ever since.

France's nuclear policy is shaped by its doctrine of "strategic independence."

It emphasizes the self-reliance and autonomous decision-making necessary for the nation's security. France's nuclear arsenal, known as the Force de Frappe, is designed for deterrence and defense purposes, and its policy explicitly maintains the option of first use in response to an existential threat.

The primary aim is to dissuade potential adversaries from any aggression or threat by maintaining a credible and survivable nuclear deterrent. This posture is intended to contribute to regional and global stability.

While France is not bound by a "no first use" policy, it is still committed to disarmament and the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). France has reduced its nuclear stockpile over the years and actively participates in arms control negotiations. It emphasizes the importance of multilateral disarmament efforts while preserving its own strategic capabilities.

(Image courtesy of Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

France's decision-making also takes into account the evolving security environment. It recognizes the challenges posed by proliferation, the rise of non-state actors, and emerging threats such as cyber warfare.

By maintaining a robust nuclear capability, the French Republic aims to counter potential threats and ensure the security of its territory, citizens, and interests.

Moreover, France's nuclear policy is influenced by its commitment to collective defense within the framework of NATO. France contributes to the alliance's deterrence efforts as an ally while retaining its independent nuclear posture. This commitment strengthens the overall deterrence capabilities of the alliance and underscores France's dedication to promoting stability.

Technological advancements also play a crucial role in shaping France's nuclear strategy.

As conventional military capabilities continue to evolve, France recognizes the need for flexibility and adaptability in its defense posture.

France's Arsenal:

It's important to note that the French government generally does not disclose specific details about France's nuclear weapons program publicly, and the information available may be limited. Here are a few examples:

1. Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMP) Nuclear Missile:

Range: Estimated at around 300 kilometers (186 miles)
Range: Estimated at around 300 kilometers (186 miles)

2. M51 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM):

Range: Estimated at over 8,000 kilometers (4,970 miles)
Yield: The M51 missile is equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), and the yield of each warhead is estimated to be around 100 to 150 kilotons

3. Air-Sol Stratégique (ASMPA) Nuclear Cruise Missile:

Range: Estimated at over 500 kilometers (311 miles)
Yield: Estimated to have a variable yield in the range of 300 to 500 kilotons

4. TN81 Warhead:

Range: Variable depending on the delivery system (aircraft or missile)
Yield: Estimated to have a variable yield in the range of several kilotons to around 300 kilotons

France's First Strike Potential

The French state’s likelihood of using nuclear weapons is rooted in its historical pursuit of strategic independence and the imperative to protect its national interests.

Through its policy framework of deterrence, commitment to disarmament, and recognition of emerging challenges, la France maintains a pragmatic and steadfast approach to its nuclear arsenal.

While France values international stability and works towards non-proliferation efforts, nuclear deterrence is still a crucial pillar of its defense strategy. France seeks to safeguard its security, contribute to collective defense, and uphold regional and global stability by ensuring a credible deterrent.

Accordingly, the potential of a nuke first strike from the French Republic is near zero unless the country experiences a radical shift in doctrine and government.

Russia

Russia's association with nuclear weapons began during the Soviet era, with the development of its nuclear program.

As the successor state to the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited a significant nuclear arsenal. While the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the reduction of its nuclear stockpile, Russia has since maintained a deterrent force to protect its national security interests.

Russia's nuclear policy framework revolves around the principles of deterrence, defense, and maintaining strategic stability.

The country maintains a policy of "escalate to de-escalate," which would theoretically allow for the limited use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional threat that could endanger its sovereignty or existence. The policy itself often works as a functional deterrent, since Russia has made clear how they'd respond to a conventional attack.

While the exact thresholds for nuclear weapon use are deliberately ambiguous, the Russian state has consistently emphasized the defensive nature of its nuclear arsenal. It reaffirms that the use of nuclear weapons would only occur as a last resort in response to an existential threat to the state.

The overall goal of Russian nuke doctrine is to dissuade any hostile actions that could endanger Russia's territorial integrity or its vital interests. By having a substantial nuclear arsenal, Rossiya aims to ensure the survivability of its deterrent force, deterring potential aggressors from launching an attack.

Another significant factor is Russia's perception of the evolving security landscape.

The country considers the expansion of NATO, missile defense systems, and emerging technologies as potential challenges to its strategic interests. In response, the Eastern power aims to maintain a balance of power and preserve its security by relying on its nuclear capabilities.

Russia has historically participated in various arms control treaties, such as the New START Treaty, to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance international security. However, recent geopolitical tensions have strained arms control efforts, impacting the overall nuclear landscape.

(Image courtesy of New York Magazine)

Russia's government perceives itself as operating in a complex security environment characterized by regional conflicts and potential threats.

In this context, Russia emphasizes the importance of a serious nuclear deterrent to safeguard its interests and project stability in its immediate neighborhood.

Russia's Arsenal

The Russian bear has a wide range of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Here is a list of some of the nuclear weapons in Russia's inventory, along with their estimated range and yield:

1. RS-24 Yars Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM):

Range: Over 11,000 kilometers (approximately 6,800 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads in the range of 100 to 300 kilotons

2. RS-28 Sarmat (SS-30) Heavy ICBM:

Range: Estimated over 10,000 kilometers (approximately 6,200 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads in the range of several hundred kilotons

3. SS-18 Satan (RS-20V) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM):

Range: Over 10,000 kilometers (approximately 6,200 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads in the range of 550 to 750 kilotons

4. SS-19 Stiletto (RS-18) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM):

Range: Over 10,000 kilometers (approximately 6,200 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads in the range of 500 to 750 kilotons

5. Borei-class Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM):

Range: Over 8,000 kilometers (approximately 4,970 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads in the range of several hundred kilotons

6. Kalibr-class Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM):

Range: Over 2,500 kilometers (approximately 1,550 miles)
Yield: Variable, but generally in the range of several tens of kilotons

Once again, the specific details of Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities, including range and yield, are not always publicly disclosed by the Russian government. The information provided here is based on estimates and open-source intelligence. Additionally, nuclear weapons capabilities are subject to change due to ongoing modernization efforts and technological advancements.

Russia's First Strike Potential

Russia's first-strike potential is substantial when compared to other major nuclear powers—if only due to the unique nature of the country's nuclear doctrine.

Ultimately, the Russian state’s likelihood of using nuclear weapons is shaped by a complex interplay of historical, policy, and strategic factors.

As a responsible nuclear power, the Russian Federation emphasizes the defensive nature of its nuclear arsenal, reaffirming its commitment to using nuclear weapons only as a last resort. But the nature of Russia's general "escalate to de-escalate" policy could potentially see tactical ("battlefield") nukes deployed in a conflict like the War in Ukraine. And as we saw in another article, this kind of tactical nuclear attack could rapidly escalate into an all-out war.

The ongoing Russian conflict with Ukraine is one of the primary reasons why the Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than it has been at any other time in history.

An all-out nuclear war with Russia would be a grim scenario for civilians in both countries. Major cities would likely be targeted in an exchange, and the rest of the country could be exposed to massive amounts of fallout.

f course, a full-face gas mask would be nearly indispensable in a situation like this. Protecting your face and airways from dangerous radiation is the first crucial step for survival. The MIRA Safety CM-6M is a practical choice for most Americans, combining a wide panoramic visor with a variety of useful features.

It uses NATO standard 40mm gas mask filter cartridges, and it’s compatible with the full range of MIRA Safety accessories—including everything from corrective lenses to gas mask comms.

A full-face respirator like the CM-6M can be a crucial first line of defense in the event of a nuclear attack.

Russia is also in possession of the world’s largest arsenal of chemical warfare agents (CWAs). If deployed, these could wreak untold havoc. We always recommend keeping a few containers of CWD-3 DETEHIT Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) detection strips on hand for just that kind of eventuality.

MIRA Safety's CWD-3 Detehit Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) detection strips

These strips use an immobilized cholinasterase element that mimics the way our nervous systems work. So once you expose the strip, the cholinasterase may or may not begin to react. If it does, that means that there are potentially deadly CWAs in the air around you. These strips will obviously need to be used in conjunction with a gas mask and full-body protection, but they’re a powerful tool when it comes to surviving a chemical warfare attack.

United Kingdom

Like France, the United Kingdom began developing its nuclear arsenal in the aftermath of World War II. The decision to house nuclear weapons was driven by the need to protect national security interests and maintain strategic autonomy.

Today, the U.K.'s nuclear policy framework centers around the principles of deterrence, defense, and non-proliferation. Its nuclear deterrent, known as the Trident system, serves as a crucial component of its defense posture.

This system explicitly maintains the option of first use in response to an existential threat to the United Kingdom's sovereignty and survival.

Note that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is still committed to disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. It actively participates in arms control negotiations and promotes the reduction of global nuclear stockpiles.

By maintaining a credible and robust nuclear deterrent, Her Majesty’s government aims to dissuade potential adversaries from threatening its national security or that of its allies. The goal is to prevent conflict through the assurance of a devastating response rather than the actual use of nuclear weapons.

Of course, the United Kingdom's commitment to collective defense within the framework of NATO is another crucial factor. Much like their counterparts in America, the U.K.'s nuclear arsenal helps to shield various other NATO members and acts as a deterrent against potential attacks against them.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland's commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation also influences its nuclear posture.

It actively supports international efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally and promotes arms control agreements. By championing disarmament, the British government seeks to mitigate the likelihood of nuclear weapon use and promote a safer and more secure world.

The United Kingdom's Arsenal

Although the United Kingdom has reduced its nuclear arsenal over the years, the country has retained a credible deterrent force.

The former empire has a nuclear arsenal consisting of various types of nuclear weapons. Here is a list of some of the nuclear weapons in the U.K.'s inventory, along with their approximate range and yield:

1. Trident II D5 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM):

Range: Over 12,000 kilometers (approximately 7,456 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads believed to be in the range of 100 to 475 kilotons

2. Vanguard-class Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM):

Range: Over 7,500 kilometers (approximately 4,660 miles)
Yield: Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with individual warheads believed to be in the range of several tens to hundreds of kilotons

3. Tornado GR.4 Aircraft-Delivered Nuclear Bomb:

Range: Variable depending on the aircraft carrying the bomb
Yield: Variable, but generally in the range of several kilotons to tens of kilotons

4. F-35 Lightning II Aircraft-Delivered Nuclear Bomb:

Range: Variable depending on the aircraft carrying the bomb
Yield: Variable, but generally in the range of several kilotons to tens of kilotons

Specific details about the U.K.'s nuclear weapons program, including range and yield, are not disclosed by the British government. Additionally, the U.K.'s nuclear weapons capabilities are subject to change due to ongoing modernization efforts and strategic considerations.

The United Kingdom's First Strike Potential

Like most Western nuclear powers, the British Isles prioritize deterrence, defense, and international obligations. It has a similar culture and comparable technology to the United States. But its lack of a "no first use" rule makes it inherently more dangerous than the United States in terms of touching off a nuclear conflict.

North Korea

North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons began in the 1980s, driven by perceived security threats and aspirations for self-reliance.

Despite international efforts to curb its nuclear program, the self-styled Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, has since conducted multiple nuclear tests and developed a limited nuclear arsenal. The country's history highlights its determination to achieve a credible nuclear deterrent, viewing it as essential for the Kim regime's survival and national sovereignty.

Consequently, the hermit kingdom’s nuclear policy framework revolves primarily around the concept of regime survival. The government views nuclear weapons as a strategic tool to counter perceived external threats, particularly from the United States and its allies. These concerns are justified based on the history of the Korean War (1950-1953). North Korea's official stance is that its nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against potential aggression, ensuring the security and stability of the regime.

Kim Jong-un in a foreboding scene with officers

(Image courtesy of BBC)

The Kim dynasty has long relied on a policy of military first, prioritizing the country's defense capabilities as a means to safeguard the regime's longevity. Accordingly, North Korea perceives nuclear weapons as a crucial element in deterring potential attacks and maintaining its hold on power.

This means that, ultimately, the DPRK’s strategic calculus is driven by a desire for recognition and leverage on the international stage.

By having nuclear weapons, the rogue nation aims to elevate its status, ensure its sovereignty, and strengthen its negotiating position. The pursuit of nuclear capabilities serves as a means to exert influence and secure concessions from the international community.

The unpredictable security environment in Northeast Asia also influences North Korea's decision-making. The country views the presence of U.S. military forces in South Korea and joint military exercises with its allies as provocative. It perceives nuclear weapons as a necessary deterrent against perceived threats and as a way to ensure its security against potential aggression.

Within this context, the Kim regime portrays nuclear weapons as a source of national pride and a symbol of technological prowess. The development of nuclear weapons serves as a unifying factor within the country, reinforcing the government's legitimacy and maintaining social cohesion.

North Korea's Nuclear Arsenal

North Korea's nuclear weapons program has been a subject of concern and international scrutiny. The specific details of its nuclear weapons capabilities are often shrouded in secrecy, and the available information is based on estimates and open-source intelligence.

It's important to note that the information provided here may not be comprehensive or completely accurate. Nonetheless, here is a general overview of the types of nuclear weapons the DPRK is believed to have:

1. Nuclear Warheads:

Yield: The exact yield of North Korea's nuclear warheads is unknown. However, it is estimated to be in the range of several kilotons to tens of kilotons.

KN-08/KN-14 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs):

Range: Estimated to have the potential to reach targets as far as the continental United States.
It is important to note that the operational status and reliability of these ICBMs are uncertain.

3. Musudan Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs):

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 3,000-4,000 kilometers (approximately 1,860-2,485 miles).
The operational status and reliability of these missiles are also uncertain.

4. Nodong Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs):

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 1,000-1,300 kilometers (approximately 620-808 miles).
These missiles are believed to be operational.

5. Scud Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs):

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 300-700 kilometers (approximately 186-435 miles).
These missiles are believed to be operational.

North Korea's First Strike Potential

North Korea is arguably the state most likely to deploy nuclear weapons against a foreign enemy.

Ostensibly a totalitarian regime controlled entirely by Kim Jong-un, North Korea is an inherently unstable state. If he has the capability and the personal will, there are likely very few checks that would prevent Kim from firing off a nuke.

His pursuit of a credible nuclear deterrent stems from a desire for regime survival, recognition, and leverage. If he fails to receive that recognition … if he feels like he doesn't have the leverage he needs … or if he feels like his regime is under threat (even wrongly), he could touch off a nuclear war.

Consequently, the international community is rightly concerned about the northern half of the Korean peninsula, and diplomatic resolution should be dutifully pursued to limit its nuclear development. But individuals should also be acutely aware of the threat North Korean nukes could pose to their own hometowns.

A Geiger-2 Portable Geiger Counter/Dosimeter would allow you to track radiation in your immediate area in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. The Geiger-2 is a next gen detection device that combines a proven SBM20-01 Geiger Muller tube with modern technology. Using the integrated controls and 1.1 inch LCD screen, the user can navigate various functions, set exposure alarms, and track daily radiation levels.

Best of all, it’s rechargeable thanks to the integrated lithium battery, and it’s also got a solar panel for on-the-go battery boosting.

India

The Republic of India is another country whose nuclear program emerged shortly after the end of World War II.

India's decision to develop nuclear capabilities stems from its quest for security and recognition as a responsible nuclear power. Historically, the country has advocated for global disarmament and emphasized its commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

As we mentioned at the start of this article, India's nuclear policy framework is based on the principle of credible minimum deterrence.

Accordingly, the rising global power maintains a no-first-use policy, which means it pledges not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked with such weapons. This policy underscores India's commitment to maintaining peace and stability while reserving the right to respond with devastating force in the event of a nuclear attack.

The country’s nuclear doctrine also emphasizes restraint and responsibility.

It aligns with international non-proliferation efforts, with India voluntarily placing its civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In this way, the republic’s commitment to responsible behavior reflects its pursuit of a secure, stable, and peaceful international order.

At this point, you may well be wondering: If India is so dedicated to disarmament … then why have nukes at all?

(Image courtesy of The National Interest)

Well, the goal of India's nuclear program is to deter potential adversaries by maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. By having a sizable nuclear arsenal, the former colony aims to dissuade aggression and preserve its sovereignty—mainly those posed by its neighbor and fellow nuke-equipped nation Pakistan.

India's commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament further influences its decision-making.

As a responsible nuclear power, the Indian government advocates for global nuclear disarmament and is a party to international non-proliferation treaties. India's responsible behavior underscores its commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons.

India's Nuclear Arsenal

India follows a policy of credible minimum deterrence and has a variety of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. While the Indian government has not publicly disclosed specific details about its nuclear weapons, here is a general overview of the types and capabilities of India's nuclear weapons:

1. Agni Series Ballistic Missiles:

Agni-I:

Range: Approximately 700-900 kilometers (approximately 435-560 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Agni-II:

Range: Approximately 2,000-3,000 kilometers (approximately 1,240-1,860 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Agni-III:

Range: Approximately 3,000-5,000 kilometers (approximately 1,860-3,110 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Agni-IV:

Range: Approximately 3,500-4,000 kilometers (approximately 2,175-2,485 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Agni-V:

Range: Approximately 5,500-8,000 kilometers (approximately 3,420-4,970 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

2. Prithvi Series Ballistic Missiles:

Prithvi-I:

Range: Approximately 150-250 kilometers (approximately 93-155 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Prithvi-II:

Range: Approximately 250-350 kilometers (approximately 155-220 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

3. Nuclear-capable Aircraft:

Mirage 2000H:

Range: Varies based on the mission profile and payload
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Sukhoi Su-30MKI:

Range: Varies based on the mission profile and payload
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

India's First Strike Potential

As of 2023, Bhārat seems trapped between its timid nuclear doctrine and an increasing border conflict with its neighbor Pakistan.

In a vacuum, the Indian state would seem extremely unlikely to initiate a nuclear conflict that spirals out of control. But in the context of its ongoing tensions with Pakistan, nuclear war seems slightly more likely.

While Pakistan might be marginally more inclined to fire the first shot, a nuclear war between these two countries would ultimately doom not only themselves, but up to 50% of the rest of the world's population as well.

Pakistan

Pakistan's nuclear program didn't begin in earnest until the 1970s. That's when it embarked on a campaign of covert nuclear development. Motivated by perceived threats to its security, particularly from neighboring India, the Pakistani government pursued nuclear capabilities to ensure its survival in an asymmetrical regional context. In other words, this pursuit was driven by a desire to counterbalance India's conventional military superiority and create a credible deterrent.

Like its southeastern neighbor, Pakistan's nuclear policy framework is based on the principle of credible minimum deterrence.

It likewise maintains a policy of "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons, pledging not to use them unless first attacked with such weapons. This policy underscores the republic’s commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the region while reserving the right to respond with devastating force in the event of a nuclear attack.

The Pakistani state’s nuclear doctrine emphasizes survivability and responsiveness. Its arsenal is designed to deter potential adversaries by ensuring the ability to retaliate effectively, even in the face of a preemptive strike. In this way, Pakistan's focus on survivable second-strike capabilities aims to dissuade aggression and maintain deterrence stability in the region.

This type of regional conflict is the core concern of Pakistan's nuclear program. The country's nukes act as a deterrent against potential aggression from India, its primary security concern.

The former colonies, once collectively ruled as British India, have engaged in multiple wars and experienced frequent border tensions. Within this context, Pakistan's nuclear deterrent is intended to offset India's conventional military superiority and create a balance of power, reducing the possibility of conflict and ensuring strategic stability.

During a time of unresolved territorial disputes and ongoing tensions with India, Pakistan's nuclear capabilities provide it with a sense of security, effectively protecting the country from a conventional attack or nuclear aggression.

(Image courtesy of VOA)

Moreover, Pakistan's commitment to non-proliferation and responsible behavior shapes its nuclear decision-making. Despite not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the emerging regional power has taken steps to prevent nuclear proliferation and strengthen its export control regime. It emphasizes responsible nuclear stewardship, reinforcing its commitment to global security and stability.

Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal:

The Pakistani government’s nuclear weapons program is a matter of national security and is closely guarded by the government. Therefore, detailed information about the specific types and capabilities of Pakistan's nuclear weapons is not publicly disclosed.

However, based on available information and assessments by experts, here is a general overview of the types of nuclear weapons Pakistan is believed to have:

1. Hatf Series Ballistic Missiles:

Hatf-III (Ghaznavi):

Range: Approximately 290 kilometers (approximately 180 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Hatf-IV (Shaheen-I):

Range: Approximately 750 kilometers (approximately 466 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Hatf-V (Ghauri):

Range: Approximately 1,300-1,500 kilometers (approximately 808-932 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Hatf-VI (Shaheen-II):

Range: Approximately 2,000 kilometers (approximately 1,240 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Hatf-VII (Babur):

Range: Approximately 700 kilometers (approximately 435 miles)
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

2. Nuclear-Capable Aircraft:

F-16 Fighting Falcon:

Range: Varies based on the mission profile and payload
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Mirage III/V:

Range: Varies based on the mission profile and payload
Yield: Not publicly disclosed

Pakistan's First Strike Potential

Pakistan's likelihood of using nuclear weapons is influenced by a combination of factors, including deterrence, regional security dynamics, and responsible behavior.

The country's entire nuclear arsenal and doctrine are engineered around the ongoing conflict with India. If this conflict were to spiral out of control, the consequences could be devastating. As mentioned above, the nature of Pakistani culture and nuclear doctrine make the nation slightly more likely than India to initiate a first strike. But the conflict between the two makes both a significant concern.

Israel

Israel's association with nuclear weapons dates back to the 1960s when it began developing nuclear weapons in secret.

Motivated by existential security concerns, Medinat Yisrael sought to ensure its survival in a volatile region surrounded by hostile neighbors. While the state has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons, it is widely believed to have a modest but credible nuclear arsenal.

(Image courtesy of Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation)

Israel has a unique nuclear policy characterized by deliberate ambiguity, refraining from openly acknowledging or denying its nuclear weapons. This policy serves multiple purposes, including deterrence, strategic ambiguity, and minimizing regional arms races.

The Israeli government position of nuclear opacity is aimed at maintaining a balance between projecting strength and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

Israel faces multiple security challenges, including the threat of terrorism, regional conflicts, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The republic’s nuclear capabilities serve as a deterrent against these threats, providing a sense of security and stability in an unpredictable environment.

And by neither confirming nor denying its nuclear weapons, Israel avoids triggering a destabilizing chain reaction in the region. This approach contributes to maintaining a balance of power and minimizing the risk of a nuclear arms race among its neighbors.

Additionally, the Israeli state’s close alliance with the United States plays a role in its nuclear posture.

The security relationship between the two countries provides Israel with extended deterrence, bolstering its overall security and reducing the perceived need for explicit nuclear threats.

Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal

Israel has maintained a policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear weapons program, neither confirming nor denying its nuclear weapons.

As a result, there is limited official information available about Israel's nuclear arsenal. But based on assessments by various experts and intelligence agencies, it is widely believed that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. Here is a general overview of the types of nuclear weapons that Israel is believed to have:

1. Jericho Ballistic Missiles:

Jericho III:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 4,800-6,500 kilometers (approximately 2,983-4,038 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

Jericho II:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 1,500-2,500 kilometers (approximately 932-1,553 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

2. Air-Delivered Nuclear Weapons:

F-15I and F-16I Aircraft:

It is widely believed that Israel has modified some of its aircraft, such as the F-15I and F-16I, to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
Range: Varies based on the mission profile and payload.
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

3. Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs):

Dolphin-class Submarines:

Israel is believed to have Dolphin-class submarines that can launch nuclear-capable cruise missiles or possibly carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The specific range and yield of these missiles are not publicly disclosed.

Israel's First Strike Potential

Due to the nature of Israeli politics and security, this author believes the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons would be far more likely than any Alpha Strike against a foreign nation.

Based on its harrowing experience during the Six-Day War, Eretz Israel has a unique appreciation of the constant danger posed by its many nearby enemies. If a similar attack were to break out in the future, and Israel's Defense Forces failed to contain the attack, then the country may use a targeted tactical nuke against armed combatants in battlefield situations.

Otherwise, the risk of widespread first-strike use of nukes by Israel is practically zero.

China

The People’s Republic of China, or PRC, began developing its own nukes in the 1960s.

Soldiers silhouetted against mushroom cloud

(Image courtesy of The China Project)

Historically, China's nuclear policy has been rooted in the pursuit of national security, independence, and strategic autonomy. China adopted a minimal deterrence posture, focusing on maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent with a limited arsenal.

The Chinese government employs the same kind of "no first use" doctrine as the U.S., meaning it pledges not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked with such weapons. This policy underscores China's commitment to maintaining peace and stability while emphasizing the defensive nature of its nuclear capabilities.

China's nuclear capacities primarily serve as a deterrent against potential adversaries, focused on preventing nuclear coercion or attacks. Accordingly, the PRC’s nuclear doctrine aims to ensure its national security and protect its sovereignty.

As of 2023, China faces complex security challenges, including territorial disputes and regional tensions. Ongoing tensions with Muslim ethnic minorities and the neighboring country of Taiwan have the country on relatively high alert.

However, the “Middle Kingdom” maintains a policy of restrained and responsible behavior, emphasizing peaceful development and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

China's long-term commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament further influences its nuclear decision-making. China actively participates in international non-proliferation efforts and has supported the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Its conscientious behavior and advocacy for disarmament contribute to global stability and reinforce its position as a responsible nuclear power.

Essentially, the PRC seeks to maintain a credible deterrent against potential adversaries while expanding its influence and securing its national interests. In this way, its nuclear capabilities act as a strategic tool to support its broader geopolitical objectives and enhance its regional standing.

China's Nuclear Arsenal

The Chinese state has a diverse range of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. While specific details about China's nuclear weapons program are closely guarded by the government, and official information is limited, here is a general overview of the types of nuclear weapons that the PRC is believed to have:

1. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs):

DF-41:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 12,000-15,000 kilometers (approximately 7,456-9,320 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

DF-31AG:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 11,200 kilometers (approximately 6,954 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

DF-5B:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 12,000-15,000 kilometers (approximately 7,456-9,320 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

2. Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs):

JL-2:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 7,200-8,000 kilometers (approximately 4,474-4,971 miles) when launched from submarines.
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

3. Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs):

DF-26:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 3,000-4,000 kilometers (approximately 1,864-2,485 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

4. Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs):

DF-21:

Range: Estimated to have a range of approximately 1,800-2,500 kilometers (approximately 1,118-1,553 miles).
Yield: Not publicly disclosed.

5.Tactical Nuclear Weapon

China's First Strike Potential

China is extremely unlikely to initiate a nuclear exchange.

While the rising power has the world's second-largest economy, its stockpile of nuclear weapons is still roughly 1/20th the size of America or Russia's arsenal. For this reason, an alpha strike wouldn't work. And due to the size of that economy, the Chinese Communist Party has too much to lose from a major nuclear exchange.

China faces few material regional threats that would justify its nuclear arsenal. The country's relationship with Russia has long been rocky, so its weapons essentially serve as what is truly a "minimum credible deterrence" against attack from either Russia or the United States.

Granted, there are still plenty of reasons why Americans should be worried about the PRC, but nuclear war generally isn't one of them.

Final Assessment

This article has endeavored to simplify and condense almost eighty years of complex geopolitical history into just a few pages.

Along the way we’ve inevitably made a few gross characterizations, perhaps some culturally-biased conclusions, and left out some of the more nuanced factors. But, ultimately, we’re only dealing with a few major nuclear powers, and the breakdown is pretty straightforward.

Russia has what is believed to be the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. It employs a nebulous “escalate to de-escalate” policy and is generally unstable. This is a distinct and unavoidable concern for the global community. But once again: The power of the Russia nuke arsenal relies largely on not deploying it in the first place. And like so many other nuclear powers, this makes Russia relatively conservative—even in the face of outspoken nuclear rhetoric.

Despite Russia’s declining status as a world power, it is still locked in a game of mutually-assured destruction with its counterpart the United States. As a result, it’s paradoxically less likely to initiate an all-out nuclear war. So, will Putin nuke his adversaries? It’s highly unlikely.

But the country’s current conflict with Ukraine is concerning, since it substantially increases the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons, which could too easily spiral into a global nuclear conflagration.

On the whole, then, North Korea is the only true “loose cannon” in 2023’s global calculus. Kin Jong-un’s nuclear tests have increased in both frequency and scale. And his totalitarian control over the country poses a dangerous threat to the global community.

Kim Jong-un clapping with officers in front of missile

(Image courtesy of New York Post)

Rounding out the top three global nuclear threats is the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan. These two relatively peaceful nations have grown substantial nuclear arsenals. And as we’ve mentioned at least twice so far today, a nuclear exchange between the two would wipe out half the world’s agricultural production. So while the threat is less immediate to the average American, it should be equally concerning.

While China is still a worry in terms of America’s economic dominance, there’s little to be worried about in terms of the country’s nuclear capabilities. As we mentioned, their nuclear arsenal is almost entirely geared towards preventing a land invasion at the hands of the Russians.

If you’re still reckoning with the sheer scale of a nuke explosion, you should take a look at Alex Wellerstein’s nuke map website. It features a basic app that works as a nuke simulator to show you the scale and deadly outcome of various types of explosions.

Finally, due to the status quo of global nuclear armament, it would seem as if the United States, France and United Kingdom are at a relative advantage. Membership in NATO along with advanced technology and friendly terms for deployment of nuclear weapons—all these things add up to a position of strength that precludes the need for a first strike.

Regardless of who strikes first, nuclear doctrine of almost every state allows for massive retaliatory attack. So as soon as those first missiles fly, the risk of global conflagration increases by magnitudes.

Frequently Asked Questions about Nukes

How many nukes does the US have?

Are nukes illegal in war?

Is nuclear war likely?

Where would Russia nuke the US in 2022?

How far can a nuke travel?

What does nuke mean?

2023 Global Nuke Threat Update

Table of Contents