
Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons and How Big Their Arsenals Are - aburan28
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/23/world/nuclear-weapon-countries.html
======
Fnoord
This is inaccurate. My country (The Netherlands) officially has no nukes. It
is a public secret Volkel airbase near Eindhoven hosts USAF nukes though.
Diplomatic cable leaks, as well as a statement by former prime minister Ruud
Lubbers in 2013 both confirm there are nukes hosted [1].

Yet in statistics like in this article -among other- the above doesn't count.
Not even mentioned. Which leads me to wonder how inaccurate the rest is.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base)

~~~
sfifs
I think the article's implication is pretty clear that it's trying to
enumerate countries which possess/control nuclear weapons, not stationed. I
doubt the political leader of Neatherlands can trigger those American weapons
stationed on its territory.

During the cold war American weapons were certainly deployed in Europe and
elsewhere and some very likely still are.

~~~
jessriedel
Yes, this is all well known. It's called "nuclear sharing" and it involves 6
bases at 5 European countries hosting US bombs. Estimated number of weapons by
base:

Kleine Brogel (Belgium): 10~20

Büchel (Germany): >=20

Volkel (Netherlands): 10~20

Aviano (Italy): 50

Ghedi (Italy): 20~40

Incirlik (Turkey): 50~90

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing)

------
oblio
I hope we never get to that point but I have a feeling that the Russian
nuclear arsenal is similar to their tanks at the start of Barbarossa: many
legacy or barely functional ones.

Otherwise I don't see how they would be able to adequately maintain such a
huge stockpile with a GDP equal to the Spanish one.

~~~
wbl
Nukes don't require that much maintenance. The cores are definitely stable if
not exposed to moisture. Explosives are cheap to remanufacture if necessary.
The large problem would be materials that they don't have the know-how to
make, like happened to us with FOGBANK.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nukes don't require that much maintenance

Liquid-fueled ICBMs do, as do bombers, subs, etc. Nuclear warheads might not,
but warheads alone aren't very useful.

------
grizzles
The list doesn't mention Saudia Arabia. IIRC either Snowden or Wikileaks
disclosed US government cables that confirmed Saudia Arabia have the A bomb.

~~~
ungerik
There is a highly speculative conspiracy theory that the US - Saudi
relationship went sour because the Saudies wanted Nukes and the US didn't
allow it. Followed by a price war on oil, reopened 9/11 allegations etc.

------
chinathrow
Too many and too big.

~~~
collyw
Crazy that you get down voted for that comment. Its not like anyone wants /
expects to use them.

~~~
Roboprog
Well, if you have nukes, other countries largely leave you alone. I'm sure
that's just a coincidence, though. (/s)

Now, why a country would need enough to "boil the oceans" (not literally, but
just to get the point across), that's perhaps another matter.

------
Roboprog
So, this is a map of the countries that the US _won 't_ be invading? :-)

HHOS, Merry Christmas.

~~~
Roboprog
E.g. - invade Afghanistan, but Pakistan is our "ally". Remind me where we
found Bin Laden, again?

Our leaders must be able to accurately assess that most of the population is
indeed stupid.

Statement stands: if you don't want your country to be the victim of a
corporate "smash and grab", build yourself a couple nukes.

------
feborges
what about south africa?

