By Hans M. Kristensen

The US Air Force has published the first official image of the next-generation bomber, formerly known as LRS-B (Long Range Strike Bomber). Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James revealed the image during her talk to the 2016 Air Warfare Symposium and gave it its official designation: B-21.

The “21” refers to the 21^st Century and is intended to signal cutting-edge technology and capability. (Last time the Pentagon named a major defense program after the 21^st Century was the SSN-21, the Navy’s Seawolf-class attack submarine. That program was canceled after only three boats.)

But just how different the B-21 is remains to be seen. The B-21 image shows the new bomber is not a significantly new design but looks more like an upgrade of the B-2. The main focus may have been to improve stealth and sensors. The Air Force has promised to disclose more details in March. They’ll certainly have to, if they want all the money they’re asking for it.

Preliminary Design Comparison

A preliminary comparison of the B-21 and B-2 bomber images suggests a very similar overall design, perhaps a little smaller, but with some significant modifications.

The most apparent difference is that the B-21 has a clean diamond-shaped center body section in contrast to the B-2’s more jagged rear center wing outline. The indents in the B-2’s rear center wing were created by the engine exhausts, a design feature that appears to be absent from the B-21. Engine exhaust is an important source of detectable heat. It is unknown if the engine exhausts have been moved below the body, integrated better into the edge of the wing, or omitted from the drawing because it is still a secret.

The elimination of the two engine exhaust wing-indents appears to have resulted in longer outer wing sections. And the wings on the B-21 appear a little more backswept than the wings on the B-2 resulting in a pointier aircraft nose, although that could be an optical illusion from the the quality of the images.

Another difference is that the air-intakes of the two engines have been extended forward and the edges angled, presumably to further reduce the aircraft’s radar signature.

Whatever else is “hidden under the hood,” the Air Force says that the design “allowed for the use of mature systems and existing technology while still providing desired capability” but with “an open architecture allowing integration of new technology and timely response to future threats across the full range of military operations.” (Emphasis added.)

It Doesn’t Have A Name

The new bomber has a designation (B-21) but not yet a name. The B-2 is called the Spirit. The B-52 is called the Stratofortress. The B-1 is called the Lancer. So Secretary James invited air force personnel to come up with a name. There are already many suggestions – some serious, some gung ho, others highly critical:

Defense News has a voting page and there is a growing list of suggestions in the comments to Secretary James’ announcement. Just to mention a few:

Spirit II, Deliverance, Thunderbolt, Sand Melter, Nightwing, Stormbringer, Flying W, Batwing, The Obama, Lemay, Regurgitating Pigeon, Flying Money-Pit, 2-Bad (the Cold War never really ended), Boondoggle, Budgetbuster, or Another Flying Turd from Northrop Hunk Of Overpriced Under-Performing Long Delayed Useless Waste of Taxpayers Money.

Or how about Resurrection? The Air Force didn’t get its 132 B-2 bombers, only 21 because they were too expensive. So now the Air Force tries again with what looks like a modified B-2: the B-21.

Looming Costs

The Air Force says each B-21 will “only” cost $564 million (in FY2016 money) plus $23.5 billion for overall program development, or a total of nearly $80 billion for 100 bombers.

The Air Force also claims the average procurement cost of each B-21 will be approximately a third of what the B-2 cost was.

These cost projections are already being met with considerable skepticism. Based on the Air Force’s own projections, according to a recent study, the cost of major Air Force aircraft programs “is projected to peak in FY2023 at nearly twice the FY2015 level of funding, adjusting for inflation, and is a driving factor behind the overall defense modernization bow wave.”

Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that has to approve B-21 funding, has already voiced opposition to key provisions in the current B-21 contract. This should make for some interesting hearings on the Hill later this spring.

And new defense programs historically tend to go 20-30 percent over budget, which would put further pressure on the Air Force’s budget.

If so, the total cost for developing and producing 100 B-21 bombers might reach $96 billion to $104 billion. Oh, and don’t forget to add the costs of integrating the new B61-12 nuclear guided bomb and new nuclear air-launched cruise missile (LRSO) on the B-21 as well.

I just wonder what the Air Force’s fallback plan is. Delay? Fewer bombers? Less advanced design? Fewer fighters? Fewer satellites? Fewer tankers? No LRSO? Fewer ICBMs? Absent a major infusion of additional money into the defense budget, the Air Force’s current modernization plan seems unsustainable.

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

By Hans M. Kristensen

It has almost become dogma: the United States needs to keep a Triad of strategic nuclear forces. Therefore, expensive modernization of every leg is necessary plus a fourth leg of non-strategic fighter-jets. Oh, and don’t forget nuclear command and control systems such as terminals and satellites.

Without that, deterrence of potential adversaries will fail and they will use nuclear weapons, allies will loose faith and develop their own, and potential adversaries will win a nuclear war. That’s the picture being painted by a vast and influential community of nuclear warfighters, planners, strategists, defense contractors, and former nuclear officials. They’re having a field day now because of Russia’s misbehavior in Eastern Europe and China’s military modernization.

In reality the situation is less clear-cut: the choice is not between modernization or no modernization, nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons, but how much and of what kind is necessary for which scenarios. When have strategists and warfighters not been able to come up with yet another worst-case scenario to justify status quo or even better nuclear weapons?

The reality is that if we don’t think carefully about missions and priorities and overspend on nuclear weapons, maintenance and modernization of conventional forces – the weapons that are actually useable – will suffer. And that’s bad defense planning.

The PBS Newshour program does a good job (in the limited time it had) in taking on the Holy Triad, bringing in people from both sides of the isle. This was the third program in a series about the U.S. nuclear arsenal and mission. The others two episodes were: How many ballistic missile submarines does the U.S. really need? from July 2015, and America’s nuclear bomb gets a makeover from November 2015.

Watch them, learn, and think…

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Updated below

The Department of Defense revealed this week that “The fact that U.S. nuclear weapons were deployed on Okinawa prior to Okinawa’s reversion to Japan on May 15, 1972” has been declassified.

While this is indeed news concerning classification policy, it does not represent new information about Okinawa.

According to an existing Wikipedia entry, “Between 1954 and 1972, 19 different types of nuclear weapons were deployed in Okinawa, but with fewer than around 1,000 warheads at any one time” (citing research by Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin and William Burr that was published in 1999 in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). As often seems to be the case, declassification here followed disclosure, not the other way around.

If there is any revelation in the new DoD announcement, it is that this half-century-old historical information was still considered classified until now. As such, it has been an ongoing obstacle to the public release of records concerning the history of Okinawa and US-Japan relations.

Because this information had been classified as “Formerly Restricted Data” under the Atomic Energy Act rather than by executive order, its declassification required the concurrence of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and (in this case) the Department of State. Any one of those agencies had the power to veto the decision to declassify, or to stymie it by simply refusing to participate.

Instead, the information was declassified as a result of a new procedure adopted by the Obama Administration to coordinate the review of nuclear weapons-related historical material that is no longer sensitive but that has remained classified under the Atomic Energy Act by default. The new procedure had been recommended by a 2012 report from the Public Interest Declassification Board, and was adopted by the White House-led Classification Reform Committee.

Also newly declassified and affirmed this week was “The fact that prior to the reversion of Okinawa to Japan that the U.S. Government conducted internal discussion, and discussions with Japanese government officials regarding the possible re-introduction of nuclear weapons onto Okinawa in the event of an emergency or crisis situation.”

Such individual declassification actions could go on indefinitely, since there are innumerable other “facts” whose continued classification cannot reasonably be justified by current circumstances. A more systemic effort to recalibrate national security classification policy government-wide is to be performed over the coming year.

Update: The National Security Archive posted the first officially declassified document on nuclear weapons in Okinawa, which was released in response to its request. See Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa Declassified, February 19, 2016.

By Hans M. Kristensen

The final defense budget of the Obama administration effectively crowns this administration as the nuclear modernization leader of post-Cold War U.S. presidencies.

While official statements so far have mainly justified the massive nuclear modernization as simply extending the service-life of existing capabilities, the Pentagon now explicitly paints the nuclear modernization as a direct response to Russia:

PB 2017 Adjusts to Strategic Change. Today’s security environment is dramatically different from the one the department has been engaged with for the last 25 years, and it requires new ways of thinking and new ways of acting. This security environment is driving the focus of the Defense Department’s planning and budgeting.

[…]

Russia. The budget enables the department to take a strong, balanced approach to respond to Russia’s aggression in Eastern Europe.

• We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through investments in a broad range of capabilities. The FY 2017 budget request will allow us to modify and expand air defense systems, develop new unmanned systems, design a new long-range bomber and a new long-range stand-off cruise missile, and modernize our nuclear arsenal.

[…]

The cost for the new long-range bomber (LRS-B) is still secret but will likely total over 100 billion. But the new budget contains out-year numbers for the new cruise missile (LRSO) that show a significant increase in funding in 2018 and 2019. More than $4.6 billion is projected through 2021:

The total life-cycle cost of the new cruise missile may be as high as $30 billion. Excessive and expensive nuclear modernization programs in the budget threaten funding of more important non-nuclear defense programs.

The Pentagon and defense contractors say the LRSO is needed to replace the existing aging air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) to shoot holes in enemy air defenses, fight limited nuclear wars, and because Russia has nuclear cruise missiles. The claims recycle Cold War justifications and ignore the effectiveness of other military forces in deterring and defeating potential adversaries.

Last year Defense Secretary Carter promised NATO’s response to Russia would not use the “Cold War playbook” of large American forces stationed in Europe.

But other pages in the Cold War playbook – including those relating to nuclear forces – appear to have been studied well with growing nuclear bomber integration in Europe, revival of escalation scenarios and contingency planning, development of a new bomber and a cruise missiles, and deployment of guided nuclear bombs on stealth fighters in Europe within the next decade.

Russia – after having triggered a revival of NATO with its invasion of Ukraine, large-scale exercises, and overt nuclear threats – is likely to respond to NATO’s military posturing by beefing up its own operations. Russian officials quickly reacted to NATO’s latest announcement to boost military forces in Eastern Europe by pledging to improve its conventional and nuclear forces further.

It is obvious what’s happening here. The issue is not who’s to blame or who started it. The challenge is how to prevent that the actions each side take in what they consider justified responses to the other side’s aggression do not escalate further into a new round of Cold War.

The explicit inclusion of nuclear forces in the tit-for-tat posturing is another worrisome sign that the escalation has already started.

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

By Hans M. Kristensen

The RAND Corporation has published an interesting new report on how NATO would defend the Baltic States against a Russian attack.

Without spending much time explaining why Russia would launch a military attack against the Baltic States in the first place – the report simply declares “the next [after Ukraine] most likely targets for an attempted Russian coercion are the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania” – the report contains some surprising (to some) observations about the limitations of nuclear weapons in the real world (by that I mean not in the heads of strategists and theorists).

The central nuclear observation of the report is that NATO nuclear forces do not have much credibility in protecting the Baltic States against a Russian attack.

That conclusion is, to say the least, interesting given the extent to which some analysts and former/current officials have been arguing that NATO/US need to have more/better limited regional nuclear options to counter Russia in Europe.

The report is very timely because the NATO Summit in Warsaw in six months will decide on additional responses to Russian aggression. Unfortunately, some of the decisions might increase the role or readiness of nuclear weapons in Europe.

Limits of Nuclear Weapons

The RAND report contains important conclusions about the role that nuclear weapons could play in deterring and repelling a Russian attack on the Baltic States. Here are the relevant nuclear-related excerpts from the report:

“Any counteroffensive would also be fraught with severe escalatory risks. If the Crimea experience can be taken as a precedent, Moscow could move rapidly to formally annex the occupied territories to Russia. NATO clearly would not recognize the legitimacy of such a gambit, but from Russia’s perspective it would at least nominally bring them under Moscow’s nuclear umbrella. By turning a NATO counterattack aimed at liberating the Baltic republics into an “invasion” of “Russia,” Moscow could generate unpredictable but clearly dangerous escalatory dynamics.”

[…]

“The second option would be for NATO to turn the escalatory tables, taking a page from its Cold War doctrine of “massive retaliation,” and threaten Moscow with a nuclear response if it did not withdraw from the territory it had occupied. This option was a core element of the Alliance’s strategy against the Warsaw Pact for the duration of the latter’s existence and could certainly be called on once again in these circumstances.

The deterrent impact of such a threat draws power from the implicit risk of igniting an escalatory spiral that swiftly reaches the level of nuclear exchanges between the Russian and U.S. homelands. Unfortunately, once deterrence has failed—which would clearly be the case once Russia had crossed the Rubicon of attacking NATO member states—that same risk would tend to greatly undermine its credibility, since it may seem highly unlikely to Moscow that the United States would be willing to exchange New York for Riga. Coupled with the general direction of U.S. defense policy, which has been to de-emphasize the value of nuclear weapons, and the likely unwillingness of NATO’s European members, especially the Baltic states themselves, to see their continent or countries turned into a nuclear battlefield, this lack of believability makes this alternative both unlikely and unpalatable.”

[…]

“We did not portray nuclear use in any of our games, although we did explore the effects of various kinds of constraints on each side’s operations intended to represent limitations that might be imposed by national or alliance political leaderships anxious to avoid setting off escalatory spirals.”

[…]

“Other options have been discussed to enhance NATO’s deterrent posture without significantly increasing its conventional force deployments. For example, NATO could rely on an increased availability and reliance on tactical and theater nuclear weapons. However, as recollections of the endless Cold War debates about the viability of nuclear threats to deter conventional aggression by a power that itself has a plethora of nuclear arms should remind us, this approach has issues with credibility similar to those already discussed with regard to the massive retaliation option in response to a Russian attack.”

Even So…

Not surprisingly, some analysts and former officials (even some current officials) are busy arguing – even lobbying for – that NATO and the United States need more tailored nuclear capabilities to be able to deter and, if necessary, respond to precisely the type of scenario the RAND study had doubts about.

There’s no doubt that Vladimir Putin’s escapades are creating security concerns in the Baltic States and NATO. The invasion of Ukraine, increased military operations, direct nuclear threats, and a host of less visible activities effectively have killed the trust between Russia and NATO. Relations have deteriorated to an officially adversarial and counter-responsive climate. It is in this atmosphere that analysts and nuclear hardliners are trying to understand how it affects nuclear weapons policy.

Hardliners are convinced that Russia has increased reliance on nuclear weapons in a whole new way that envisions first-use of nuclear weapons. One former official who helped shape the George W. Bush administration’s nuclear policy recently warned that Russia “seeks to prevent any significant collective Western defensive opposition by threatening limited nuclear first-use in response,” and that the Russian threat to use nuclear weapons first “is a new reality more dangerous than the Cold War.” (Emphasis added.)

That is probably a bit over the top. As for the claim that Russia is “pursuing” low-yield nuclear weapons to “make its first-use threat credible,” that rumor dates back to a number of articles in Russian media in the 1990s. Those rumors followed reports in the United States in 1993 that the Clinton administration was considering low-yield nuclear weapons – even “micro-nukes.” The Bush administration in the 2000s pursued pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios and advanced-concept nuclear weapons for tailored use. Although Congress rejected these plans, some of the ideas seem to have influenced Russian nuclear thinking.

Now we’re again hearing proposals from some analysts that the United States should develop a “measured response” strategy that includes “discriminate nuclear options at all rungs of the nuclear escalation ladder” to ensure that “there are no gaps in U.S. nuclear response options that would prevent it from retaliating proportionately to any employment of a nuclear weapon against the United States and its allies.” This would require “low-yield, accurate, special-effects options that can respond proportionately at the lower end of the nuclear continuum.”

It is easy to get spooked by public statements and led astray by entangled logic and worst-case scenarios that spin into claims and recommendations that may be based on misunderstood or exaggerated information. It would be more interesting and beneficial to the public debate to hear what the U.S. Intelligence Community has concluded Russia has developed and what is new and different in Russian nuclear strategy today.

A Better Strategy

Fortunately, Russia’s general military capabilities – although important – are so limited that the RAND study concludes that for NATO to be able to counter a Russian attack on the Baltic States “does not appear to require a Herculean effort.”

Instead, the report concludes that a NATO force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades – adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities – might prevent such an outcome.

NATO has already created a conventional Spearhead Force brigade of about 5,000 troops. Seven brigades of that size would include about 35,000 troops.

Creating and maintaining such a force, RAND estimates, might cost on the order of $2.7 billion per year.

Put in perspective, the $30 billion the Pentagon plans to spend on a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile (LRSO) that is not needed could buy NATO more a decade worth of real protection of the Baltic States.

Guess what would help the Baltic States the most.

 

Background: Rand Report

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

ASROC nuclear test, 1962

Remember during the Cold War when US Navy warships and attack submarines sailed the World’s oceans bristling with nuclear weapons and routinely violated non-nuclear countries’ bans against nuclear weapons on their territories in peacetime?

The weapons were onboard ballistic missile submarines, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and supply ships. The weapons were brought along on naval exercises, spy missions, freedom of navigation demonstrations and port visits.

Sometimes the vessels they were on collided, ran aground, caught fire, or sank.

Not many remember today. But now the Pentagon has declassified how many nuclear weapons they actually deployed in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean. In our latest FAS Nuclear Notebook published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists we review this unique new set of de-classified Cold War nuclear history.

The Numbers

The declassified documents show that the United States during much of the 1970s and the 1980s deployed about a quarter of its entire nuclear weapons stockpile at sea. The all-time high was in 1975 when 6,191 weapons were afloat, but even in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there were 5,716 weapons at sea. That’s more nuclear weapons than the size of the entire US nuclear stockpile today.

The declassified data provides detailed breakdowns for weapons in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean for the 30-year period between 1961 and 1991. Prior to 1961 only totals are provided. Except for three years (1962, 1965 and 1966), most weapons were always deployed in the Atlantic, a reflection of the focus on defending NATO against the Soviet Union. When adding the weapons in the Mediterranean, the Euro-centric nature of the US nuclear posture during the Cold War becomes even more striking. The number of weapons deployed in the Pacific peaked much later, in 1987, at 2,085 weapons.

The declassified numbers end in 1991 with the offloading of non-strategic naval nuclear weapons from US Navy vessels. After that only strategic missile submarines (SSBNs) have continued to deploy with nuclear weapons onboard. Those numbers are still secret.

In the table above we have incorporated our estimates for the number of nuclear warhead deployed on US ballistic missile submarines since 1991. Those estimates show that afloat weapons increased during the 1990s as more Ohio-class SSBNs entered the fleet.

Because the total stockpile decreased significantly in the early 1990s, the percentage of it that was deployed at sea grew until it reached an all-time high of nearly 33 percent in 2000. Retirement of four SSBNs, changes to strategic war plans, and the effect of arms control agreements have since reduced the number of nuclear weapons deployed at sea to just over 1,000 in 2015. That corresponds to nearly 22 percent of the stockpile deployed at sea.

The just over 1,000 afloat warheads today may be less than during the Cold War, but it is roughly equivalent to the nuclear weapons stockpiles of Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea combined.

Mediterranean Mystery

The declassification documents do not explain how the numbers are broken down. The “Atlantic,” “Pacific,” and “Mediterranean” regions are not the only areas where the U.S. Navy sent nuclear-armed warships. Afloat weapons in the Indian and Arctic oceans, for example, are not listed even though nuclear-armed warships sailed in both oceans. Similarly, the declassified documents show the number of afloat weapons in the Mediterranean suddenly dropping to zero in 1987, even though the U.S. Navy continued so deploy nuclear-armed vessels into the Mediterranean Sea.

During the naval deployments in support of Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in early 1991, for example, the aircraft carrier USS America (CV-66) deployed with its nuclear weapons division (W Division) and B61 nuclear strike bombs and B57 nuclear depth bombs. The W Division was still onboard when America deployed to Northern Europe and the Mediterranean in 1992 but had been disbanded by the time it deployed to the Mediterranean in 1993.

B61 and B57 nuclear weapons are displayed on board the USS America (CV-66) during its deployment to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The nuclear division was also onboard in 1992 but gone in 1993.

As ships offloaded their weapons, the on-board nuclear divisions gradually were disbanded in anticipation of the upcoming denuclearization of the surface fleet. One of the last carriers to deploy with a W Division was the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), which upon its return to the United States from a Mediterranean deployment in 1992-1993 ceremoniously photographed the W crew with the sign: “USS John F. Kennedy, CV 67, last W-Division, 17 Feb. 93.” The following year, the Clinton administration publicly announced that all carriers and surface ships would be denuclearized.

The last nuclear weapons division on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) is disbanded in February 1993. The following year the entire surface fleet was denuclearized.

Since nuclear weapons clearly deployed to the Mediterranean Sea after the declassified documents showing zero afloat nuclear weapons in the area, perhaps the three categories “Atlantic,” “Pacific,” and “Mediterranean” refer to overall military organization: “Atlantic” might be weapons under the command of the Atlantic Fleet (LANTFLT); “Pacific” might refer to the Pacific Fleet (PACFLT); and “Mediterranean” might refer to the Sixth Fleet. Yet I’m not convinced that organization is the whole story; the Atlantic numbers didn’t suddenly increase when the Mediterranean numbers dropped to zero.

The declassified afloat numbers end in 1991. After that year the only nuclear weapons deployed at sea have been strategic weapons onboard ballistic missile submarines. Most of those deploy in the Atlantic and Pacific but have occasionally deployed into the Mediterranean even after the declassified documents list zero afloat weapons in that region, and even after the surface fleet was denuclearized.

In 1999, for example, the ballistic missile submarine USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) conducted a port visit to Souda Bay on Crete with it load of 24 Trident missiles and an estimated 192 warheads. The ship’s Command History states that the port visit, which took place December 12-16, 1999, occurred during the “Alert Strategic Deterrent Patrol in support of national tasking” that included a “Mediterranean Sea Patrol.”

Risks of Nuclear Accidents

Deploying nuclear weapons on ships and submarines created unique risks of accidents and incidents. Because warships sometimes collide, catch fire, or even sink, it was only a matter of time before the nuclear weapons they carried were threatened, damaged, or lost. This really happened.

During night air exercises on November 22, 1975, for example, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and cruiser USS Belknap (CG-26) collided in rough seas 112 kilometers (70 miles) east of Sicily. The carrier’s flight deck cuts into the superstructure of the Belknap setting off fires on the cruiser, which burned out of control for two-and-one-half hours. The commander of Carrier Striking Force for the U.S. Sixth Fleet on board the Kennedy issues a Broken Arrow alert to higher commands stating there was a “high probability that nuclear weapons (W45 Terrier missile warheads) on the Belknap were involved in fire and explosions.” Eventually the fire was stopped only a few meters from Belknap’s nuclear weapons magazine.

The fire-damaged USS Belknap (CG-26) after colliding with USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) new Sicily in 1975. The fire stopped a few meters from the nuclear warhead magazine.

The Kennedy also carried nuclear weapons, approximately 100 gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft. The carrier caught fire but luckily it was relatively quickly contained. Another carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), had been less fortunate six years earlier when operating 112 kilometers (70 miles) southwest of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. A rocket on a F-4 Phantom aircraft exploded puncturing fuel tanks and starting violent fires that caused other rockets and bombs to explode. The explosions were so violent that they tore holes in the carrier’s solid steel deck and engulfed the entire back of the ship. The captain later said: “If the fire had spread to the hangar deck [below], we could have very easily lost the ship.” The Enterprise probably carried about 100 nuclear bombs and was powered by eight nuclear reactors.

The nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65) burns off Hawaii on January 14, 1969. The carrier could have been lost, the captain said.

Dozens of nuclear weapons were lost at sea over the decades because they were on ships, submarines, or aircraft that were lost. On December 5, 1965, for example, while underway from operations off Vietnam to Yokosuka in Japan, an A-4E aircraft loaded with one B43 nuclear weapon rolled overboard from the Number 2 Elevator. The aircraft sank with the pilot and the bomb in 2,700 fathoms (4,940 meters) of water. The bomb has never been recovered. The Department of Defense reported the accident took place “more than 500 miles [805 kilometers] from land” when it revealed the accident in 1981. But Navy documents showed the accident occurred about 80 miles (129 kilometers) east of the Japanese Ryukyu Island chain, approximately 250 miles (402 kilometers) south of Kyushu Island, Japan, and about 200 miles (322 kilometers) east of Okinawa. Japan’s public policy and law prohibit nuclear weapons. (For a video if B43 aircraft carrier handling and A-4 loading, see this video.)

An A-4 Skyhawk with a B43 nuclear bomb under its belly rises on an elevator from the hangar deck to the flight deck on the USS Independence (CV-62) in an undated US Navy photo. In December 1965, a B43 attached to an A-4 rolled off the elevator on the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) while the carrier was on its way to Yokosuka in Japan.

Three years later, on May 27, 1968, the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Scorpion (SSN-589) suffered an accident and sank with all 99 men on board in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 644 kilometers (400 miles) southwest of the Azores. The Department of Defense in 1981 mentioned a nuclear weapons accident occurred in the Atlantic in the spring of 1968 but continues to classify the details. It is thought that two nuclear ASTOR torpedoes were on board the Scorpion when it sank.

The USS Scorpion (SSN-589) photographed in the Mediterranean Sea in April 1968, one month before it sank in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy later located and photographed the wreck (inserts).

Risks of Nuclear Incidents

Another kind of risk was that nuclear weapons onboard US warships could become involved in offensive maneuvers near Soviet warships that also carried nuclear weapons. Sometimes those nuclear-armed vessels collided – sometimes deliberately. Other times they were trapped in stressful situation. The presence of nuclear weapons could significantly increase the stakes and symbolism of the incidents and escalate a crisis.

Some of the most dramatic incidents happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 where crisis-stressed personnel on Soviet nuclear-armed submarines readied nuclear weapons for actual use as they were being hunted by US naval forces, many of which were also nuclear-armed. At the time there were approximately 750 U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Atlantic Ocean.

Less serious but nonetheless potentially dangerous incidents continued throughout the Cold War. In May 1974 the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Pintado (SSN-672) collided almost head-on with a Soviet Yankee I-class ballistic missile submarine while cruising 200 feet (60 meters) below the surface in the approaches to the Petropavlovsk naval base on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The collision smashed much Pintado’s bow sonar, jammed shut a starboard side torpedo hatch, and damaged the diving plane. The Pintado, which probably carried 4-6 nuclear SUBROC missiles, sailed to Guam for seven weeks of repairs. The Soviet submarine, which probably carried its complement of 16 SS-N-6 ballistic missiles with 32 nuclear warheads, surfaced immediately and presumably limped back to port.

On August 22, 1976, for example, US anti-submarine forces in the Atlantic and Mediterranean had been tracking a Soviet nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed Echo II-class attack submarine for ten days. The Soviet sub partially surfaced alongside the US frigate USS Voge (FF-1047), then turned right and ran into the frigate. The collision tore off part the Voge’s propeller and punctured the hull. The Voge is thought to have carried nuclear ASROC anti-submarine rockets. At the time there were around 430 U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. The Soviet submarine suffered serious damage to its sail and some to its front hull section. (For a US account of the incident, see here; a Russian account is here.)

A starboard view of the frigate USS VOGE (FF-1047) conducting a high speed evasive maneuver while operating with the aircraft carrier USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV-67) battle group.

Even toward the very end of the Cold War in the late-1980s, nuclear-capable warships continued to get involved in serious incidents at sea. During a Freedom of Navigation exercise in the Black Sea on February 12, 1988, the cruiser USS Yorktown (CG-48) and destroyer USS Caron (DD-970) were bumped by a Soviet Krivak-class frigate and a Mirka-class frigate, respectively. Both U.S. ships were equipped to carry the nuclear-capable ASROC missile and the Caron had completed a series of nuclear certification inspections prior to its departure from the United States. Yet the W44 warhead for the ASROC was in the process of being phased out and it is possible that the vessels did not carry nuclear warheads during the incident. The declassified data shows that the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in the Mediterranean dropped to zero in 1987. The Soviet Krivak frigate, however, probably carried nuclear anti-submarine weapons at the time of the collision.

The nuclear-capable USS Caron (DD-970) and USS Yorktown (CG-48) are bumped by Soviet frigates during Freedom of Navigation operations inside Soviet territorial waters on February 12, 1988. For a video of the Caron collision, see here, and the Yorktown collision, see here.

Nuclear Diplomacy Headaches

In addition to the risks created by accidents and incidents, nuclear-armed warships were a constant diplomatic headache during the Cold War. Many U.S. allies and other countries did not allow nuclear weapons on their territory in peacetime but the United States insisted that it would neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons anywhere. So good-will port visits by nuclear-armed warships instead turned into diplomatic nightmares as protestors battled what they considered blatant violations of the nuclear ban.

The port visit protests were endless, happening in countries all over the world. The national governments were forced to walk a fine line between their official public anti-nuclear policies and the secret political arrangements that allowed the weapons in anyway.

Public sentiments were particularly strong in Japan because it was the target of two nuclear weapon attacks in 1945. Japanese law banned the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory and required consultation prior to introduction, but the governments secretly accepted nuclear weapons in Japanese ports.

During the 1970s and early-1980s, opposition to nuclear ship visits grew in New Zealand and in 1984 culminating in the David Lange government banning visits by nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels. The Reagan administration reacted angrily by ending defense cooperation with New Zealand under the ANZUS alliance. Only much later, during the Obama administration, have defense relations been restored.

The nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed attack submarine USS Haddo (SSN-604) is barraged by protestors during a port visit to Auckland in New Zealand in 1979.

The treatment of New Zealand was partially intended to deter other more important allies in Europe from adopting similar anti-nuclear legislation. But not surprisingly, the efforts backfired and instead increased opposition. In Denmark the growing evidence that nuclear weapons were actually being brought into Danish harbors despite its clear prohibition soon created political pressure to tighten up the ban. In 1988, this came to a head when a majority in the parliament adopted a resolution requiring the government to inform visiting warships of Denmark’s ban. The procedure did not require the captain to reveal whether his ship carried nuclear weapons, but the conservative government called an election and asked the United States to express its concern.

The crew of the nuclear-armed destroyer USS Conyngham (DDG-17) uses high-pressure hoses to wash anti-nuclear protestors off its anchor chain during a standoff in Aalborg, Denmark, in 1988.

Across the Danish Straits in Sweden, the growing evidence that non-nuclear policies were violated in 1990 resulted in the government party deciding to begin to reinforce Sweden’s nuclear ban. The policy would essentially have created a New Zealand situation in Europe, a political situation that was a direct threat to the US Navy sailing its nuclear warships anyway it wanted.

These diplomatic battles over naval nuclear weapons were so significant that many US officials gradually began to wonder if nuclear weapons at sea were creating more trouble than good.

After The Big Nuke Offload

Finally, on September 27, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced during a primetime televised address that the United States would unilaterally offload all non-strategic nuclear weapons from its naval forces, bring all those weapons home, and destroy many of them. Warships would immediately stop loading nuclear weapons when sailing on overseas deployments and deployed vessels would offload their weapons as they rotated back to the United States. The offload was completed in mid-1992.

Two years later, the Clinton administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, decided that all surface ships would loose the capability to launch nuclear weapons. Only selected attack submarines would retain the capability to fire the nuclear Tomahawk land-attack sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM/N), but the weapons would be stored on land. Sixteen years later, in 2010, the Obama administration decided to retire the TLAM/N as well, ending decades of nuclear weapons deployments on ships, attack submarines, and on land-based naval air bases.

After the summer of 1992, only strategic submarines armed with long-range ballistic missiles have carried U.S. nuclear weapons at sea, a practice that is planned to continue through at least through the 2080s. These strategic submarines (SSBNs) have also been involved in accidents and incidents, risks that will continue as long as nuclear weapons are deployed at sea. Because secrecy is so much tighter for SSBN operations than for general naval forces, most accidents and incidents involving SSBNs probably escape public scrutiny. But a few reports, mainly collisions and groundings, have reached the public over the years.

USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632) after collision with tanker Sealady.

During a strategic deterrent patrol on August 9, 1968, the USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632) was struck by a submerged tow cable while operating submerged about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the southern coast of Spain. As it surfaces, the submarine collides with the tanker Sealady, suffering damage to the superstructure and main deck (see image right). The submarine carried 16 Polaris A3 ballistic missiles with 48 nuclear warheads.

Two years later, on November 29, 1970, a fire breaks out onboard the nuclear submarine tender USS Canopus (AS-34) at the Holy Loch submarine base in Scotland. Two nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN-657) and USS James K. Polk (SSBN-645)) were moored alongside Canapus. The Francis Scott Key cast off, but the Polk remained alongside. The fire burns out of control for four hours killing three men. The submarine tender carried nuclear missiles and warheads and the two submarines combined carried 32 Polaris A3 ballistic missiles with a total of 96 nuclear warheads.

Four years later, in November 1974, after having departed from its base at Holy Loch in Scotland, the ballistic missile submarine USS James Madison (SSBN-627) collides with a Soviet submarine in the North Sea. The collision left a nine-foot scrape in the Madison, which apparently dove onto the Soviet submarine, thought to have been a Victor-class nuclear-powered attack submarine. The Madison carried 16 Poseidon (C3) ballistic missiles with 160 nuclear warheads. The Soviet submarines probably carried nuclear rockets and torpedoes. Madison crew members called the incident The Victor Crash. Two days after the collision, the Madison enters dry dock at Holy Loch for a week of inspection and repairs.

The missile submarine USS James Madison (SSBN-627) in dry dock in Scotland in 1974 only days after it collided with a Soviet Victor-class nuclear-powered attack submarine in the North Sea.

After nuclear weapons were offloaded from surface ships and attack submarines in 1991-1992, nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines have continued to run aground or bump into other vessels from time to time.

On September 24, 1993, for example, after conducting a medical evacuation for a suck crew member, the ballistic missile submarine USS Maryland (SSBN-738) ran aground at Port Canaveral, Florida. The submarine was on a strategic deterrent patrol with 24 missiles onboard carrying an estimated 192 warheads. The Maryland eventually pulled free and continued the patrol two days later.

On March 19, 1998, while operating on the surface 125 miles (200 kilometers) off Long Island, New York, the ballistic missile submarine USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) was struck by the attack submarine USS San Juan (SSN-751). The Kentucky suffered damaged to its rudder and San Juan’s forward ballast tank was ruptured. In a typical display of silly secrecy, the Navy refused to say whether the Kentucky carried nuclear weapons. But it did; the Kentucky was in the middle of its 21^st strategic deterrent patrol and carried its complement of 24 Trident II missiles with an estimated 192 nuclear warheads.

In 1998, the USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) carrying nearly 200 nuclear warheads collided with an attack submarine less than 230 miles (378 kilometers) from New York City.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Obama administration has made an important contribution to nuclear policy by declassifying the documents with official numbers of US nuclear weapons deployed at sea during the Cold War. This adds an important chapter to the growing pool of declassified information about the history of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The new declassified information helps us better understand the extent to which nuclear weapons were involved in day-to-day operations around the world. Every day, nuclear-armed warships of the US and Soviet navies were rubbing up against each other on the high seas in gong-ho displays of national determination. Some saw it as necessary for nuclear deterrence; others as dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. Many of those who were on the ships submarines still get goosebumps when they talk about it and wonder how we survived the Cold War. The tactical naval nuclear weapons were considered more acceptable to use early in a conflict because there would be few civilian casualties. But any use would probably quickly have escalated into large-scale nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.

The declassified information, when correlated with the many accidents and incidents that nuclear-armed ships and submarines were involved in over the years, also helps us remember a key lesson about nuclear weapons: when they are operationally deployed they will sooner or later be involved in accidents and incidents.

This is not just a Cold War lesson: thousands of nuclear weapons are still operationally deployed on ballistic missile submarines, on land-based ballistic missiles, and on bomber bases. And not just in the United States but also in Britain, France, and Russia. Some of those deployed weapons will have accidents in the future. (See here for the most recent.)

Moreover, growing tensions with Russia and China now make some ask if the United States needs to increase the role of its nuclear weapons and once again equip aircraft carriers with the capability to deliver nuclear bombs and once again develop and deploy nuclear land-attack sea-launched cruise missiles on attack submarines.

Doing so would be to roll back the clock and ignore the lessons of the Cold War and likely make the current tensions worse than they already are.

Instead, the United States should seek to work with Russia – even though it is challenging right now – to reduce deployed nuclear weapons and jointly try to persuade smaller nuclear-armed countries such as China, India, and Pakistan from increasing the operational readiness of their nuclear forces. That ought to be one thing Russia and the United States could actually agree on.

Background information:

• Department of Defense, “Nuclear Weapons Afloat: End of Fiscal Years 1953-1991,” n.d.
• FAS Nuclear Notebook: Declassified: US Nuclear Weapons at Sea During the Cold War, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 2016.

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

The capability of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb seems to continue to expand, from a simple life-extension of an existing bomb, to the first U.S. guided nuclear gravity bomb, to a nuclear earth-penetrator with increased accuracy.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) previously published pictures of the drop test from October 2015 that showed the B61-12 hitting inside the target circle but without showing the bomb penetrating underground.

But a Sandia National Laboratories video made available by the New York Times shows the B61-12 penetrating completely underground. (A longer version of the video is available at the Los Alamos Study Group web site.)

Implication of Earth-Penetration Capability

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb. A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface. Two findings of the 2005 National Academies’ study Effects of Earth-Penetrator and other Weapons are key:

“The yield required of a nuclear weapon to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface.”

And

“Nuclear earth-penetrator weapons (EPWs) with a depth of penetration of 3 meters capture most of the advantage associated with the coupling of ground shock.”

Given that the length of the B61-12 is about three-and-a-half meters, and that the Sandia video shows the bomb disappearing completely beneath the surface of the Nevada desert, it appears the B61-12 will be able to achieve enhanced ground-shock coupling against underground targets in soil. We know that the B61-12 is designed to have four selectable explosive yields: 0.3 kilotons (kt), 1.5 kt, 10 kt and 50 kt. Therefore, given the National Academies’ finding, the maximum destructive potential of the B61-12 against underground targets is equivalent to the capability of a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 750 kt to 1,250 kt.

One of the bombs the Pentagon plans to retire after the B61-12 is deployed is the B83-1, which has a maximum yield of 1,200 kt.

Even at the lowest selective yield setting of only 0.3 kt, the ground-shock coupling of a B61-12 exploding a few meters underground would be equivalent to a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 4.5 kt to 7.5 kt.

Implications of Increased Accuracy

Existing B61 versions (B61-3, -4, 7, -10) are thought to have some limited earth-penetration capability but with much less accuracy than the B61-12. The only official nuclear earth-penetrator in the U.S. arsenal, the unguided B61-11, compensates for poor accuracy with a massive yield: 400 kt. The ground-shock coupling of 400 kt, using the National Academies’ finding, is equivalent to the effect of a surface-burst of 6 Megatons (MT) to 10 MT. The B61-11 replaced the old B53, the Cold War bunker buster bomb, which had a yield of 9 MT. The B61-11 can penetrate into frozen soil; it is yet unknown if the B61-12 has a similar capability. Currently there is no life-extension planned for the B61-11, which is not part of NNSA’s so-called 3+2 stockpile plan and is expected to be phased out when it expires in the 2030s.

What makes the B61-12 special is that the B61 capability is enhanced by the increased accuracy provided by the new guided tail kit assembly, a unique feature of the new weapon. The combination of increased accuracy with earth-penetration and low-yield options provides for unique targeting capabilities. Moreover, while the B61-11 can only be delivered by the B-2 strategic bomber, the B61-12 will be integrated on virtually all nuclear-capable U.S. and NATO aircraft: B-2, LRS-B (next-generation long-range bomber), F-35A, F-16, F-15E, and PA-200 Tornado.

How accurate the B61-12 will be is a secret. In an article from 2011 we estimated the accuracy might be on the order of 30-plus meters. Back then no test drop had been conducted and we didn’t have imagery. But now we do.

We cannot see with certainty on the NNSA photo and Sandia video how accurate the November 2015 drop test was. The video and image clearly show the B61-12 impacting the ground well within a large circle. Unfortunately the imagery does not show the full circle and the low angle makes it hard to determine the diameter. But by flipping the image horizontally and combining the copy with the original, the two appear to make a nearly perfect circle. Because we know the length of the B61-12 (11.8 feet; 3.4 meters), it appears the circle has a diameter of approximately 197 feet (60 meters). Since the point of impact is well within circle (roughly one bomb length inside), the B61-12 appears to have hit less than 100 feet (30 meters) from the center of the circle (see analysis of NNSA photo below).

Accuracy of a weapon is expressed as CEP (Circular Error Probability), which is defined as the radius of a circle centered at the target aim-point within which 50% of the weapons will fall. Formally estimating the accuracy of the B61-12 requires more information than the ground zero location of the drop test in the November 2015 event. Even so, the image indicates that at least the November 2015 drop test impacted well within the 30-meter diameter circle.

Little is known in public about the accuracy of nuclear gravity bombs. But information previously released by the U.S. Air Force to Kristensen under the Freedom of Information Act states that drop tests in the late-1990s normally achieved an accuracy of 380 feet (116 meters) for both high- and low-altitude releases and occasionally down to around 300 feet (91 meters) for low-altitude bombing runs.

In other words, although formal and more comprehensive data is missing, the November 2015 drop test indicates a B61-12 performance three times more accurate than existing non-guided gravity bombs.

That increased accuracy and earth-penetration capability will allow strike planners to chose lower selectable yields than are needed with the accuracy of current B61 and B83 bombs to destroy the same targets. Selecting lower yields will reduce the radioactive fallout from an attack, a feature that would make a B61-12 attack more attractive to military planners and less controversial to political decision makers.

Contradictions

The ability of the B61-12 to penetrate below the surface before detonating as seen on the video will further increase the capability against underground targets, especially when combined with the improved accuracy. This opens up a range of options for destroying underground targets with lower selectable nuclear yield settings than with the bombs in the current arsenal. We believe this constitutes an enhanced military capability that is in conflict with the Obama administration’s stated policy not to develop new capabilities for nuclear weapons.

The New York Times article is well written because it captures the contradiction between the denial by some officials (in this case NNSA’s Madelyn Creedon) that the B61-12 has new military capabilities while others (in this case former under secretary of defense for policy James Miller) seem to think it is a good thing that it does.

To that end the article is astute because it quotes the White House pledge not to pursue new military capabilities:

“The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads or pursue new military mission or new capabilities for nuclear weapons.”

…instead of using the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report formulation:

“The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”

This is important because the NPR formulation is a little less clear and is being used by some officials and defense contractors to argue that the pledge not to pursue new military missions or new military capabilities only refers to the warhead itself and not nuclear weapons in general. That may seem pedantic so the White House statement helps clarify, in case anyone is confused, that the policy indeed applies to “weapons” and not just “warheads.”

The officials who claim the B61-12 will not have new military capabilities say so because the United States already has the capability to hold at risk surface and underground targets, or to the fact that the warhead within the bomb –the so-called “physics package” –remains the same Cold War design. But the combination of increased accuracy and limited earth-penetrating capability allow the B61-12 to threaten below-ground structures with less radioactive fallout. That is a new military capability.

Back in 2011, before the B61-12 development program had progressed to the point of no return, FAS sent a letter to the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense pointing out the contradiction with the administration’s policy and implications for nuclear strategy. They never responded.

Worrying about the Bomb

The B61-12 earth-penetration capability may be less than the existing B61-11 earth-penetrator and the accuracy less than a conventional GPS-guided smart bomb, but the Sandia video shows a versatile new weapon that is intended for deployment on both strategic and non-strategic aircraft in the United States and Europe.

Such a capability begs the question of which targets in which countries are envisioned for B61-12 missions, and under what circumstances could use of such a weapon be ordered by the President? The National Academies’ study also found that earth penetration by a nuclear weapon could not contain the effects of the nuclear explosion, and that casualties would likely be the same as if the weapon were detonated at the surface of the earth. These findings particularly speak to the implications of dropping the B61-12 on a bunker located underneath a city.

Moreover, the significant improvements being made to non-nuclear earth-penetrators begs the question why it is necessary to enhance the capabilities of the B61 gravity bomb in the first place.

Both the United State and Russia (and the other nuclear-armed states) have extensive and expensive nuclear force modernization programs underway. What we are seeing today lies somewhere between parallel efforts to refurbish Cold War arsenals and the emergence of a new arms competition fueled by enhancements to existing weapons or production of new or significantly modified types. These enhancements are being developed without nuclear test explosions.

Inevitably the most important capabilities for nuclear deterrent forces are stability, control and safety – daily operational procedures embodying restraint, and strong channels of communication between nuclear weapon states with safeguards against accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. This area needs a lot of work right now as US-Russian relations continue to fray, already triggering calls from some analysts to further enhance nuclear weapons.

The Sandia video of the B61-12 slipping into the earth like a hot knife into butter doesn’t make the situation better.

* Matthew McKinzie is the nuclear program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The research for this publication was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the New Land Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

By Charles D. Ferguson

North Korea’s boast on January 5 about having detonated a “hydrogen bomb,” the colloquial name for a thermonuclear explosive, seems highly hyperbolic due to the relatively low estimated explosive yield, as inferred from the reported seismic magnitude of about 4.8 (a small- to moderately-sized event). More important, I think the Korean Central News Agency’s rationale for the test deserves attention and makes logical sense from North Korea’s perspective. That statement was: “This test is a measure for self-defense the D.P.R.K. has taken to firmly protect the sovereignty of the country and the vital right of the nation from the ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces and to reliably safeguard the peace on the Korean Peninsula and regional security.” (D.P.R.K. stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea.)

Having been to North Korea twice (November 2000 and November 2011) and having talked to both political and technical people there, I believe that they are sincere when they say that they believe that the United States has a hostile policy toward their country. After all, the Korean War has yet to be officially ended with a peace treaty. The United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) conduct annual war games that have appeared threatening to the North while the United States and the ROK say that they perform these military exercises to be prepared to defend against or deter a potential war with North Korea. Clearly, there is more than enough fear on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone on the Korean Peninsula.

Aside from posturing and signaling to the United States, South Korea, and Japan, a North Korean claim of a genuine hydrogen bomb (even if it is not yet ready for prime time) is cause for concern from a military standpoint because of the higher explosive yields from such weapons. But almost all of the recent news stories, experts’ analyses, and the statements from the White House and South Korea have discounted this claim.

How Does a Boosted Fission Bomb Work?

Instead, at best, the stories and articles suggest that North Korea may have tested a boosted fission device. Such a device would use a fission chain reaction of fissile material, such as plutonium or highly enriched uranium, to then fuse the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, which would have been injected just before detonation into the hollow core of the bomb. While the fusion reaction does somewhat increase the explosive yield, the main purpose of this reaction is to release lots of neutrons that would then cause many additional fission reactions.

Does this mean that the explosive yield of the bomb would be dramatically increased due to these additional fission reactions? The answer is yes, if there was a comparable amount of fissile material, as in a non-boosted fission bomb. But the answer is no, if there was much less fissile material than in a non-boosted fission bomb. In both cases, the overall use of fissile material is much more efficient in a boosted device than in a non-boosted device in that a greater portion or percentage of fissile material is fissioned in a boosted device. This increased efficiency is also due to the fact that the additional neutrons are very high energy and will rapidly cause the additional fission reactions before the bomb blows itself apart within microseconds.

In the case where North Korea does not need to produce a much bigger explosive yield per bomb, but is content with low to moderate yields, it can make much more efficient use of its available fissile material (with a stockpile estimated at a dozen to a few dozen bombs’ worth of material) and have much lower weight bombs. This is the key to understanding why a boosted fission bomb is a serious military concern. It is more apt to fit on ballistic missiles. The lighter the payload (warhead), the farther a ballistic missile with a given amount of thrust can carry the bomb to a target.

From a Military Standpoint: Cause for Concern?

So, in my opinion, a boosted fission bomb is even more cause for immediate concern than a thermonuclear bomb. (A thermonuclear “hydrogen” bomb would have the additional technical complication of a fusion fuel stage ignited by a boosted fission bomb. If North Korea eventually develops a true thermonuclear bomb, this type of bomb could, with further development, also likely be made to fit on a ballistic missile.) A boosted fission bomb alone, however, would mean that North Korea is well on its way to making nuclear bombs that are small enough and lightweight enough to fit on ballistic missiles.

If true, North Korea would have nuclear weapons that would provide real military utility. North Korea would not need high yield nuclear explosives to pose a real military nuclear threat because cities such as Seoul and Tokyo cover wide areas and would thus be easy targets even with relatively inaccurate missiles. But the most important point is that the nuclear weapon has to be light enough to be carried by a missile for a long enough distance to reach these and other targets such as the United States by using a long-range missile. In contrast, if North Korea only had large size and heavy weight nuclear bombs, it would have significant difficulty in delivering such weapons to targets, unless it tried to smuggle these unwieldy bombs into South Korea or Japan.

Setting the Record Straight on Recent Reporting

Obviously, the uncertainty about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is considerable, and we may never fully find out what was really tested a few days ago, despite the planes that the U.S. has been flying near North Korea to detect any leakage of radioactive elements or other physical evidence from the test site.

Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile to point out that some confusion has been afoot in several news stories. I have read in a number of press reports that there is doubt as to whether North Korea could produce the tritium that would be needed for a boosted fission device. In September of last year, David Albright and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini of the Institute for Science and International Security published a report that the 5 MWe gas-graphite reactor at Yongbyon is “not an ideal producer of isotopes, it can be used in this way.” They noted, “As part of the renovation of the reactor, North Korean technicians reportedly installed (or renovated) irradiation channels in the core. These channels would be used to make various types of isotopes, potentially for civilian or military purposes.”[1] They further observed that tritium could be produced in such irradiation channels, although there is not conclusive evidence of this production.

The New York Times further sowed some confusion by solely mentioning that tritium is used for boosting, but neglected to mention deuterium. The deuterium and tritium fusion reaction is the “easiest” fusion reaction to ignite while still very challenging to do.[2] The Times also gave the impression that boosting was just about increasing the explosive yield but did not discuss the important point about boosting the efficient use of fissile material so as to substantially decrease the overall weight of the bomb.

None other than Dr. Hans Bethe, leader of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project and a founder of FAS, stated in a May 28, 1952 memorandum that “by the middle of 1948, [Dr. Edward] Teller had invented the booster, in which a fission bomb initiates a thermonuclear reaction in a moderate volume of a mixture of T [tritium] and D [deuterium], … [and a test in Nevada] demonstrated the practical usefulness of the booster for small-diameter implosion weapons.”[3] Note that “small-diameter” in this context implies that this weapon would be suitable for ballistic missiles.

Just a day before the nuclear test, Joseph Bermudez published an essay for the non-governmental website 38 North (affiliated with the US-Korea Institute at the School for Advanced International Studies) about North Korea’s ballistic missile submarine program. He assessed: “Reports of a North Korean ‘ejection’ test of the Bukkeukseong-1 (Polaris-1, KN-11) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on December 21, 2015, appear to be supported by new commercial satellite imagery of the Sinpo South Shipyard. This imagery also indicates that despite reports of a failed test in late November 2015 North Korea is continuing to actively pursue its SLBM development program.”[4] A boosted fission device test (if such took place on January 5) would dovetail with the ballistic missile submarine program.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I will conclude by underscoring that the United States will have to work even harder to reassure allies such as Japan and South Korea. Early last year, I wrote a paper that describes how relatively easily South Korea could make nuclear weapons while urging that the United States needs to prevent this from happening. As Prof. Martin Hellman of Stanford University and a member of FAS’s Board of Experts has written in a recent blog: “As distasteful as the Kim Jong-un regime is, we need to learn how to live with it, rather than continue vainly trying to make it collapse. As Dr. [Siegfried] Hecker [former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory] points out, that latter approach has given us an unstable nation with a nuclear arsenal. Insanity has been defined as repeating the same mistake over and over again, but expecting a different outcome. Isn’t it time we tried a new experiment?”

—

[1] David Albright and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini, “Update on North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Site,” Institute for Science and International Security, Imagery Brief, September 15, 2015, http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Update_on_North_Koreas_Yongbyon_Nuclear_Site_September15_2015_Final.pdf

[2] “Did North Korea Detonate a Hydrogen Bomb? Here’s What We Know,” New York Times, January 6, 2016.

[3] Hans A. Bethe, “Memorandum on the History of Thermonuclear Program,” May 28. 1952, (Assembled on 5/12/90 from 3 different versions by Chuck Hansen, Editor, Swords of Armageddon), available at http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/nuclear/bethe-52.htm

[4] Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr., “North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Full Steam Ahead,” 38 North, January 5, 2016, http://38north.org/2016/01/sinpo010516/

This chronology lists selected news stories and publications by others that have made use of information and analysis from the Nuclear Information Project (numerous other examples of use of our work are not included because they were not easily available via links). To the extent possible, the documents are located on the FAS web site, but external links might go dead over time. If you need assistance to locate missing items, please contact individual project staff via the “about” page. Also check out the Twitter accounts of Hans Kristensen (@nukestrat), Matt Korda (@mattkorda), and Eliana Johns (@elianajjohns).

2024

• Aug 21: Newsweek, “China Responds to Top-Secret US Nuclear War Strategy.”
• Aug 21: Voice of America, “White House downplays Chinese concerns over possible US nuclear strategy change.”
• Aug 15: Newsweek, “Videos Show Russia’s Nuclear Bombers Buzzing NATO Borders.”
• Aug 13: MENAFN, “US Ill-Prepared For A Nuclear Showdown With China.”
• Aug 8: TruthOut, “As Tensions Rise Globally, Experts Call for More Nuclear Transparency.”
• Jun 7: Business Insider, “Russia’s claim that Ukraine could get nuclear-capable F-16s is baseless fearmongering, expert says.”
• Mar 14: The Economist, “India is souping up its nuclear missiles.”
• Mar 14: Foreign Policy, “Russia has moved tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, Western official confirm.”
• Mar 13: Fortune India, “Agni-5 MIRV tech can target warheads across China and Pakistan: US top scientist.”
• Feb 14: CNN, “US has new intelligence on Russian nuclear capabilities in space.”
• Feb 8: The Conversation, “Are American nuclear weapons returning to the United Kingdom?”
• Feb 3: BBC, “Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We?”
• Feb 1: Reuters, “Russia has no plans to deploy nuclear arms beyond Belarus, says deputy minister.”
• Jan 31: CSIS China Power, “Unpacking China’s Nuclear Modernization: A Conversation with Mr. Hans Kristensen.”
• Jan 29: Stars and Stripes, “Federal notices suggest US may bring its nuclear weapons back to England.”
• Jan 21: Truthout, “Are Nuclear-Armed Nations Entering a New Arms Race in 2024? Experts Weigh In.”
• Jan 19: Business Insider, “Russia’s use of North Korean missiles in Ukraine could be a ‘cash cow’ for Kim Jong Un, expert says.”
• Jan 18: Lawfare Chatter Podcast, “Nuclear Launch Authority in Myth and Reality, with Hans Kristensen.”
• Jan 9: Esquire, “Republicans Are In Hysterics Over Lloyd Austin’s Urinary Tract Infection.”
• Jan 8: The Drive, “Water-Filled Missiles, Silo Problems Behind China Purge: Report.”
• Jan 8: Vice, “GOP Lawmakers Reveal They Don’t Know How Launching Nukes Works Amid Defense Secretary Health Crisis.”

2023

• Dec 18: Vice: “Nuclear Threats Are Looming, And Nobody Knows How Many Nukes Are Out There.”
• Nov 20: Truthout, “Disarmament Grows More Distant as US Plans Another “Upgrade” to Nuclear Bomb.”
• Nov 16: NPR, “The U.S. has special rules for satellites over one country: Israel.”
• Nov 7: Newsweek, “What Minuteman Missile Launch Failure Means for US Nuclear Deterrence.”
• Nov 7: Vice, “Did Israel Finally Confirm It Has Nuclear Weapons by Threatening Gaza?”
• Oct 31: Vice, “The U.S. Is Building a New Nuclear ‘Gravity Bomb’, Pentagon Announces.”
• Oct 27: Defense News, “US to build new nuclear gravity bomb.”
• Oct 18: Wall Street Journal, “Satellite Images Show Russia Increasing Nuclear Capability in Belarus.”
• Oct 12: Russia Matters, “Strategic Posture Commission Report Calls For Broad Nuclear Buildup.” Reprint of FAS article.
• Oct 7: Japan Times, “The key nuclear secrets Trump allegedly leaked.”
• Oct 6: Al Jazeera, “Russia says it test-fired nuclear-capable Bulava missile from new submarine.”
• Oct 2: Union of Concerned Scientists, “Will There Be a Nuclear Buildup in Europe?”
• Sept 23: CNN, “Exclusive: Satellite images show increased activity at nuclear test sites in Russia, China and US.”
• Sept 8: The Daily Beast, “The ‘Real Nuclear Crisis’ Fear Behind a Single Pentagon Document.”
• Aug 30: BBC, “Anger over claims RAF Lakenheath could host US nuclear weapons.”
• Aug 29: The Guardian, “Airbase project could pave way for UK to host US nuclear weapons.”
• Aug 29: The Telegraph, “US could again hold nuclear weapons on British soil, documents suggest.”
• Jul 27: Today, Explained (Vox), “A third nuclear superpower.”
• July 22: Salon, “Atomic truth: Unraveling the reality behind “Oppenheimer” and nuclear weapons.”
• July 6: Reuters, “Lukashenko: I have veto over use of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus.”
• Jul 11: Reuters, “Wagner fighters neared Russian nuclear base during revolt.”
• Jun 12: Associated Press, “Watchdog: Nuclear states modernize their weapons, Chinese arsenal is growing.”
• Jun 12: Al Jazeera, “China, other states, fortify nuclear weapons arsenals: Report.”
• Jun 11: The Guardian, “Number of nuclear weapons held by major powers rising, says thinktank.”
• Apr 26: Associated Press, “Biden, Yoon warn N. Korea on nukes, unveil deterrence plan.”
• Apr 24: The Cipher Brief, “America Beefs Up Potential Response as Threat of Russian Nukes Loom.”
• Apr 19: New York Times, “3 Nuclear Superpowers, Rather Than 2, Usher In a New Strategic Era.”
• Apr 13: Washington Post, “The most shocking intel leak reveals new Chinese military advances.”
• Apr 13, ShareAmerica (US Department of State), “How NATO allies advance arms control and nonproliferation.”
• Apr 3: Newsweek, “The Risk of Nuclear War Fatigue.”
• Apr 3: Reuters, “Analysis: China’s intensifying nuclear-armed submarine patrols add complexity for U.S., allies.”
• Apr 3: Omaha World-Herald (kpvi.com), “StratCom chief Cotton warns of Russia, China nuke threat — but calmly.”
• Apr 3: The Guardian, “‘Damaged nuclear bomb’ at Dutch base was dummy weapon, Pentagon says.”
• Apr 3: Common Dreams, “Is This or Isn’t This a Photo of a Broken US Nuclear Weapon?”
• Apr 3: Tribune Express, “‘US nuclear bomb may have been damaged in accident’.”
• Apr 3: The Guardian, “US nuclear bomb may have been damaged in accident at Dutch base, report says.”
• Mar 30: Japan Times, “World’s usable nuclear arsenal rose in 2022, study says.”
• Mar 28: Time, “U.S. Skeptical of Putin’s Pledge to Put Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Belarus.”
• Mar 28: Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Stops Sharing Data on Nuclear Forces With Russia.”
• Mar 28: Japan Times, “North Korea unveils smaller nuclear warheads that may fit on variety of missiles.”
• Mar 26: Reuters, “Putin says Moscow to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, US reacts cautiously.”
• Mar 25: Reuters, “Putin says Moscow to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, US reacts cautiously.”
• Feb 21: ABC News, “End of an era? What Putin’s ‘suspension’ of the New START nuclear treaty means.”
• Feb 21: Moscow Times, “Explainer: What Is New START and What Does Russia’s Suspension Mean?”
• Feb 21: Associated Press, “New START: last US-Russia arms control treaty in jeopardy.”
• Feb 21: Business Insider, “Putin put the last major nuclear arms treaty with the US on ‘life support,’ risking pulling the world back to a ‘dangerous’ time of uncontrolled arsenals, nuke experts say.”
• Feb 21: Slate, “Putin’s Newest Provocation.”
• Feb 21: CNN, “Putin pulls back from last remaining nuclear arms control pact with the US.”
• Feb 15: Montana Public Radio, “Why are there so many nuclear missiles in Montana?”
• Feb 7: Wall Street Journal, “China Has More ICBM Launchers Than U.S., American Military Reports.”
• Feb 7: ABC News, “Map: Here’s how close the Chinese spy balloon flew to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
• Feb 2: Newsweek, “Putin Issues Ominous Threats as Tension With West Mounts.”
• Jan 29: Indian Express, “India’s nuclear-policy shifts from Pakistan to Chinas.”
• Jan 28: Times of India, “India modernising nuke arsenal with eye on China, says American report.”
• Jan 20: Russia Matters, “Russia in Review, Jan. 13-20, 2023.”
• Jan 5: Vox, “The treaties that make the world safer are struggling.”
• Jan: Arms Control Today, “Pentagon: Chinese Nuclear Arsenal Exceeds 400 Warheads.”

2022

• Dec 26: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The 2022 nuclear year in review: A global nuclear order in shambles.”
• Nov 17: New York Times, “The Surprising Afterlife of Unwanted Atom Bombs.”
• Nov 2: Washington Post, “Russian military leaders’ talk of nuclear attack rattles U.S. calculus.”
• Nov 1: Tom Nicholas, “The Nuclear Question America Never Answers,” The Atlantic, November 1, 2022.
• Oct 26: Politico, “U.S. speeds up plans to store upgraded nukes in Europe.”
• Oct 25: Voice of American News, “Experts: North Korea’s Expected Nuclear Missile Test Likely to Involve Miniature Warheads.”
• Oct 24: Wall Street Journal, “What We Know About How a Russian Nuclear Strike Could Play Out.”
• Oct 21: Forces News, “Is NATO’s nuclear strike badly timed?”
• Oct 17: NPR, “Russia’s nuclear arsenal is huge, but will Putin use it?”
• Oct 13: Business Insider, “Putin’s nuclear threats are stirring fears of a nightmare scenario. Here’s what’s in his arsenal and what could happen if he orders the unthinkable.”
• Oct 10: CNN, “North Korea says missile tests are practice for ‘tactical nuclear strikes’ on South Korea.”
• Oct 6: Washington Post, “Here are the nuclear weapons Russia has in its arsenal.”
• Oct 5: The Guardian, “Poland suggests hosting US nuclear weapons amid growing fears of Putin’s threats.”
• Oct 5: New York Times, “If Russia Uses a Nuclear Weapon, How Should The World Respond?”
• Oct 4: Washington Post, “Putin threatens nuclear war. The West must deter disaster.”
• Sep 22: The Washington Post, “Why Russia’s Nuclear Threats Are Difficult to Dismiss: QuickTake.”
• Sep 22: Al Jazeera, “Infographic: How many nuclear weapons does Russia have?”
• Sep 15: Exchange Monitor, “Mass production of refurbished nuclear weapons could begin soon, NNSA says.”
• Sep 10: Washington Examiner, “North Korea shreds America’s nuclear delusions.”
• Sep 4: Modern Diplomacy, “Lightning-Speed Deal. Germany to Purchase F-35 for Nuclear Sharing.”
• Aug 29: Aljazeera, “Infographic: The impact of nuclear tests around the world.”
• Aug 25: Task & Purpose, “The US military is still missing 6 nuclear weapons that were lost decades ago.”
• Jul 6, Reuters, “Russia’s Medvedev warns United States: messing with a nuclear power is folly.”
• Jun 22, CNN, “Why Kaliningrad, Russia’s toehold in Europe, could be the next flashpoint in its war against Ukraine.”
• Jun 19, CBC, “Might Vladimir Putin use a nuclear weapon? The calculations are changing.”
• Jun 15, Le Monde, “La Corée du Nord poursuit le renforcement de son arsenal balistique et nucléaire.”
• Jun 14, Washington Post, “Global nuclear arsenal expected to grow for first time since Cold War.”
• Jun 14: NK News, “North Korea has assembled 20 nuclear warheads, think tank estimates.”
• Jun 13: CNN, “World’s nuclear arsenals on the rise as concerns grow over China and North Korea.”
• Jun 13: Newsweek, “Risk of Nuclear Conflict at Highest Point Since Height of Cold War.”
• Jun 13: Al Jazeera, “Global stockpile of nuclear weapons expected to rise: SIPRI.”
• Jun 13: Deutsche Welle, “Nuclear weapons: Disarmament is a thing of the past.”
• Jun 13: France24, “World headed for new era of nuclear rearmament.”
• Jun 13: The Hill, “Nuclear arsenals expected to grow for first time since Cold War: think tank.”
• Jun 13: Der Spiegel, “Nuklearmächte modernisieren ihre Arsenale.”
• Jun 13: The Guardian, “Global nuclear arsenal expected to grow for first time in decades.”
• Jun 13: Associated Press, “‘Worrying trend’: Post-Cold War drop in nukes could be over.”
• Jun 12: Reuters, “Global nuclear arsenal to grow for first time since Cold War, think-tank says.”
• Jun 11: FP, “Learning to Think Nuclearly Again.”
• Apr 26: The Independent, “Ministry of Defence refuses to say whether US nukes are returning to British soil.”
• Apr 25: Omaha World-Herald, “Do we need ‘baby nukes’ launched from subs? StratCom chief says yes.”
• Apr 21: Background Briefing, interview with Ian Masters, “Putin’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling With the Launch of His Satan 2 ICBM.”
• Apr 21: CNN, “Putin rattles his ‘Satan II’ nuclear saber to hide Russian failures in Ukraine war: analysts.”
• Apr 18: Newsweek, “Putin’s Iskander Missiles Are Battle-Tested—and Can Carry Nuclear Warheads.”
• Apr 16: Business Insider, “US plan to upgrade its nuclear weapons facilities in the UK ‘quietly’ slipped into DoD military documents, says defense expert.”
• Apr 14: Business Insider, “Russia tries to scare Finland and Sweden away from NATO by threatening to deploy nukes in the Baltics, which it’s already done.”
• Apr 14: The Guardian, “Russia warns of nuclear weapons in Baltic if Sweden and Finland join Nato.”
• Apr 14, The Aviationist, “RAF Lakenheath Might Soon Host US Nuclear Weapons Again.”
• Apr 13, The Drive, “Nuclear Bombs May Be Headed Back To The United Kingdom.”
• Apr 11: Business Standard, “World’s stockpile of usable nuclear weapons is increasing, warns watchdog”
• Apr 7, Lyle Goldstein, Nikkei Asia, “U.S. should not lose focus on China’s nuclear buildup.”
• Apr 6, Zuri, “How the US monitors a nuclear attack.”
• Apr 5: New York Times, “How America Watches for a Nuclear Strike.”
• Mar 30: Seattle Times (KUOW), “‘This moment is kind of a glow up for nuclear weapons’ and Washington is playing a major role.”
• Mar 27: Business Insider, “US Air Force B-52 bombers in Europe are staying active, but less ‘in your face,’ as Russia wages war on Ukraine.”
• Mar 25: Washington Post, “Meet the nuke the U.S. keeps in Europe, waiting to not be used.”
• Mar 22: New York Times, “The Smaller Bombs That Could Turn Ukraine Into a Nuclear War Zone.”
• Mar 22: Scientific American, “How Many Nuclear Weapons Exist, and Who Has Them?”
• Mar 22: Reuters, “Fact Check: Russia’s ‘Satan 2’ long-range missile has been in development for years”
• Mar 20: La Presse, “Oui, on peut agir contre le nucléaire”
• Mar 17: Live Science, “How many nuclear weapons exist?”
• Mar 16: BBC, “Ukraine war: Could Russia use tactical nuclear weapons?”
• Mar 11: SirusXM, interview with Michael Smerconish on US and Russian nuclear weapons and threats. His Twitter announcement here.
• Mar 11: Berlingske, “Han har dem i tusindvis. Han har truet med dem. Tør Putin også bruge dem? [He has thousands of them. He has threatened with them. Does Putin also dare use them?].”
• Mar 9: Business Insider, “‘All bets are off’: Russia has a massive arsenal of battlefield nukes, and there’s heated debate about whether a desperate Putin might use it.”
• Mar 9: Weekendavisen (Denmark), “Dommedagsmaskinen [The doomsday machine].”
• Mar 8: NPR, “Putin has threatened nuclear action. Here’s what Russia is actually capable of.”
• Mar 7: Zetland (Denmark), “Gå ikke i panik. Men lad os lige tale om de atomvåben [Don’t panic. But’s let’s just talk about those nuclear weapons].”
• Mar 4: Le Monde, “Comprendre la menace de l’arme nucléaire en 10 questions.”
• Mar 4: El Tiempo, “La amenaza nuclear se cierne sobre el mundo.”
• Mar 1: NPR, “As Russia’s Ukraine war intensifies, some warn nuclear escalation is possible.”
• Mar 1: Information (Denmark), “Putins raslen med atomsablen ligner et politisk motiveret træk, siger atomforsker [Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling looks like a political move, says nuclear analyst].”
• Feb 28: Los Angeles Times, “Russia’s nuclear threat explained.”
• Feb 28: Bloomberg TV, “Putin’s Nuclear Threat Is ‘Normal’ Russian Sabre-Rattling: Kristensen”
• Feb 28: Deutsche Welle, “How serious are Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats?”
• Feb 28: Truthout, “‘Low-Yield’ Nuclear Weapons Could Pose Greater Threat of Nuclear War.”
• Feb 28: France24, “Russia’s nuclear force, the world’s biggest.”
• Feb 27: New York Times, “Putin Declares a Nuclear Alert, and Biden Seeks De-escalation.”
• Feb 27: Al Jazeera, “Key questions after Putin’s nuclear announcement.”
• Feb 27: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Ukraine Update: Putin raises nuclear alert status.”
• Feb 27: Vox, “How to think about the risk of nuclear war, according to 3 experts.”
• Feb 27: Vice News, “Is There a Threat of Nuclear War with Russia? Experts Weigh In.”
• Feb 25: The Intercept, “Russia’s Ukraine War Heightens Urgency Around Biden’s Nuclear Weapons Strategy.”
• Feb 24: The Guardian, “Decision to invade Ukraine raises questions over Putin’s ‘sense of reality’.”
• Feb 19: Salon, “This is what would happen to Earth if a nuclear war broke out between the West and Russia.”
• Feb 17: Associated Press, “Satellite Photos Give A Bird’s-Eye View Of Ukraine Crisis.”
• Feb 16: New York Times, “On the Edge of a Polish Forest, Where Some of Putin’s Darkest Fears Lurk”
• Feb 16: The Atlantic, “China Now Understands What a Nuclear Rivalry Looks Like”
• Feb 7: Quincy Institute, “Achieving a Safer U.S. Nuclear Posture”
• Feb 2: Newsweek, “Exclusive: Ukraine Crisis Could Lead to Nuclear War Under New Strategy.”
• Jan 21: Inkstick, “400 Minutemen to Midnight.”
• Jan 16: The Wire China, “Open Source.”

2021

• Dec 31: Truthout, “One Year in, Biden’s Nuclear Policies Look a Lot Like Trump’s.”
• Dec 9: NPR/KUOW, “The secret world of nukes in Washington state.”
• Nov 17: Los Angeles Times, “China’s nuclear and military buildup raises the risk of conflict in Asia.”
• Nov 3: CBS, “China’s nuclear force growing faster than expected.”
• Nov 2: CNN, “China appears to be building missile silos that could launch nuclear weapons.”
• Nov 2: CNN, “Satellite images appear to show China is making significant progress developing missile silos that could eventually launch nuclear weapons.”
• Oct 29: Washington Post, “Sensors add to accuracy and power of U.S. nuclear weapons but may create new security perils.”
• Oct 29: The Center for Public Integrity, “The US Nuclear Arsenal Is Becoming More Destructive and Possibly More Risky.”
• Oct 27: Air Force Times, “The F-35 is one step closer to carrying nuclear bombs. What’s next?”
• Oct 24: iNews: “Fear of ‘devastating’ nuclear war as world’s major powers enter a new arms race.”
• Oct 5: The Hill, “US discloses size of nuclear stockpile for first time since 2018.”
• Oct 5: Associated Press, “State Department discloses number of nukes in US stockpile.”
• Sep 7: Michael Krepon, “Time to shift from the Kabul-blues to the China arms control challenge,” armscontrolwonk.com.
• Aug 27: Nature, “US achieves laser-fusion record: what it means for nuclear-weapons research.”
• Aug 26: Foreign Policy, “How Finding China’s Nuclear Sites Upset Pro-Beijing Trolls.”
• Aug 20: Malcolm Davis, “China military watch,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
• Aug 12: Financial Times (editorial), “China’s worrying build-up of missile silos.”
• Aug 7, The Economist, “Open-source intelligence challenges state monopolies on information”
• Aug 7: Financial Times, “China flexes nuclear muscle to burnish its big power credentials”
• Aug 3: Washington Post, “Commercial satellites — not U.S. intelligence — revealed China’s missile program”
• Jul 31: The Economist, “China is rapidly building new nuclear-missile silos”
• Jul 30: Omaha World-Herald, “Should StratCom worry about China’s ‘Bouncy Castles of Death’?”
• Jul 30: Washington Post, “More missile silos have been found in China. That’s an ominous sign.”
• Jul 30: Associated Press, “U.S. warns China is building more nuclear missile silos”
• Jul 29: New York Times, “The Daily: Why Is China Expanding Its Nuclear Arsenal?”
• Jul 28: BBC, “China expanding its nuclear capabilities, scientists say”
• Jul 28: CNN, “China appears to be expanding its nuclear capabilities, US researchers say in new report”
• Jul 28: Al Jazeera, “China is building a 2nd base for nuclear missiles, say analysts”
• Jul 28: Hindustan Times, “China building second nuclear missile silo field, claims report; US concerned”
• Jul 27: Yahoo News, “Disturbing find uncovered in Chinese desert”
• Jul 27: The Telegraph, “New China weapons silo base is ‘most significant expansion ever’ of Xi’s nuclear arsenal”
• Jul 27: Insider, “Scientists discover a massive field of nuclear silos in China, signaling a significant nuclear expansion in the country”
• Jul 27: The Independent, “Huge desert plot in China to ‘hold up to 110 nuclear silos’”
• Jul 27: Newsweek, “China Spotted Building 110 Secret Nuclear Missile Silos in Desert”
• Jul 27: Wall Street Journal, “China Appears to Be Building New Silos for Nuclear Missiles, Researchers Say.”
• Jul 26: New York Times, “A 2nd New Nuclear Missile Base for China, and Many Questions About Strategy.”
• Jun 29: Business Insider, “Democrats take aim at the US’s new $264 billion ICBM amid search for cash to boost the military”
• May 28: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The UK’s new nuclear posture: What it means for the global nuclear order.” Video discussion with Heather Williams and Julian Borger. Background: UK Nuclear Notebook 2021.
• May 28: Bellingcat, “US Soldiers Expose Nuclear Weapons Secrets Via Flashcard Apps.“
• Apr 30: The Drive, “Trucks Get Parked Over Air Force Nuclear Missile Silos During Tests… Just In Case.”
• Apr 6: Steven Pifer, “Nuclear arms control in the 2020s: Key issues for the US and Russia,” Valdai Discussion Club, April 6, 2021.
• Apr 4: The Guardian (Observer editorial), “The Observer view on Boris Johnson’s plans to increase nuclear weapons.”
• Apr 2: The National Interest, “Does America Need New ICBMs (Or Any at All)?”
• Mar 30: Press The Button Podcast, “The Inherent Danger of ICBMs”
• Mar 22: Der Spiegel, “Darum bauen die USA neue Atomwaffen”
• Mar 17: Democracy Now!, “U.K. Lifts Cap on Nuclear Arsenal as U.S. Considers Plan for $100 Billion “Cold War-Era” Missile”
• Mar 14: Omaha World-Herald, “Russia, China could pose nuclear threat if arsenal isn’t rebuilt, StratCom chief says”
• Mar 10: The Daily Beast, “Scientists Are Worried About U.S. Plan to Build an ‘Outdated’ $100B Nuclear Weapon: Report”
• Mar 10: Common Dreams, “New Report to Expose War Industry Lobby Behind $264 Billion US Nuclear Missile ‘Boondoggle’”
• Mar 10: The Guardian, “‘Cold war-era weapon’: $100bn US plan to to build new nuclear missile sparks concern”
• Mar 4: POGO, “Joe Biden’s Nuclear Triad.”
• Mar 1: Associated Press YouTube, “Expert uncovers new Chinese nuclear missile sites.”
• Mar 1: Associated Press, “China said to speed up move to more survivable nuclear force.” This report was also carried on Military Times and ABC News.
• Feb 18: Business Insider, “A NATO war game had the Soviet Union readying for nuclear war in a terrifying Cold War close call, new documents show.”
• Feb 12: The Guardian, “Mike Pence’s ‘nuclear football’ was potentially at risk during Capitol riot.”
• Feb 11: Forbes.com, “Target: Iceland! Russian Bombers Practice Striking Key NATO Base.”
• Feb 8: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?”
  Feb 5: The Drive, “Majority Of Voters Don’t Want Billions Spent On New ICBMs To Overhaul America’s ‘Nuclear Sponge’”
• Feb 5: Defense News, “Majority of voters support ICBM replacement alternatives, new poll finds.”
• Jan 23: Pindex (YouTube video), “A $1.2 Trillion Plan Could Kill 98%, w Stephen fry. It’s Hidden By Coronavirus.”
• Jan 21: The Drive, “The Air Force’s New Report On Ballistic And Cruise Missiles Misses Its Target.”
• Jan 21: Forbes, “Joe Biden Could Rescue The Last Nuclear Treaty—But Don’t Expect Him To Negotiate A New One.”

2020

• Dec 29: The Drive, “Imagine Following This On The Highway: A Truckload Of Nuclear Training Bombs.”
• Dec 16: SCMP, “Is China really ready to back nuclear arms-free Southeast Asia.”
• Dec 15: Business Insider, “Here’s what happens to the ‘nuclear football’ if Trump decides to skip Biden’s inauguration.”
• Dec 14: Defense News, “Report estimates Chinese nuclear stockpile at 350 warheads.”
• Dec 11: Shepard Media, “Interview: Federation of American Scientists [on B61-12 drop test from F-35A jet].”
• Dec 10: Forbes, “The Steward of America’s Nukes Is Sending Mixed Messages About B-1 Bombers – And That’s Dangerous.”
• Nov 27: The State, “Is job-right nuclear plant in jeopardy? Biden expected to re-examine SC factory.”
• Nov 23: Kitsap Sun, “Biden signals push to extend New START nuclear arms treaty.”
• Nov 17: Star Tribune (Associated Press), “Pentagon says it shot down unarmed missile in sea-based test.”
• Nov 2: Kitsap Sun, “Will U.S., Russia extend New START nuclear weapons treaty?”
• Oct 12: Washington Post, “Threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office.”
• Oct 11: New York Times, “Trump’s Virus Treatment Revives Questions About Unchecked Nuclear Authority.”
• Oct 11: Defense One, “North Korea Unveils ‘Very Destabilizing’ ICBM.”
• Oct 9: Business Insider, “Trump says the US nuclear arsenal is now ‘tippy top’ thanks to him, but nuke experts say he’s out of touch with reality.”
• Oct 2: Pranay Vaddi and James Acton, A ReSTART for U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms Control: Enhancing Security Through Cooperation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 22, 2020.
• Sep 28: Politico, “Trump administration orders assessment on bolstering nuclear warheads as talks with Russia stall.”
• Sep 10: France 24 (AFP), “Did Trump disclose secret US nuclear weapon in interview?”
• Sept 2: Fox News, “World’s nuclear capabilities are decreasing in overall numbers but growing deadlier.”
• Sept 2: Air Force Magazine, “Soofer: No New ‘Tactical’ Nukes for USAF.”
• Sept 1: CNN (AP), “Pentagon says China planning big increase in nuclear arsenal.”
• Sept 1: Reuters, “Pentagon concerned by China’s nuclear ambitions, expects warheads to double.”
• Sept 1: Wall Street Journal, “Pentagon Says China Could Double Nuclear Weapons in Decade.”
• Aug 19: Toby Dalton and Tong Zhao, “At a Crossroads? China-India Nuclear Relations After the Border Clash,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 19, 2020.
• Aug 6: CBC News, “75 years after Hiroshima bombing, it’s falling to descendants to keep survivors’ stories alive.”
• Aug 6: Axios. “How the world’s nuclear stockpiles have shifted since Hiroshima.”
• Aug 6: Cambridge News,  Little warning for Londoners if city came under nuclear attack.”
• Aug 6: The Drive, “This Was The Largest Conventional Explosion The United States Ever Set Off.”
• Aug 5: Washington Post, “In the 75 years since Hiroshima, nuclear testing killed untold thousands.”
• Aug 5: EurAsian Times, “China Readying Its Early Warning Radars To Check Deep-Strikes By Agni Missiles, Rafale Jets – Reports.”
• Aug 5: Business Insider, “The deadly explosion that devastated Beirut appears to have been far more powerful than the ‘Mother of All Bombs’.”
• Aug 4: Task and Purpose, “No, that mushroom cloud in Beirut doesn’t indicate a nuclear bomb went off.”
• Jul 29: Roll Call, “Trump team’s case for new nuke cites risks in current arsenal.”
• Jul 22: WION, “India’s nuclear strategy focus shifts from Pakistan to China: Report.”
• Jul: Carol Giacomo, “Getting Back On Track To Zero Nuclear Weapons,” Arms Control Today, July/August 2020.
• Jun 22: Las Vegas Sun (Editorial), “President’s nuclear fantasy threatens Nevadans’ health, national security.”
• May 31: Business Insider, “India has lots of nuclear weapons: Here is what we know.”
• May 23: The Guardian, “US security officials ‘considered return to nuclear testing’ after 28-year hiatus.”
• May 4: Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, Congressional Research Service, May 4, 2020.
• Apr 23: Politico, “How the nuclear force dodged the coronavirus.”
• Apr 14: John Krzyzaniak, “How nuclear forces worldwide are dealing with the coronavirus pandemic,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April14, 2020.
• Apr 10: Raw Story (AFP), “Hit by virus, Pentagon warns enemies: don’t test us.”
• Apr: James Acton, “Is It A Nuke? Pre-Launch Ambiguity And Inadvertent Launch,” CEIP, April 2020.
• Mar 26: Deutsche Welle, “US set to upgrade controversial nukes stationed in Germany.”
• Mar 23: Newsweek, “The U.S. Military’s Behind-The-Scenes Moves To Protect Nuclear Readiness Amid Coronavirus.”
• Mar 17: National Defense Magazine, “Political Battle Brewing Over New Nuclear Program.”
• Feb 27: Defense One, “A New Nuclear Warhead? STRATCOM Chief Can’t Answer Yes Or No.”
• Feb 22: The Guardian, “Pentagon reveals deal with Britain to replace Trident.”
• Feb 12: Daily Beast, “Why Does Trump Want To Spend Billions On New Nukes.”
• Feb 12: Slate, “Trump’s Gargantuan Military Budget Is Full Of It.”
• Feb 7: Naval News, “W76-2 low yield warhead deployed on US Navy SSBN submarines.”
• Feb 6: National Interest, “Donald Trump is about to make one big giant ‘nuclear’ mistake.”
• Feb 5: The Hill, “Air Force test-launches intercontinental ballistic missile.”
• Feb 4: USNI News, “Pentagon confirms low-yield nuclear warhead on ballistic missile sub.”
• Feb 4: New York Times (AP), “U.S. adds ‘low-yield’ nuclear warhead to its submarine arsenal.”
• Feb 4: Defense News, “Trump’s new nuclear weapon has been deployed.”
• Jan 30: Politico, “It’s a MAD, MAD world.”
• Jan 30: Naval Technology, “US Navy deploys low-yield Trident W76-2 nuclear submarine warhead.”
• Jan 30: Air Force Magazine Daily Report, “US Deploys New Low-Yield Nuclear Submarine Warhead.”
• Jan 29: NPR, “U.S. has deployed new, small nukes on submarines, according to group.”
• Jan 29: The Drive, “Navy missile sub has begun its patrol armed with controversial low yield nukes.”
• Jan 29: The Guardian, “Deployment of new US nuclear warhead on submarine s dangerous step, critics say.”
• Jan/Feb: Tong Zhao, “Opportunities for nuclear arms control engagement with China,” Arms Control Today, January/February 2020.
• Jan 13: The Drive, “The Air Force’s B-52H Bomber Force Has Said Goodbye To Its Nuclear Bombs.”
• Jan 13: Newsweek, “With A New Weapons In Donald Trump’s Hands, The Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear.”
• Jan 7: Kitsap Sun, “Bangor subs to get new kind of nuclear weapon.”
• Jan 6: CNN, “Iran drives another stake into the heart of the nuclear deal.”

2019

• Dec 20: Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Invites China for Talks on Nuclear Arms.”
• Dec 17: Reuters, “U.S. Congress pressures Trump to renew Russia arms control pact.”
• Dec 16: Gerald Brown, “Conflict and Competition: Limited Nuclear Warfare and the New Face of Deterrence,” Global Security Review, December 16, 2019.
• Dec 15: Radio Free Europe, “Can Russia And The U.S. Agree To Keep A Lid On Their Nuclear Arsenals?”
• Nov 22: KOMO News, “‘Horrific catastrophe’: What would happen to Seattle in a nuclear attack?”
• Oct 22: CNS News, “Senate Bill Seeks Alternatives to US Base in Turkey, Where Nuclear Bombs Are Housed.”
• Oct 19: Associated Press, “Some worries about nuclear weapons at Turkey base.”
• Oct 18: Newsweek, “U.S., Russia and Europe hold back-to-back nuclear war games across the globe.”
• Oct 16: CNN, “Trump appears to confirm open secret about US nuclear weapons in Turkey.”
• Oct 8: Business Insider Australia, “US officials are considering pulling nuclear weapons from Turkey, effectively severing the US-Turkey alliance.”
• Oct 5: Science Daily, “Global Climate Catastrophe If Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan.”
• Sep 13: Business Insider, “Trump keeps threatening US enemies with destructive power great  than nuclear weapons – experts say that’s ‘crazy talk’.”
• Aug 12: National Interest, “Russia has a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Yes, you read that right.”
• Aug 11: The Express (UK), “Russia radiation spike ‘caused by test of Putin’s new missile dubbed Flying Chernobyl’.”
• Aug 6: The Canary, “Former US colonel blasts end of nuclear treaty as ‘extremely dangerous’.”
• Aug 5: ARD (Das Erste), “Die Story: Das Atomwaffen-Kartell: Ende der Abrüstung? [The Story: The Nuclear Weapons Cartel: The End of Disarmament?].”
• Jul 21: ABC ‘s Future Tense, “Western Spies Face a Difficult Future: A Conversation with Matt Korda.”
• Jul 15: KPFA Flashpoints, “Matt Korda on US Nuclear Policy.”
• Jul 10: Popular Science, “North Korea’s missile program and nuclear weapons: What we know (and don’t).”
• Jul 10: The National Interest, “Super Weapon? The Air Force Wants a (New) Nuclear Armed Cruise Missile.”
  Jul 8: KTOO News (Alaska), “40 years after closure, volunteers restore historic Cold War site.”
• Jul 2: CSIS ChinaPower, “China’s Nuclear Strategy and Capabilities: A Conversation with Hans Kristensen.”
• Jun 17: Euro News, “World’s nuclear arsenal down but risk of nuclear conflict up: SIPRI.”
• Jun 17: Defense News, “Here’s how many nuclear warheads exist, and which countries own them.”
• Jun 14: TASS, “No unanimity among US intelligence community over claims of nuclear test in Russia —expert.”
• Jun 12: The National Interest, “Could a Low-Yield, Submarine-Launch Nuclear Missile Stop a Russian First Strike?”
• Jun 11: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Decision to keep nuclear weapons data classified hurts US national security.”
• Jun 6: Slate, “How Trump Could Restart the Nuclear Arms Race,”
• Jun 3: Honolulu Civil Beat, “Kauai Plays A Growing Role Testing Technology For Tomorrow’s Nuclear Weapons.”
• Jun: Arms Control Today, “U.S. Reverses Nuclear Stockpile Transparency.”
• May 20: Daily Beast, “Pass the Codes: Inside the Secret Dinners Where Congress Figures Out How to Stop a Nuclear Apocalypse.”
• May 20: Center for Public Integrity, “Survey: Most Americans Want to Curb the President’s Power to Launch Nuclear Attacks.”
• May 10: The Aviationist, “Tracking The U.S. B-52 Bombers Deploying To Qatar In Response To Iranian Threat In The Persian Gulf.”
• May 10: Defense One, The D Brief, “Shanahan, tapped; ICBMs, test-fired; Network breaches, way up; school lockdowns, soaring; And a bit more.”
• May 9: Foreign Policy, “The U.S. Can’t Escape the Middle East.”
• May 7: PRI, “Nukes? What nukes? US military’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy complicates activists’ trial.”
• May 4: The Telegraph, “US reversal of nuclear transparency policy puts UK in ‘awkward position’ say experts.”
• May 2: Reuters, “Special Report: China’s furtive underwater nukes test the Pentagon.”
• May: Vince Manzo, Center for Naval Analysis, “Nuclear Arms Control without a Treaty? Risks and Options After NEW START.”
• Apr 29: Lawrence Korb,”What the FY 2020 Defense Budget Gets Wrong.”
• Apr 25: National Interest, “U.S. Air Force B-52 Bombers Practiced a Nuclear Strike on Russia Last Month.”
• Apr 17: Milbank Monitor, “Small enough to use? ‘Low yield’ US nukes begin rolling off the production line.”
• Apr 15: Russia Matters, “Russia Analytical Report, April 8-15, 2019.”
• Apr 10: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Why did Defense end its contract with the legendary Jason group?”
• Apr 4: Exchange Monitor, “B83 Bomb Can Go 5-7 More Years Without Major Refurb, NNSA Says.”
• Mar 21: The Nation, “Making Nuclear Weapons Menacing Again.”
• Mar 21: Popular Mechanics, “U.S. Bombers Are Flying Over Europe, Baiting the Russian Bean.”
• Feb 26: Defense One, “Top Nuke General: Russia Is Exploiting Gaps In Key Arms-Control Treaty.”
• Feb 2: CBC, “‘Into the Wild West:’ Demise of Cold War-era nuclear arms treaty undermines global security.”
• Feb 1: NPR, “The U.S. And Russia Are Stocking Up On Missiles And Nukes For A Different Kind Of War.”
• Feb: Russia Matters, “Military and Security: New START.”
• Jan 31: Bloomberg, “With Putin and Trump in Charge, the Risk of Nuclear War Returns.”
• Jan 28: The National Interest, “China’s Missiles are a Dumb Reason for America to Quit the INF Treaty.”
• Jan 28: NPR, “Trump Administration Begins Production Of A New Nuclear Weapon.”
• Jan 28: The Guardian, “US nuclear weapons: first low-yield warheads roll off the production line.”
• Jan 25: Business Insider, “We ranked the world’s nuclear arsenals — here’s why China’s came out on top.”
• Jan 25: Warrior Maven, “Navy Stealthy Columbia Subs Launch First Patrol in 2031-With New Missile Variant.”
• Jan 24: Omaha World Herald, “Russia, China have hypersonic missile tech that U.S. can’t defend against, StratCom chief warns.”
• Jan 14: Business Insider, “Russian media threatens Europe with 200-megaton nuclear ‘doomsday’ device.”
• Jan: Atomic Reporters, “2019 Hawaii Journalism Workshop: Resource Library.”

2018

• Dec 13, The National Interest, “India has 140 Nuclear Warheads – And More Are Coming.”
• Dec 11: Quartz, “Every significant military facility in Israel and Turkey was just exposed by a Russian mapping service.”
• Dec 10: Popular Mechanics, “Oops! Mapping Service Blurs Out Military Bases, But Accidentally Locates Secret Ones.”
• Dec 7: Wall Street Journal, “Looming Demise of a nuclear treaty threatens to upend others [headline later changed to: As One Arms Treaty Falls Apart, Others Look Shakier].”
• Dec 5: Think Big, “Russia threatens ‘retaliation’ after U.S. declares plan to withdraw from arms treaty.”
• Dec 5: CNBC, “America and Russia, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, are threatening to make more weapons. Here’s how many nukes each nation has.”
• Dec 2: Oak Ridge Today, “NNSA modernizing weapons as U.S. nuclear stockpile shrinks.”
• Nov 21: Daily Beast, “Trump, Who Loves Nukes and Hates Treaties, Is Putting Us on the Road to the Apocalypse.”
• Nov 20: Business Insider, “These are the 9 nuclear-armed countries and the 31 allies they’ve vowed to defend with the world’s most devastating weapons.”
• Nov 9: Insider, “Finland and Norway are telling airline pilots to be ready to fly without GPS and some think Russia is up to something.”
• Nov 1: The Diplomat, “India Conducts Nighttime User Trial of Agni-I Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile.”
• Oct 23: Time, “Has Trump Met the Burden of Proof for Ripping Up an Arms Deal With Russia?”
• Oct 22: KIRO-7 News, “Trump’s threat to withdraw from nuclear missile treaty alarms activists.”
• Oct 21: NPR, “President Trump Says U.S. Will Leave Arms Control Treaty With Russia.”
• Oct 19: New York Times, “U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty.”
• Oct 19: VOX, “This is exactly how a nuclear war would kill you.”
• Oct 18: Task and Purpose, “Satellite Photos Reveal A Strategic Russian Military Upgrade On NATO’s Doorstep.”
• Oct 17: CNN, “New satellite images suggest military buildup in Russia’s strategic Baltic enclave.”
• Oct 12: CNBC, “Russia hits a snag in developing a hypersonic weapon – after Putin said it was already in production.”
• Oct 5: TASS, “INF treaty compliance issues should be solved at presidential level — US expert.”
• Oct 3: Kelsey Davenport and Alicia Sanders-Zakre, “Inaugural Issue: The North Korea Denuclearization Digest,” Arms Control Association, October 3, 2018. This piece was also republished by IndepthNews.net.
• Oct 2: The Guardian, “US Nato envoy’s threat to Russia: stop developing missile or we’ll ‘take it out’.”
• Sep: Tytti Erästö and Dr Tarja Cronberg, “Opposing trends: The renewed salience of nuclear weapons and nuclear abolitionism,” SIPRI, September 2018.
• Sep 14: Business Insider, “Russia reportedly warned Mattis it could use nuclear weapons in Europe, and it made him see Moscow as an ‘existential threat’ to the US.”
• Sep 6: The Free Beacon, “U.S. Lacks Nuclear Weapon for Hardened Underground Targets.” The claim in the article’s headline is incorrect.
• Sep 5: The Economic Times (India), “Pakistan could emerge as world’s 5th largest nuclear weapons state: Report.”
• Aug 23: Warrior Maven, “New Air Force B-2 “Earth Penetrating” Nuclear Weapon Changes Combat Strategy.” This article as also published in the National Interest.
• Aug 21, The Verge, “How do you find a nuclear-powered missile that’s lost at sea?”
• Aug 21: CNBC, “Russia is preparing to search for a nuclear-powered missile that was lost at sea months ago after a failed test.”
• Aug 10: Adam Ni and Bates Gill, “China’s New Missile Force: New Ambitions, New Challenges (Part 1).” China Brief, Jamestown Foundation, August 10, 2018.
• Aug 6: mysanantonio.com (Business Insider), “About 14,525 nuclear weapons exist today in the arsenals of these 9 nations.”
• Aug 3: Task and Purpose, “No, A Huge Meteor Did Not Threaten A US Base With Destruction.”
• Aug 3: The Aviationist, “Report: Meteor Made 2.1 Kiloton Explosion Over Air Force Space Command Base Thule, Greenland.” This article was reprinted in the Business Insider.
• Aug 3: Metro (London), “An asteroid exploded near a US early warning radar base and we’re lucky it didn’t spark nuclear Armageddon.”
• Jul 31: Times of India (Shanakya Code blog), “Growing Chinese Nuclear Arsenal: Is China changing its doctrine?”
• Jul 27: The National Interest, “FACT CHECK: Do Russia and the U.S. Really Control 90 Percent Of The World’s Nukes?”
• Jul 24: CNBC, “There are 14,500 nuclear weapons in the world: Here are the countries that have them.”
• Jul 23: checkyourfact.org, “FACT CHECK: DO RUSSIA AND THE US CONTROL 90 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S NUKES?” Republished in The National Interest.
• Jul 23: Business Insider, “Russia just showed off a potentially world-ending nuclear ‘doomsday’ torpedo that the US can’t stop.”
• Jul 19: Newsweek, “RUSSIA TESTS NEW ‘INVINCIBLE’ MISSILES AS PUTIN WARNS NUCLEAR TREATY WITH U.S. WILL EXPIRE.”
• Jun 19: Defense News, “Which nations increased the size of their nuclear arsenal in 2017?”
• Jun 19: 9NEWS (Australia), “Is Russia upgrading nuclear bunker?”
• Jun 18: Moscow Times, “Report: World Cup City Renovates Nuclear Weapons Bunker.”
• Jun 18: Daily Mail, “Putin upgrades nuclear weapon bunkers: Satellite images show work at storage sites as Russia escalates its stand-off with NATO.”
• Jun 18: Radio Free Europe, ” Report: Russia Rebuilding Key Weapons Storage Bunker In Kaliningrad.”
• Jun 18: South China Morning Post, “China adds to nuclear arsenal amid military modernisation drive.”
• Jun 18: Independent, “Satellite images appear to show Russia upgrading nuclear weapons bunker at Kaliningrad.”
• Jun 18: Stars and Stripes, “Russian bunkers near Poland could be storing nuclear weapons, report says.”
• Jun 18: CNN, “Russia may have upgraded nuclear bunker in Kaliningrad, report says.”
• Jun 18: The Guardian, “Kaliningrad photos appear to show Russia upgrading nuclear weapons bunker.”
• Jun 13: ABC News (Australia), “Chart of the day: Eight countries have more nuclear weapons than North Korea.”
• Jun 12: Newsweek, “WHICH COUNTRIES HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?”
• Jun 8: Wall Street Journal, “Step One in Disarming North Korea: Knowing What’s in Kim’s Arsenal.”
• Jun 7: Williston Observer, “Will nukes accompany F-35s to Vermont?”
• Jun 4: Warrior Maven, “Pentagon Completes Draft Plans for New Low-Yield Sea-Launched Nuclear Weapon.” This article was also reprinted by Fox News.
• Jun 1: Zia Mian and M.V. Ramana, “On the 20th anniversary of the 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 1, 2018.
• May 26: WND, “‘Mysterious’ Cutback By Nuclear Sub Patrols.”
• May 23: Warrior Maven, “Air Force F-35 Integrates Precision-Guided B61 Mod 12 Nuclear Weapon.” This article was also reprinted by Fox News.
• May 23: Business Insider, “Russia displays massive nuclear force with a sub launching 4 missiles with the power of 160 Hiroshimas.”
• May 12: Radio Canada, “Fin de l’accord sur le nucléaire entre les États-Unis et l’Iran : et maintenant? [End of the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran: what now?]”
• May 9: BBC, “What are nuclear weapons?”
• May 7: Asia Times, “What China wants from North Korea.”
• May: Abhijnan Raj, “Pakistan’s Sea-Base Nuclear Deterrent and its Asymmetric Escalation Strategy,” Observer Research Foundation, Issue Brief No. 240, May 2018.
• Apr 26: Rick Wayman, “U.S. Charm Offensive Takes Center Stage in Geneva,” IDN-InDepthNews, April 26, 2018.
• Apr 21: Hays Daily News, “North Korea to suspend nuclear and missile tests.”
• Apr 18: Jack Thompson, “Superpower Constrained,” Strategic Trends 2018, Center for Security Studies, April 18, 2018.
• Apr 17: Eugene Rumer, “A Farewell to Arms…Control,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 17, 2018.
• Apr 6: American Military News, “China launches carrier in response to US Navy’s strike group in South China Sea.”
• Apr 2: Steve Fetter, et al., “Nuclear weapons dangers and policy options,” Physics Today, Vol. 71, No. 4, April 2, 2018.
• Mar 30: NPR, “Passport Services Will Be Missed When Russian Consulate In Seattle Closes.”
• Mar 27: Business Insider, “Beijing just flexed its navy in the South China Sea, but in a ridiculous way that the US could quickly smoke.”
• Mar 27: Defense News, “US nuclear stockpile decreasing in size, but not capability.”
• Mar 26: KUOW (Seattle), “If this Seattle building is a nest of Russian spies, why didn’t the U.S. close it sooner?”
• Mar 6: Amy Woolf, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues,” Congressional Research Service, March 6, 2018.
• Mar 2: Motherboard, “Vladimir Putin’s Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile Is ‘Batshit Crazy’.”
• Mar 2: Boston Herald, “Vladimir Putin boasts of new nuclear weapons.”
• Mar 2: New York Times, “Putin Flaunted Five Powerful Nuclear Weapons. Are They a Threat?”
• Mar 1: MSN News Observer, “The Kremlin Is Crowdsourcing Names for Putin’s New Nuclear Warheads.”
• Mar 1: Wall Street Journal, “Putin Unveils Nuclear Weapons He Claims Could Breach US Defenses.”
• Feb 26: John Mecklin, “Daniel Ellsberg on dismantling the doomsday machine,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 26, 2018.
• Feb 21: Voice of America, Plugged in with Greta Van Susteren on Nuclear Posture Review.
• Feb 20: Asia Times, “Is China Really Threatening American with Nuclear Weapons?”
• Feb 17: World Net News, “U.S., Russia Both Meeting Treaty Goals.”
• Feb 12: Washington Post, “A Pentagon chart misleadingly suggests the U.S. is falling behind in a nuclear arms race.” Includes FAS’ corrected modernizations chart from the Trump Nuclear Posture Review.
• Feb 2: The Sun, “Bad Korea Move: Dona’d Trump’s nuclear report on North Korea is published with one very embarrassing error..so can YOU spot it?”
• Feb 1: Time Magazine, “Donald Trump Is Playing a Dangerous Game of Nuclear Poker.”
• Jan 26: The Nation (AFP), “New tactical nukes in US arsenal raise risks.”
• Jan 18: CNN, “India test-fired Agni-V, a nuclear-capable ICBM.”
• Jan 17: BuzzFeed, “Nuclear Anxiety Is Becoming A Hallmark of the Trump Era. Here’s What Could Happen In The Worst-Case Scenario.”
• Jan 16: Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Plans New Nuclear Weapons.” Uses FAS nuclear data in chart.
• Jan 16: Walter Pincus, The Cipher Brief, “North Korea ‘Bloody Nose’ Could Turn into Torrent.”
• Jan 14: Fox News (Associated Press), “Administration plan sees deterrence in new nuclear firepower.”
• Jan 12: Business Insider, “A leaked Pentagon document shows that the Trump administration wants to expand the US nuclear arsenal.”
• Jan 9: Daily Mail, “Trump administration will ‘increase risk of nuclear war’ with new plans to develop smaller warheads that are less destructive and a loosening of ‘first-use’ constraints, experts warn.”
• Jan 9: The Guardian, “US to loosen nuclear weapons constraints and develop more ‘useable’ warheads.”
• Jan 5: The Diplomat, “Dr. Strangelove and the Insane Reality of Nuclear Command-and-Control.”
• Jan 3: 9News, “Verify: Sure, the U.S. has a bigger ‘nuclear button.”

2017

• Dec 18: The Guardian, “US could broaden its use of nuclear weapons, Trump administration signals.”
• Nov 14: Boston Globe, “Senators scrutinize Trump’s power to launch nuclear strike.”
• Nov 14: World News Daily, “Scientists Caution Against Staging Nukes in South Korea.”
• Nov 14: Riccardo Antonucci, L’intellettuale Dissidente (Italy), “L’Anti-Impero: uno sguardo sull’armata Russa [The Anti-Empire: a look at the Russian army].”
• Nov 13: TV2000 (Italy), “Nucleare, il mondo a rischio [Nuclear, the world at risk].” Program uses FAS nuclear weapons data (begins at 13:14) and has interview with Kristensen (begins at 17:06). Interview was done in Castiglioncello in September after briefing to Pugwash-USPID conference on international security in the Trump era.
• Nov 11: Casper Star Tribune, “The Air Force may pump $5b into Cheyenne for a new generation of nuclear weapons.”
• Nov 3: CNN, “N. Korea accuses U.S. of ‘nuclear strike drill’ after bomber flights.”
• Oct 31: Milliyet.com.tr, “ABD’nin Türkiye’de 50 nükleer silahı var [US has 50 nuclear weapons in Turkey’.”
• Oct 30, Los Angeles Times, “Can Trump be trusted with the nuclear launch codes? Can any president?”
• Oct 26: New York Times, “Trump’s Nuclear Arsenal.”
• Oct 7: La Tercera (Argentina), “Director del Proyecto de Información Nuclear de la FAS: “Es poco probable que el Nobel de la Paz afecte a las políticas de Trump” [Director of the FAS Nuclear Information Project: “It is unlikely that the Nobel Peace Prize will affect Trump’s policies”].”
• Oct 6: geo.tv news (AFP), “Who are the members of the nuclear club?”
• Oct 5: National Interest, “Everything You Need to Know: Russia’s ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapons.”
• Sep: Todd Harrison and Evan Linck, “Options for the Ground-Based Leg of the Nuclear Triad,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2017.
• Sep 29: iProfesional (Portugal), “¿Cuál es el país con mayor número de armas nucleares? [What is the country with the highest number of nuclear weapons?]”
• Sep 26: NBC News, “How Many Nuclear Weapons Exist? U.S. Calls for Total Elimination of Nukes.”
• Sep 25: CNN, “Where are the world’s nuclear weapons?”
• Sep 25: Times of India, “Pak nukes hidden at nine places, at risk of being stolen by terrorists.” The headline builds on our article on Pakistan’s evolving nuclear weapons infrastructure, but exaggerates and misrepresents what our article says.
• Sep 23: “Allerta Nucleare: Cosa Sono Le Nuovo Bombe USA B61-12 Destinate All’Italia. Intervista A Hans Kristensen,” interview with Franco Dinelli about the upcoming deployment of the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb in Italy, posted on Pandorata.it.
• Sep 16: The national Interest (The Buzz), “Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines: The U.S. Military’s Ultimate Weapon?”
• Sep 4: Xiahua, “Interview: Three trends observed as U.S. updates its nuclear arsenal: Expert.”
• Aug 24: PBS News Hour, “Can the president launch a nuclear strike on his own?” End of video shows FAS estimate of US nuclear warhead inventory, unfortunately without giving credits.
• Aug 21: The Edge Markets (Reuters), “What will Kim do next?”
• Aug 19: La Tercera (Chile), “Hans M. Kristensen, experto en armas nucleares: ‘Asia del Sur es una de las áreas más peligrosas’ [Hans M. Kristensen: nuclear weapons expert: “South Asia is one of the most dangerous area].“
• Aug 17: Newburgh Gazette, “Open to dialogue if North Korea ready to disarm.”
• Aug 12: 9News (NBC Denver), “Meet the researcher counting the world’s nukes.” 
• Aug 12: Montichiari Week (Italy), “Bombe atomiche a Ghedi: i segreti degli Usa [Atomic bombs in Ghedi: the secrets of the US].”
• Aug 11: info.51.ca (Canada), “美國與朝鮮若開打 恐釀二戰以來最慘重傷亡 [The United States and the DPRK if the fight between World War II after the worst casualties].”
• Aug 10: FactSheck.org, “Trump Misfires On Nuclear Weapons Boast.”
• Aug 10: CTV Your Morning (Canada), “How to Defuse North Korea Tensions.”
• Aug 10: Fiscal Times, “Here’s the Real State of the $1 Trillion U.S. Nuclear Upgrade.”
• Aug 9: Time, “Here’s how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has.”
• Aug 9: Liberation (France), “Corée du Nord : les Etats-Unis se divisent.”
• Aug 8: Washington Post, “North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say.” Includes graphic based on FAS nuclear weapons estimates.
• Aug 8: volksfreund.de, ” [Relics of the Cold War].”
• Aug 8: The Straits Times, (Singapore), “China ‘back in favor’ with Trump.”
• Aug 7: Saarbruecker Zeitung (Germany), “Wie sicher lagern die Atombomben? [How safe are the nuclear weapons?].”
• Jul 24: Toby Dalton, Dawn Herald, “How not to talk about nuclear weapons.”
• Jul 21: The Fiscal Times, “The Terrifying Nuclear War Game the US Shouldn’t Play.” The publication is a reprint under a new headline of my article The Flawed Push For New Nuclear Weapons Capabilities from June 29.
• Jul 17: ETH Zurich: “Trends in World Nuclear Forces, 2017.”
• Jul 13: Hindustan Times, “India shifting nuclear focus from Pakistan, developing missiles that can hit all of China: US experts.”
• Jul 13: NDTV, “India Planning Missile To Target All of China From South Bases: US Report.”
• Jul 4: War Is Boring, “‘Super-Fuzed’ Warhead on U.S. Nuclear Subs Risk Sparking and Accidental Nuclear War.” This story is a re-run of an article that War is Boring first published on March 20, 2017.
• Jul 3: Euronews, “NATO fears could push Europe towards more nuclear weapons.”
• Jul 3: Deuche Welle, “SIPRI: Nuclear arms decline amid modernization efforts.”
• Jun 30: Russia Matters, “Review of NASIC Report 2017: Nuclear Force Developments.” This publication is a reprint of my article first published here.
• Jun 25: pressenza.com (NIRS), “At US Press Briefing, Experts Explain Why A Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Is In The Works And What It Could Achieve.”
• May 30: Newsweek, “Russia conflict with NATO and U.S. would immediately result in nuclear war, Russian lawmaker warns.”
• May 26: Center for Public Integrity, “Trump seeks to spend more on nuclear weapons but buys little added capability.”
• May 25: Popular Mechanics, “The B-52 Is Getting Out Of The Nuke Dropping Business.”
• May 22: Foxtrot Alpha, “How To Dismantle A Nuclear Weapon.”
• May 19: Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Total Inventory, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Note: The fact sheet uses FAS data from before the Obama administration announced retirement of an addition 500 warheads. The updated numbers are here.
• May 10: Daily Star, “Shock warning US is plotting to nuke Russia in ‘surprise first strike’.” Highly misleading headline that does not reflect the conclusions of our article.
• May 8: Barents Observer, “Satellite images show expansion of nuclear weapons sites on Kola.”
• May 4: Adam Mount, “The Case Against New Nuclear Weapons,” Center for American Progress.
• Apr 26: Foreign Policy In Focus, “These Nuclear Breakthroughs Are Endangering The World.”
• Apr 20: Eric Heginbotham, et al., China’s Evolving Nuclear Deterrent Major Drivers and Issues for the United States, RAND Corporation, April 20, 2017.
• Mar 23: Daily Beast, “Turkey’s Frightening Trifecta: ISIS, Erdogan & U.S. Nukes.”
• Mar 22: Science, “More precise U.S. nukes could raise tensions with Russia.”
• Mar 20: Fact Sheet: Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories in 2017, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The fact sheet uses FAS data from here.
• Mar 19: Detroit News, “U.S. cuts nukes while Trump tweets for expansion.”
• Mar 19: Michael Krepon, Arms Control Wonk, “Low Yield Nuclear Weapons (Again).”
• Mar 12: Warrior (scout.com), “New US “Super-Fuze Triples the Destructive Power of Submarine Launched Nuclear Weapons.”
• Mar 10: War Is Boring, “‘Super-Fuzed’ Warhead on U.S. Nuclear Subs Risk Sparking and Accidental Nuclear War.” This article was also published in The National Interest.
• Mar 9: TASS, “US Strategic Chief says Russia’s tactical nuclear weapon arsenal outnumbers US.”
• Mar 3: Barents Observer, “Larger portion of Russia’s nukes will be on subs in Arctic waters.”
• Feb 26: Obama World-Herald, “StratCom chief Hyten: Nuclear arsenal should be modernized, not expanded.”
• Feb 24: International Business Times, “Nuclear Weapons In World: Trump Says US Needs More Nukes, But Here’s How Many We Have Now.”
• Feb 24: Reuters, “Experts Dispute Trump’s Assertion That U.S. Nuclear Arms Capability Is Lagging.”
• Feb 24: The National Interest, “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Everything You Always Wanted To Know (But Were Afraid To Ask).
• Feb 23: The Intercept, “Donald Trump’s Remarks Signal He Could Start a New Nuclear Arms Race.”
• Feb 22: Washington Post, “Making America great again apparently includes Cold War-era nuclear dominance.”
• Feb 21: Ohama World-Herald, “StratCom-led exercise readies U.S., allies in face of threats.”
• Feb 16: NBC News, “Ignore That Spy Ship Off the Coast. The Russians Aren’t Coming.”
• Feb 12: Scout (Warrior), “Russian Nuclear Weapons 101.”
• Feb 12: Daily Beast, “Republicans Move to Strip Away Nuclear Test Ban Funding.”
• Feb 9: attn.com, “President Trump Denounces This Important Treaty as a ‘Bad Deal’.”
• Feb 2: Roll Call, “Pentagon Panel Urges Trump Team To Expand Nuclear Options.”
• Jan: Maj Gen Roger W. Burg, USAF (Ret.), America’s Nuclear Backbone, Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
• Jan 26: Yahoo News UK, “Submarine crash in 1974 ‘could have started World War 3’ – but it was covered up.”
• Jan 20: NBC News, “Donald Trump is Getting the Nuclear Football.”
• Jan 19: FactCheck.org, “Obama and Russia’s Nuclear Stockpile.”
• Jan 19: Politico, “Trump’s nuclear wake-up call.”
• Jan 12: Popular Mechanics, “Obama Administration Cuts Back Size of Nuclear Arsenal.”
• Jan 10: Joe Cirincione, “Obama’s last chance to reduce the risk of nuclear disaster,” Politico, January 10, 2017

2016

• Dec: Gudrun Persson (ed.), Russian Military Capabilities in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2016, Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI), March 2016.
• Dec 1: Stars & Stripes, “On nuclear weapons, Trump face [sic] questions of modernization.”
• Nov: Dave Johnson, “Nuclear weapons in Russia’s approach to conflict,” Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, November 2016.
• Nov 30: Tim Street, “President Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne,” Oxford Research Group, November 30, 2016.
• Nov 26: Raw Story, “Which nations could be be next to join the global nuclear club?”
• Nov 25: McClatchyDC, “Trump’s finger soon will hover over the nuclear button. Will he be ready?”
• Nov 19: Hindustan Times, “‘Pak has 130-140 nuclear weapons, modifying F16s to deliver nukes’.”
• Nov 18: IBT (India), “Pakistan has 130-140 nuclear warheads, state US scientists.”
• Nov 18: NDTV (India), “Where and How Pakistan Is Storing Nuclear Weapons According To US Scientists.”
• Nov 18: WION (India), “Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile: US scientists’ report reveals defence facilities near Indian border.”
• Nov 14: Defense News, “Israel’s Strategic Fight Over New Submarines.”
• Nov 14: Pennsylvania State University Vanguard, “Nuclear Policy.”
• Nov 11: The Guardian, “Nuclear weapons: how foreign hotspots could test Trump’s finger on the trigger.”
• Nov 10: heavy.com, “Can Donald Trump Start a Nuclear War? 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.”
• Nov 10: BuzzFeedNews, “5 Bid Decisions President Trump Must Make On Nuclear Weapons.” Article also uses FAS estimates on nuclear weapons.
• Nov 4: John DeMaggio, The Hill, “North Korea grows nuclear expense of US security.”
• Nov 3: Omaha World-Herald, “Gen. John Hyten assumes leadership of StratCom today — then he’ll confront an array of unprecedented threats.”
• Oct 31: Omaha World-Herald, “A nuclear decision: As global tension builds, voters must choose which candidate they trust with the codes.”
• Oct 28: National Public Radio, “‘A Dangerous Situation’ As U.S.-Russia Tensions Spill Over To Nuclear Pacts.”
• Oct 10: Aviation Week & Space Technology, “Why Trump Is Wrong On U.S. Nuclear Modernization.”
• Oct 4: Washington Post (Fact Checker), “Clinton, Kaine go too far in touting a nuclear deal with Russia.”
• Oct 2: Washington Times, “Israel nuclear arsenal estimate was high.”
• Sep 25: CBS (After 60), “Breaking down Russia and U.S. nuclear capabilities.”
• Sep 25: CBS News (60 Minutes), “Risk of Nuclear Attack Rises.”
• Sep 23: Economic Times (India Times), “Military failure could push Pakistan to initiate nuclear attack against India.”
• Sep 21: PolitiFact, “Hillary Clinton overstates impact of New START on Russia’s nuclear arsenal.”
• Sep 20: Times of India, “Pakistan may use tactical nuke if it’s unable to push back Indian army: Hans Kristensen.”
• Sep 19: Times of India, “Any military action by India will be condemned by Washington, says former Obama adviser.” References our 2012 report on non-strategic nuclear weapons.
• Sep 19, Dawn Stover, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Does Israel really have 200 nuclear weapons, or was Colin Powell exaggerating?”
• Sep 18: CBS News, “Analyzing the Nuclear Capabilities of the U.S.” Discussion on “After 60” after 60 Minutes feature on The New Cold War.
• Sep 14: NBC News, “U.S. Bombers Send China, Russia, North Korea a Message.”
• Sep 13: New York Times (AP), “US Flies Bombers Over SKorea in Show of Force Against North.”
• Sep 13: FactCheck.com, “Clinton Misrepresents Trump Quote.”
• Sep 9: Los Angeles Times, “North Korea’s latest nuclear test could be a key step in its weapons program.”
• Sep: Fred Kaplan, “Rethinking Nuclear Policy: Taking Stock of the Stockpile,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2016.
• Aug 29: Steinar Høibråten Hanne Breivik, Reaktordrevne fartøyer og deres eventuelle kjernevåpen en oversikt ved årsskiftet 2015/2016 [Nuclear propelled vessels and their possible nuclear weapons: An overview at the winter 2015/2016], FFI Rapport 16/01536, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), August 29, 2016.
• Aug 26: War is Boring, “The United States Is Getting More and More Irritated at Russia’s Nuke Treaty Violation.”
• Aug: Steve Pifer and James Tyson, Third-Country Nuclear Forces and Possible Measures for Multilateral Arms Control, Brookings Institution, August 2016.
• Aug 18: Radio Sputnik (Scotland), “Are US Shifting Nukes in Turkey?” In this interview I debunk the false rumor that the US has moved nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania.
• Aug 17: Der Spiegel, “US-Präsidentschaftswahl: Angst von Trump und den Atomwaffen [US Presidential Election: Fear of Trump and Nuclear Weapons].”
• Aug 10: Scout Warrior, “Air Force 3-Star: Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile, LRSO, Essential to Saving US Lives & Preventing Major Power War.”
• Aug 7: ozy.com, “Trump Presidency May Not Blow Up The World, Says History.”
• Aug 5: Radio Sputnik (Washington, DC), “US B61 Nuclear Upgrades Threaten International Security.”
• Aug 5: Voice of America, “How Safe are US Nuclear Weapons in Turkey?”
• Aug 4: New York Times, “Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises Issues of Checks on Nuclear Power.”
• Aug 3: Quartz, “Count them up: All the nuclear weapons president Donald Trump would have at his disposal.”
• Aug 3: Counterpunch, “Massive Deployment of US WMD Spotlighted by Peace Group.”
• Aug 2: Amy Woolf, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Turkey,” Congressional Research Service Insight, August 2, 2016. Uses FAS estimate of US nukes in Turkey, via references to various news stories using the estimate.
• Aug 1: Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons,” Congressional Research Service, August 1, 2016
• Jul 28: Jonathan Power, Jordan Times, “Too many U.S. nuclear bombs.”
• Jul 26: Crosscut, “Reminder: Puget Sound has a ton of nuclear weapons.”
• Jul 23: Los Angeles Times: “How a stockpile of America’s nuclear weapons got tangled up in a Middle East crisis.”
• Jul 20: CBC News, “How secure are NATO nukes in Turkey?”
• Jul 20: Washington Times, “Inside the Ring: Nuclear Security in Turkey.” The Turkey portion is the third item down in the article.
• Jul 20: Jyllands-Posten (Denmark), “Tyrkiet er en højrisikozone at have atomvåben i [Turkey is a high risk area for nuclear weapons storage].”
• Jul 20: Sheryl Rofer, “Are Nuclear Weapons Stored in Turkey Under Treat?,” War on the Rocks, July 20, 2016.
• Jul 20: NBC News, “Incirlik Air Base: Post-Coup Power Cut Remains at U.S. Site.”
• 20 Jul: Lawfare, “Today’s Headlines and Commentary.”
• Jul 20: Aviation News & Space Technology, “Turkey Coup Raises Questions About NATO’s B61 Nuke Posture.”
• Jul 19: TruNews, “Nuclear Caliphate.” My portion of the interview begins at 19;00 minutes.
• Jul 19: ZF (Romania), “SUA au 50 de bombe nucleare în Turcia, la baza militară blocată în timpul puciului. Mai sunt în siguranţă acolo? [50 US nuclear bombs in Turkey, military base blocked during the coup. Are the still safe there?].”
• Jul 18: A. Trevor Thrall, “The Coup and the Crackdown: Turkey and American Foreign Policy,” Cato Institute Blog, July 18, 2016.
• Jul 18: Sputnik News, “Attempted Military Coup in Turkey Puts American Nukes a Risk.”
• Jul 18: 9news.com, “Truth Test: Clinton draws contrast with Trump in two ads.”
• Jul 17: Eric Schlosser, “The H-Bombs in Turkey,” The New Yorker, July 17, 2016.
• Jul 17: The Guardian, “Turkey coup attempt raises fears over safety of US nuclear stockpile.”
• Jun 30: Tong Zhao, “China’s Sea-Based Nuclear Deterrent,” Carnegie-Tsinghua, June 30, 2016.
• Jun: Defense News, “2016 World Nuclear Forces.” Uses our nuclear weapons estimates from the SIPRI Yearbook in an animated graphics video.
• Jun 28: Walter Pincus, The Cipher Brief, “Financing Nuclear Modernization: Tough Decision for the Next President.”
• Jun 17: Senator Dianne Feinstein and Ellen Tauscher, “A Nuclear Weapon That America Doesn’t Need,” New York Times, June 17, 2016. Feinstein and Tauscher use my blog “Forget LRSO; JASSM-ER Can Do The Job” as the source for the new nuclear cruise missile cost estimate.
• Jun 15: The Anti Media, “Here’s What You Need to Know About the Cold War 2.0 Because It’s Already Here.” 
• Jun 14: Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons,” RL34248, Congressional Research Service, June 14, 2016.
• Jun 14: The Diplomat, “Does Pakistan Have More Nuclear Warheads Than India?”
• Jun 14: The Seoul Times, “N. Korea Has 10 Nukes: SIPRI.”
• Jun 13: Financial Express, “Countries possessing nuclear weapons not ready to give up arsenal: SIPRI.”
• Jun 13: Times of Israel, “Nuclear powers shrinking, modernizing arsenals – watchdog.”
• Jun 13: Sputnik International (Russia), “Global Nuclear Arsenals Decline Thanks To Russia, US.”
• Jun 13: US News & World Report, “Watchdog: Nuclear powers shrinking, modernizing arsenals.”
• Jun 13: Hindustan Times, “‘China’s nuclear arsenal is becoming bigger, more modern’.”
• Jun 13: The Express Tribune, “Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to increase significantly over next 10 years: SIPRI.”
• Jun 13: Economic Times (India), “India, Pakistan nuclear arsenal on rise as it decreases slowly elsewhere.”
• Jun 13: Christian Science Monitor, “New nuclear weapons report dampens hope for global disarmament.”
• Jun 13: Radio Free Europe, “Report: U.S., Russia Slowly Reducing Nuclear Arsenals.”
• Jun 13: Deutsche Welle, “Think tank: Nuclear powers see to modernize nuclear weapons.”
• Jun 13: euronews.com, “Fewer nuclear weapons but a far cry from disarmament.”
• Jun 13: National Defense Magazine, “Analysis: It’s Time for a Reexamination of Nuclear Weapons Requirements.”
• Jun 12: Kingston Reif, “Examining the Flawed Rationale for a New Nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile,” Arms Control Association, Issue Brief, Volume 8, Issue 2, June 12, 2016.
• Jun 8: Sico van der Meer and Christine Parthemore, “Revive Arms Control and Start with Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missiles,” War on The Rocks, June 8, 2016.
• Jun 4: Jacksonville News, “Fact Check: Is Hillary Clinton responsible for ‘a massive reduction in nuclear weapons’?”
• May 31: Evan Montgomery, Extended Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, May 31, 2016.
• May 31: Chicago Tribune, “Taliban leader’s killing exposes deepening U.S.-Pakistan strains.”
• May 31: Bloomberg, “Taliban Said to Kill 16 in Worst Attack Since Leader Named.”
• May 27: The Week, “How Obama talks an anti-nuke talk, walks a pro-nuke talk.”
• May 27: New York Times (editorial), “Turning Words Into a Nuclear-Free Reality.” Refers to story about new stockpile numbers.
• May 27: Fiscal Times, “Obama Calls for No Nukes, but the US Still Has Big Plans for Nuclear Weapons.”
• May 27: PRI (Public Radio International), “71 years after Hiroshima, will we see a world free from nuclear weapons soon?”
• May 27: R. Jeffrey Smith, “A former senior U.S. general again calls for abolishing the nuclear forces he once commanded,” Center for Public Integrity, May 27, 2016.
• May 27: Washington Post, “Obama calls for end to nuclear weapons, but U.S. disarmament is slowest since 1980.”
• May 27: New York Times, “Reduction of Nuclear Arsenal Has Slowed Under Obama, Report Finds.”
• May 27: TASS, “Эксперт: США замедляют темпы демонтажа списанных ядерных боеголовок [Expert: US slows down the pace of dismantling retired warheads].”
• May 27: The Guardian, “Obama has ‘failed to deliver on nuclear disarmament promises’.”
• May 27: Japan Times, “Key dates in the nuclear arms race.”
• May 26: Stephen Pifer, Defense News, “LRSO Does Not Make Sense, Nor Do Its Proposed Numbers.”
• May 26: David Wright and Lisbeth Grondlund, US News and World Report, “Easing Away From the Nuclear Trigger.”
• May 26: The Guardian, “China to send nuclear-armed submarines into the Pacific amid tensions with US.”
• May 24: Joe Cirincione, Defense One, “The Nuclear Football Goes to Japan.”
• May 20, Radio Free Europe, “New Weaponry, More Spending, Tough Rhetoric Stokes Fear of New U.S.-Russia Arms Race.”
• May: Toby Dalton and George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Operations and Escalation Dominance, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 2016.
• May 11: The Diplomat, “Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile Capable of Penetrating US Defenses.”
• May 11: The Daily Beast, “Russia’s New Missile Means the Nuclear Arms Race Is Back On.” The article exaggerates the importance of Russia’s nuclear modernization and misunderstands how many nuclear weapons Russia and the United States have on alert.
• May 10: Jordan Wilson, “China’s Expanding Ability to Conduct Conventional Missile Strikes on Guam,” U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, May 10, 2016.
• May 10: Time, “President Obama Will Bring a Mixed Nuclear Message to Hiroshima.”
• May 9: Bonnie Glaser and Matthew Funaiole, “Submerged Deterrence: China’s Struggle to Field an SSBN Fleet,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, CSIS, May 9, 2016.
• May 6: The Diplomat, “Chinese Nuclear Strategist Believes China’s MIRVs Are Decoys.”
• May 3: Gael Tarleton and Joe Cirincione, “Scale back U.S. nuclear weapons and stop a new arms race,” Seattle Times, May 3, 2016. Uses FAS estimate that there are an estimated 1,350 nuclear warheads stored in Washington state, unfortunately without giving credit.
• Apr 30, KPLU (Seattle), “War And Peace: Sound Effect, Episode 68.”
• Apr 27: FactCheck.org, “Clinton Overstates Nuclear Achievement.”
• Apr: Will Saetren, “Costs of the Cold War: Rethinking the Need for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile,” Ploughshares Fund, April 2016.
• Apr 20: Peter Lee, Asia Times, “The case of the missing nukes and a disappearing US mission…in Asia.”
• Apr 19: Elisabeth Withfield, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fuzzy math on Indian nuclear weapons.”
• Apr 18: Fiscal Times, “Why is the US Spending $1 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons?” Re-publishes my blog about Nuclear Transparency and the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
• Apr 13: Vox, “How deterrence is changing, explained by Defense Secretary Ash Carter.” Uses FAS estimates of world nuclear forces, unfortunately without giving credit.
• Apr 5: Will Lowry, “Fewer Warheads, More Spending: The Escalating Costs of Maintaining US Nuclear Weapons,” Tri-Valley CARE, April 5, 2016.
• Apr 4: Radio Free Europe, “U.S. Says Russia Increased Number of Deployed Warheads, Despite Treaty.”
• Apr 4: Moscow Times, “Russia Increases Nuclear Warheads While U.S. Decreases its Arsenal.”
• Apr 2: The Telegraph, “Nuclear Weapons: Which Countries Have What?” Video uses FAS estimate of world nuclear arsenals.
• Apr 1: Trevor Tim, The Guardian, “Obama says he’s working towards a nuclear-free world. That’s a lie.”
• Apr 1: Timeline, “Trump, wrong about so much, somehow hits a nerve about America’s willingness to use nukes.”
• Apr: Elbridge Colby and Wu Riqiang, “Seeking Strategic Stability for U.S.-China Relations in the Nuclear Domain,” National Bureau of Asian Research, NPR Special Report 57, April 2016, pp. 21-41.
• Mar 31: William Arkin, Vice News, “America’s Nuclear Weapons in Europe Are the Nuclear Elephant in the Room.”
• Mar 29: Minute Physics, “Why You Should Care About Nukes.” This great educational video, narrated by Max Tegmark from the Future of Life Institute at MIT, uses FAS estimate of world nuclear arsenals.
• Mar 24: MacArthur Foundation, “New Commitment to Address Nuclear Threats by Reducing Availability and Use of Weapons-usable Material,” Press Release, March 24, 2016. Uses FAS estimate of more than 15,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, unfortunately without giving credit.
• Mar 23: Amy Woolf, “Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons,” Congressional Research Service, March 23, 2016.
• Mar 11: Reuters, “Is it time for Britain to give up its nuclear weapons.”
• Mar 11: Kommersant (Russia), “Толкание плутониевого ядра [Pushing plutonium core].”
• Mar 10: Rick Wayman and Jackie Cabasso, Pressenza, “Day Four at the ICJ: Aspirational Rhetoric vs. Real Actions.”
• Mar 9: Keith Payne, “Why Do US Force Numbers Matter for Deterrence?,” National Institute for Public Policy, March 9, 2016.
• Mar 1: Andrew Krepinevich and Jacob Kohn, Rethinking Armageddon: Scenario Planning in the Second Nuclear Age, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, March 1, 2016.
• Mar 1: Popular Mechanics, “What We Can Tell About the Air Force’s New B-21 Bomber From Its First Official Image.”
• Feb 26: Reuters, “U.S. test-fires ICBMs to stress its power to Russia, North Korea.”
• Feb 26: Sohail Parwaz, Pakistan Today, “F-16s and Indian acrimony.”
• Feb 26: Elbridge Colby, “The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the U.S.-Russian Relationship,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 26, 2016.
• Feb 24: PBS Newshour, “As Pentagon overhauls nuclear triad, critics advice caution.” Uses FAS estimate of world nuclear arsenals at the end of program, unfortunately without giving credits.
• Feb 23: The Intercept, “Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race.”
• Feb 11: Popular Mechanics, “The Alarming History of U.S. Nuclear Accidents at Sea.”
• Feb 5: Asahi Shimbun, “U.S. Fighter from Fukuoka involved in 1959 nuclear accident in South Korea.”
• Feb: Matthew Kroenig, Atlantic Council, “The Renewed Russian Nuclear Threat and NATO Nuclear Deterrence Posture.”
• Feb 1: Scientific American, “The Comet That Battered Jupiter, and Shock Congress.”
• Jan 28: The Economist, “Daily Chart: Doomsday and the History of Nuclear Weapons.”
• Jan 23: Associated Press, “Air Force withheld nuclear mishap from Pentagon review team.”
• Jan 20: L’Espresso (Italy), “Ecco la nuova bomba H che arriverà in Italia [Here is the new H bomb that will arrived in Italy].”
• Jan 19: Reuters, “North Korea nuclear test did not increase technical capability: US.”
• Jan 15: Sputnik News, “Nobel Peace Prize-Winner Obama Sends Mixed Messages on US Nukes.” Article is based on an interview with Radio Sputnik.
• Jan 14: Vice News, “Russia Sure Seems to Be Testing a Lot of Nuclear Missiles These Days.”
• Jan 14: Paul Kerr and May Nikitin, Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons, Congressional Research Service, January 14, 2016.
• Jan 13: Stephen Young, Defense News, “Commentary: US Is More Secure Without New, Nuclear-armed Cruise Missile.” 
• Jan 6: Wired, “Science Can Tell if North Korea’s Test Was Really An H-Bomb.”

2015

• 2015: “Does China have an effective sea-based nuclear deterrent?,” CSIS, n.d. [first accessed 2015].
• Dec 24: Channel 1 (Russia), “Пентагон рассекретил документы конца 50-х о возможном применении ядерного оружия против СССР [Pentagon declassified documents of the late 50s on the possible use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union].”
• Dec 17: Center for Public Integrity, “India’s nuclear explosive materials are vulnerable to theft, U.S. officials and experts say.” Uses FAS estimate for Indian nuclear weapons stockpile.
• Dec 14: PolitiFact, “PolitiFact Sheet: Military Spending Under Obama and Congress.”
• Dec 11: McClatchy DC, “America’s modernized nuclear arms roil diplomatic waters.”
• Dec 11: James Doyle, “Department of Energy’s disinformation undercuts US credibility, nonproliferation efforts,” The Hill, December 11, 2015.
• Dec 9: Matthew R. Costlow, “Do more nukes really mean more nuclear crises? Not necessarily,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 9, 2015.
• Dec 8: Miles Pomper, et al., Ensuring Deterrence Again Russia: The View From NATO States, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies/Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey/Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America.
• Nov 20: The Buzz (The National Interest), “America’s Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon Passes Critical Test.”
• Nov 19: Richard Woolgar-James, “China’s nuclear submarines: The end of ‘No First Use?,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Uses FAS estimate for Chinese nuclear weapons stockpile but without credit.
• Nov 17: New Scientists, “Is Russia building an underwater drone to deliver a dirty bomb?”
• Nov 15: Future of Life Institute, “The Risk of Nuclear Weapons.” Uses FAS estimate of world nuclear arsenals.
• Nov 7: New York Times (editorial), “The Pakistan Nuclear Nightmare.” The paper uses FAS’ latest estimate for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but does not credit.
• Nov 5: PBS Newshour, “America’s nuclear bomb gets a makeover.” This prime-time program includes bits from several interviews, including one with FAS program director Hans Kristensen here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#161677
• Oct 28: World Affairs, “US Upgrade Security at Nuclear Bases Near Syria.”
• Oct 22: Reuters, “Obama meets Pakistan’s Sharif to stress nuclear worries, seek help on Taliban.”
• Oct 22: Pakistan Herald, “US to sell eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan: report.”
• Oct 22: Daily Pakistan, “Pakistan developing two new cruise missiles, nuclear submarine: US Think Tank.”
• Oct 22: Huffington Post (India), “Pakistan Set To Become World’s 5th Largest Nuclear Power, Says US-Based Think Tank.”
• Oct 22: International Business Times, “Indian strike on Pakistani terror camps could lead to nuclear war, say experts.”
• Oct 22: NDTV (India), “Pakistan Will Become Fifth Largest Nuclear Power By 2025: Report.”
• Oct 22: Associated Press, “Obama turns to political dimensions of Afghan war.”
• Oct 22: india.com (PTI), “Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile has grown since 2011, claims US report.”
• Oct 21: New York Times, “White House Set to Sell New Fighter Jets to Pakistan in Bid to Bolster Partnership.”
• Oct 21: Deccan Herald (India), “Pakistan has 110 to 130 nukes: US report.”
• Oct 21: Times of India, “Pakistan could be 5th largest nuclear power by 2025: Report.”
• Oct 2: Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues, Congressional Research Service.
• 2015: Taking the Lead, Ploughshares Fund Annual Report 2014.
• Sep 28: CNN Situation Room, “Vladimir Putin responds to reports of new U.S. nukes.”
• Sep 27: Robert Potter, “China’s Undersea Nuclear Submarine Capabilities,” IndraStra.com.
• Sep 25: ECN Magazine, “Pentagon Acknowledges Upgrading Nukes Abroad.”
• Sep 24: Sputnik News (Russia), “War of Words Unleashed: US Upgrading Nukes in EU, Agitates Russia.” The article is based on a radio interview with Kristensen.
• Sep 24: NRC Handelblad (Netherlands), “Moskou waarschuwt voor ‘verstoring nucleaire balans’ in Europa [Moscow warns of disturbing nuclear balance].” Subscription required.
• Sep 24: 444.hu (Hungary), “Washington szerint 2020 előtt tutira nem telepítenek új atomfegyvereket Németországba [Washington says nuclear weapons will deffinitely not be deployed in Germany before 2020].”
• Sep 23: Deutsche Welle, “Reports: US nuclear ‘upgrades’ in Europe.”
• Sep 22: Bundeswehr Journal (Germany), “Bald neue US-Atomwaffen am Standort Büchel? [Soon new US nuclear weapons at the Büchel site?].”
• Sep 22: Frontal-21 (ZDF, Germany), “Stationierung neuer US-Atomwaffen in Deutschland [Deployment of new US nuclear weapons in Germany].” The story includes a TV interview with Kristensen.
• Sep 22: Bild (Germany), “Neue US-Atomwaffen  in Deutschland? [New US nuclear weapons in Germany?].”
• Sep 21: Focus (Germany), “Neue US-Atomwaffen werden in Deutschland stationiert – Russland übt scharfe Kritik [New US nuclear weapons to be deployed in Germany – Russia issues sharp criticism].”
• Sep 16, Radio Free Europe, “Impasse Over U.S.-Russia Nuclear Treaty Hardens As Washington Threatens ‘Countermeasures’.”
• Sep 15: NATO Watch, “Upgrades At US Nuclear Bases Acknowledge Security Risk.” A reposting of my blog from September 10, 2015.
• Sep 14: Eric Heginbotham, et al., The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996-2017, RAND Corporation, 2015. Direct link to PDF version is here.
• Sep 11: l’Expresso (Italy), “Le bombe atomiche in Italia non sono al sicuro [Nuclear bombs in Italy are not safe].”
• Sep 10, ECN Magazine, “US Upgrades Nuclear Weapons Sites in Europe.”
• Sep 6, Defense News, “Chinese Parade Proves Xi in Charge.”
• Sep 4: Press Examiner, “DF-26 IRBM may have ASM variant, China reveals at 3 September parade.”
• Sep 3: Defense News, “China’s Parade Puts US Navy on Notice.”
• Sep 3: Times of India, “India’s nuclear posture entering dynamic new phase: report.”
• Sep 2: Military Times (Associated Press), “A preview of new gear China’s military showing off at parade.”
• Aug 28: Times of India, “In 10 Years, Pakistan will have largest N-Stockpile after US and Russia: Report.” Note: that is not FAS’ estimate. If the current trend continues, we estimate, Pakistan could in 10 years potentially have a stockpile of roughly 230 warheads, significantly fewer than the 350 projected by the Stimson report.
• Aug 27: Washington Post, “Report: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become the world’s third-biggest.”
• Aug 27: Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon, A Normal Nuclear Pakistan, Stimson Center and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 2015.
• Aug 22: The National Interest, “Russia’s Blast from the Past: Beware the Tu-95 Bear Strategic Bomber.”
• Aug 18: INEWS (Rocky Mountain PBS), “Scientists Federation Insists that U.S. Is Cooking up a New Nuclear Bomb.”
• Aug 17: Politico, “Behind Putin’s nuclear threats.”
• Aug 11: Alex Littlefield and Adam Lowther, The Diplomat, “Taiwan and the Prospects for War Between China and America.”
• Aug 8: Scott Beauchamp, Al Jazeera, “Obama’s nuclear betrayal.”
• Aug 7: Sputnik News (Russia), “US Unlikely to Apologize for Japan Nuclear Bombings Soon.”
• Aug 6: CBS (Minnesota), “Good Question: How Many Nuclear Weapons Still Exist?”
• Aug 6: Sputnik News (Russia), “Nuclear-Armed States ‘Must Eliminate’ WMD to Honor Hiroshima, Nagasaki.”
• Aug 5: Guardian, “Hiroshima and the nuclear age – a visual guide.”
• Aug 5: 1TV (Russia), “Ядерную угрозу сегодня, по мнению экспертов, всё сильнее ощущают в Европе  Смотрите оригинал материала на [The nuclear threat today, according to experts, is strongly felt in Europe].”
• Aug 4: Flight Global, “Concept of a nuclear-armed F-35C divides opinion.”
• Aug 4: Joe Cirincione, Al Jazeera, “The real nuclear danger isn’t Iran or North Korea.”
• Aug: Philip Webber and Stuart Parkinson, UK nuclear weapons: A catastrophe in the making?, Scientists for Global Responsibility, August/September 2015.
• Aug: Greg Schwartz, Freedom Magazine, “Nobody’s Free.”
• Aug: “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance,” Arms Control Association.
• Jul 17: PolitiFact.com, “Cheney: Obama wants to get ‘rid of all nuclear weapons,’ has reduced U.S. nuclear capability significantly.”
• Jul 16: TASS, “Эксперт: США создают свою первую управляемую атомную авиабомбу [Expert: US to create first guided nuclear gravity bomb].”
• Jul 15: INEWS (Rocky Mountain PBS), “Reveal: Is U.S. Building New Nuclear Bombs or Simply ‘Modernizing’?”
• Jul 11: Sputnik News (Russia), “A New Arms Race? US Nuclear Test Might Trigger Response from Russia, China.”
• Jul 8: David Axe, War is Boring, “The H-6K is China’s B-52.”
• Jun 25: Adam Mount, National Interest, “Russia’s Lethal Nuclear Arsenal Gets and Upgrade: Should NATO Worry?” Also posted on Council on Foreign Relations blog.
• Jun 24: Bloomberg, “Vienna Forum Hears Warnings of a New U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Race.” Uses FAS estimate on Status of World Nuclear Forces.
• Jun 18: Dan Drollette, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Of weapons programs in Iran and Israel, and the need for journalists to report on both.”
• Jun 13: Sputnik News (Russia), “US Unlikely to Deploy Missiles to Europe.” The article was also published in Space Daily.
• Jun 9: Times of India, “India’s sensational cross-border raid.”
• Jun 4: Associated Press, “US might deploy missiles in Europe to counter Russia.”
• May 20: Voice of America, “China Advances Ballistic Missile Capability.”
• May 20: New York Times (editorial), “China Buys Into Multiple Warheads.” Uses FAS estimate for Chinese nuclear weapons.
• May 18: Business Insider, “China has outfitted missiles capable of reaching the US with multiple nuclear warheads.”
• May 18: The Diplomat, “China’s MIRVs: Sign of a Cold War to Come?” The article wrongly claims I said in my blog that the addition of MIRV represents a “major change” in China’s nuclear posture. I did not say that, but rather that it is important when seen in the context of other elements of China’s nuclear modernization, which is, far below the level underway in Russia and the United States.
• May 17: Independent (UK), “China upgrades it nuclear arsenal for first time in decades amid resistance to US interference in South China Sea dispute.” The headline is misleading because the MIRV upgrade is not the first upgrade of the Chinese nuclear arsenal in decades nor is the development directly linked to the South China Sea dispute.
• May 17: The Tribune (India), “Chinese re-engineers ballistic missile, surprises US: report.”
• May 16: NewsMax, “Report: China Added Multiple Warheads to Long-Range Weapons.”
• May 16: New York Times, “China Making Some Missile More Powerful.”
• May 12: Asia Times, “Pentagon report: China deploys MIRV missile.”
• May 10: Washington Post, “Obama’s quiet nuclear deal with China raises proliferation concerns.” Uses FAS estimate for size of Chinese nuclear stockpile without credit.
• May 9: The Hill, “How long would it take Iran to develop nukes? No one knows the answer for sure.”
• May 8: Zia Mian and Alexander Glaser, Princeton University, Global Fissile Material Report 2015: Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material Stockpiles and Production, Briefing to the NPT Review Conference, United Nations, New York, May 8, 2015.
• May 8: Epoch Times, “The US Is Hiding Its Nukes so Poorly, it Undermines the Point of Having Them.”
• May 5: Politi Fact Florida, “Marco Rubio says the United States is not modernizing its nuclear weapons.”
• May 5: International Relations and Security Network (ISN), “Is China Planning To Build More Missile Submarines?,” ETH Zurich. Reprints (with permission) my blog about U.S. estimates of China’s submarine production plans.
• May 1: Washington Post (Fact Checker), “Iran’s claim that Israel has 400 nuclear weapons.” References the 2014 FAS Nuclear Notebook on Israel as evidence, among others, that the Iranian claim is exaggerated.
• Apr 30: The Telegraph (UK), “General call on US and Russia to end to nuclear hair-trigger.”
• Apr 30: De-Alerting and Stabilizing the World’s Nuclear Force Postures, Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction, April 2015. See also appendix.
• Apr 29: The Week, “America readies its new ‘smart’ nuke.”
• Apr 11: National Public Radio, “New START Nuke Deal With Russia May Be Aging – But It’s Not Over.”
• Ape 9: The Independent (UK), “Trident debate: There are 16,000 nuclear missiles in the world – but who has them, and does Britain really need its own arsenal?”
• Apr 6: New York Times editorial, “Nuclear Fears in South Asia.” The New York Times references a Council on Foreign Relations web page for the size of Pakistan and China’s nuclear arsenals, but the CFR web page actually is based on our estimates.
• Apr 3: MintPress News, “Time is running out for Israel’s special place in America’s heart.”
• Apr 1: Christopher Twomey, Naval Postgratuate School, “China’s Offensive Missile Forces,” Testimony Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, April 1, 2015.
• Mar 29: i24 News, “Israel gave OK to release document on past nuclear weapons work.”
• Mar 24, John Mecklin, Foreign Policy, “Disarm and Modernize.”
• Mar 24: The Week, “America has a very expensive pan to replace very old nukes.”
• Mar 24: Tong Zhao and David Logan, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “What if China develops MIRV?“
• Mar 20: Lukasz Kulesa, “Putin’s Nuclear Bluff,” Survival, pp. 125-129.
• Mar: James E. Goodby and George P. Shultz (ed.), The War That Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence (California: Hoover Press, 2015).
• Mar 12: The Kashmir Monitor, “Pakistan still ahead of India in arms race.”
• Mar 11: Wall Street Journal, “Saudi Nuclear Deal Raises Stakes for Iran Talks.” Article is hidden behind pay-wall but apparently uses my SIPRI data in a chart of world nuclear forces.
• Mar 11: Hindustan Times, “Does Pakistan have a bigger nuclear arsenal than India?”
• Mar 10: Business Insider (Economist), “The threat of nuclear war is higher than at any time in the past 25 years.”
• Mar 10: First Post (India), “Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India, shows inforgraphic [inc.].”
• Mar 10: Jeffrey D. McCausland, Stimson Center, “Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Operational Myths and Realities.”
• Mar 3: Daily Mail (UK), “Earth’s nuclear arsenal revealed: Interactive infographic lets you track growth of the world’s WMDs over 70 years.” The paper has copied and reproduced the entire Bulletin interactive web site on its own site, in violation of copyright laws.
• Mar 3: Fox News, “Mystery $55 million Air Force program sparks debate on cost.”
• Mar 2: Washington Post, “Pentagon’s $55 billion mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing.”
• Jan 30: Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security, “Nuclear Weapons in the Third Offset Strategy: Avoiding a Nuclear Blind Spot in the Pentagon’s New Initiative.”
• Jan 26: warisboring.com, “America Has a Very Expensive Plan to Replace Very Old Nukes.”
• Jan 21: ISN-ETHZ (Switzerland), “Rumors About Nuclear Weapons in Crimea.” Reprints FAS Strategic Security story with same title.
• Jan 17: The Week, “The dangers of our aging nuclear arsenal.”
• Jan 16, Pavel Podvig, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “What to do about Russian belligerence?”
• Jan: Alexey Arbatov, The ‘P5’ Process: Prospects for Enhancement, Deep Cuts Commission, Deep Cuts Working Paper No. 3, January 2015. Uses FAS estimate of Russian nuclear forces from SIPRI Yearbook.
• Jan 4: The Guardian, “US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry.”

2014

• Dec 18: The Hill, “Could Russia’s economic meltdown lead to loose nukes?”
• Dec 17: David Wright, The Equation (Union of Concerned Scientists), “Then vs Now: Progress on Nuclear Weapons since the End of the Cold War.”
• Dec 12: SputnikNews.com, “New START Treaty Best Example of US-Russia Cooperation: Expert.”
• Dec 9: nettavisen.no (Norway), “- Nå er det høyere risiko for atomkrig [Now there is increased risk of nuclear war].”
• Dec 9: SputnikNews.com, “US, Russia Should Exclude Use of Nuclear Weapons: Experts.”
• Dec 8: Peter Mauer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, speech to Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons. Uses FAS-NRDC estimate of nuclear alert forces and analysis of slowing of nuclear reductions and widespread nuclear modernizations.
• Dec: Austrian Foreign Ministry, “Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.” Uses FAS estimate for worldwide nuclear weapons.
• Nov 14: CBS News, “Pentagon revamps nuclear arsenal after review finds systemic problems.”
• Nov: Gregory Koblentz, Council on Foreign Relations, “Strategic Stability in the Second Nuclear Age.”
• Nov 1: New York Times, Sunday Review, “Which President Cut the Most Nukes?”
• Oct 29: technowinki.onet.pl (Poland), “Polskie F-16 na nuklearnych ćwiczeniach NATO Steadfast Noon [Polish F-16s in NATO Nuclear Exercise Steadfast Noon.”
• Oct 23: International Relations and Security Network (Switzerland), reproduces blog on New START numbers.
• Oct 17: io9.com, GOP Presidents Are More Likely To Get Rid Of Nukes Than Democrats.”
• Oct 16: Politco, “What I Say, What I do: Doves Want Nuke Cuts Back on the Agenda.” Includes statement and link to blog about stockpile reductions.
• Sep 29: Aftenposten (Norway), “Atomvåpenstater konkurrerer om å modernisere sine våpenarsenal [Nuclear-armed states compete to modernize their nuclear arsenals].”
• Sep 23: New York Times (editorial), “Backsliding on Nuclear Promises.”
• Sep 22: Washington Post, “Pakistan is eying sea-based and short-range nuclear weapons, analysts say.”
• Sep 19: Los Angeles Times, “NATO nuclear drawdown now seems unlikely.”
• Sep 4: njtoday.net, “16,300 nukes still threaten life on earth.”
• Aug 27: Business Insider, “Here’s Where We Think The World’s Nukes Are Stored – And What It Says About Global Security.” A map and a table are available here.
• Aug 19: Aftenposten (Norway), “Pusser opp atomvåpen for 70 milliarder [Refurbish Nuclear Weapons for 70 billion]”.
• Aug 12: Scientific American, “‘Ambiguous’ Warfare Buys Upgrade Time for Russia’s Military.”
• Aug 7: C4ISRnet.com, “China may be developing satellite-killing ability.”
• Aug 6: Truthout.com, “The Cost of Teaching and Old Nuclear Weapon New Tricks.”
• Aug 6: Elizabeth Zolotukhina, SITREP (globalsecurity.org), “Russia’s INF Treaty Violation: More Questions Than Answers.”
• Jul 27: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, “The threat of nuclear annihilation.” Oliver uses my chart of U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles and my blog headline about how many warheads the Obama administration have cut from the stockpile.
• Jul 21: Global Security Newswire, “Senate Bill Mandates Study of Nuclear-Arms Storage Sites.”
• Jul 4: Brescia Today, “Ghedi, 20 bombe atomiche: in case di guerra sganciate dagli italiani [20 bombs at Ghedi: to be dropped by Italy in case of war].”
• Jul 3: Notizie Geopolitiche (Italy), “La Guerra fredda non è mai finita: bombe nucleari sul suolo italiano [The Cold War never ended: nuclear bombs still on Italian soil].”
• Jul 3: Messaggero Veneto (Italy), “‘Le atomiche sono qui’: il satellite lo conferma [“The nukes are there,” the satellite confirms].”
• Jul 2: International Business Times (Italy), “Nucleare, 70 testate presenti sul territorio italiano. A nostre spese [70 nuclear bombs present on Italian soil: At our expense.”
• Jul 2: Dire (Italy), “”In Italia 70 bombe nucleari americane”: è primato europeo [70 American nuclear bombs in Italy is European record].”
• Jul 2: Giornale di Brescia (Italy), “L’Espresso conferma: 20 bombe nucleari a Ghedi [L’Expresso confirms: 20 nuclear bombs are Ghedi].”
• Jul 1: L’Espresso (Italy), “Ecco le 70 bombe nucleari in Italia [There are 70 nuclear bombs in Italy].”
• Jun 26: Christian Science Monitor, “New test could hint at nuclear weapons inspections of the future.”
• Jun 18: Global Security Newswire, “Pyongyang Propaganda Video May Offer Clues on New Cruise Missile.”
• Jun 16: Moscow Times, “U.S. and Russia Determined to Keep Nuclear Weapon Arsenal, SIPRI Says.”
• Jun 16: skynews.com.au, “World nuclear weapons in decline.”
• Jun 15: AFP/Yahoo News, “World’s nuclear arsenal reduction slows down: Stockholm institute.”
• Jun 15: Chicago Tribune, “Fewer bombs, but nuclear states ‘determined’ to keep arsenals, SIPRI.”
• Jun 11: PressTV (Iran), “Leader nuclear fatwa addresses entire world: Analyst.”
• Jun 11: Global Security Newswire, “House Bill Seeks Answers on Costs of NATO Nuclear Burden-Sharing.”
• Jun 9: Uri Misgav, Haaretz, “The nuclear threat to Israel’s economy.”
• Jun 4: P.R. Shari, “India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Stirrings of Change,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
• May: Matthew Wallin, The 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal, American Security Project, May 2014.
• May 1: Zachary Keck, The Diplomat, “State Media: China Can’t Stop the F-35.” Calls my blog on China’s emerging SSBN fleet “in-depth and deeply informative”.
• Apr: Preparing for Deep Cuts: Options for Enhancing Euro-Atlantic Security and International Security, Deep Cuts Commission, April 2014.
• Apr 29: The Guardian, “Risk of nuclear accidents is rising, says report on near-misses.”
• Apr: Patricia Lewis, et al., Too Close for Comfort: Cases of New Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, Chatham House, Royal Institute of International Affairs, April 2014.
• Apr 28: “50 Facts About Nuclear Weapons Today,” Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Brookings.
• Apr 15: Newsweek, “After Ukraine, Countries That Border Russia Start Thinking About Nuclear Deterrents.”
• Apr 12: Praveen Swami, The Hindu, “Dancing with the nuclear djinn.”
• Apr 8: military.com (AP), “US Will Cut Air Force Nuke Missile Force by 50.”
• Apr 8: Wall Street Journal, “Putin Invades, Obama Dismantles.” In addition to being facturally wrong on several points, the opinion piece distorts what I wrote in this blog.
• Mar 6: Global Security Newswire, “Experts See Russian Strides on Nuclear-Force Updates.”
• Mar [no date], indepthnews.org, “NATO and Russia Cought in Nuclear Arms Race.”
• Feb 28: Defense Tech, “Nuclear Bomb Upgrade Could Vilate Treaty.”
• Feb 28: Global Security Newswire, “‘Significant’ Alterations Seen in Updated B-61 Bomb: Report.” This article was also posted in theNational Journal.
• Feb 4: Lauren Caston, et al., The Future of the U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Force, RAND Corporation, February 2014.
• Feb: William S. Murray, “Underwater TELs and China’s Antisubmarine Warfare,” in Peter Dutton, et al (Ed.)., China’s Near Sea Combat Capabilities, U.S. Naval War College, China Maritime Studies, Vol. 11, February 2014.
• Jan 30: De Standard (Belgium), “‘België moet F-35 wel kopen’.”
• Jan 14: Trimming the Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget, Arms Control Association, Issue Brief Vol. 5, Issue 3, January 14, 2013.
• Jan 12: Great Falls Tribune, “Navy may reduce nuke numbers: Move would give ICBMs breathing room.” Refers to FAS Nuclear Notebook published in the Bulletin of the Atomci Scientists.
• Jan 10: Financial Times, “US Nukes: Now It’s Our Turn to Catch Up to the Russians,” The headline does not reflect what I said in the interview, and the information in the table sourced as the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation appears to be derived fromthis FAS table.
• Jan 9: Seattle Times, “Judge rejects suit to halt dock addition at Trident base.”
• Jan 9: USA Today (Associated Press), “Nuclear launch officers tied to narcotics probe.”
• Jan 9: CBS News, “Chuck Hagel making rare visit to nuclear missile base.”
• Jan 7: Jon Wolfsthal, et al., The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, January 2014.
• Jan 7: Defense One, “U.S. Will Start Cutting Its Submarine Missile Launchers Next Year.”

2013

• Dec: Jakob Hedenskog, et al., Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective – 2013, Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), December 2013.
• Dec: Michael Krepon and Julia Thomson, Deterrence Stability and Escalation Control in SouthAsia, The Stimson Center, December 2013.
• Dec 19: Voice of America: “Chinese Military’s Secret to Success: European Engineering.”
• Dec 17: Lisbeth Grondlund, Union of Concerned Scientists, “How Many Nuclear Weapons Does the U.S. Have? Don’t Ask Congress.”
• Dec 5: ABC News, “Cold War: Putin Talks Tough Over US Arctic Rivalvy.”
• Dec 1: Nikolai Sokov, Arms Control Wonk, “Allegations of Russian Arms Control Cheating are Unfounded, But a Good Reason to Revisit Treaty Options.”
• Nov 21: Global Security Newswire, “Annual U.S. Congress Report on China is Curiously Light on Nuclear Arms Info.”
• Nov 21: Richard Weitz, INS (Switzerland), “Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization and Its Arms Control Implications.”
• Nov 20: Epoch Times, “China’s Nuclear Submarines Are Less Than Advertised.”
• Nov 19: Associated Press, “Nuclear Weapons.” Second graphic (Nuclear World: Coountry Stockpiles and the Doomsday Clock) uses FAS data on wok nuclear stockpiles from our September Nuclear Notebook.
• Nov 10: Voice of Russia, “US to upgrade old nukes in Europe to ‘all-in-one’ bombs.”
• Nov 6: Der Spiegel, “Nuclear Arsenal: US To Turn Old Bombs Into All-Purpose Weapons.”
• Nov 6: Rutland Herald, “Rutland makes China’s best list – as nuke targets.”
• Nov 5: Flashpoints (The Diplomat), “State Media Boasts of China’s Ability to Nuke US Cities.”
• Oct: Gary Schaub, Adjusting the Architecture: Arms Control, Disarmament, and Non-Proliferation in NATO, Centre for Military Studies, University of Copenhagen, October 2013.
• Oct: Global Fissile Material Report 2013, International Panel on Fissile Materials, October 2013.
• Oct: Stephen J. Cimbala, “Missile Defense and Nuclear Deterrence: Moving Deterrence, or Backward?,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2013, pp. 73-87.
• Oct 22: Information (Denmark), “Eksperter frygter amerikansk atomvåbenulykke [Experts fear U.S. nuclear weapons accident.”
• Oct 18: Der Spiegel, “Militärtechnik: Experten werfen US-Regierung Entwicklung neuer Atomwaffen vor.”
• Oct 10: Reuters, “Western powers talk nuclear disarmament, upgrade what’s left.”
• Oct 3: RIA Novosti, “Slow START: US Increases Deployed Nuclear Forces – Scientists.”
• Oct 3: National Journal, “Updated New START Data Showing Larger U.S. Stockpile Not Alarming: Experts.”
• Oct 3: Slate.com, “The U.S. Increased Its NUclear Forces Over the Last Six Months.”
• Oct 3: Jon Harper, Asahi Shimbun, “Analysis: China’s nuke build-up is a concern, but a nuclear-armed Japan is not the answer.”
• Oct: Don’t Bank on the Bomb: A Global Report on the Financing of Nuclear Weapons Producers, IKV Pax Christi & ICAN, October 2013.
• Sep 29: La Tercera (Chile), “Discusión de tema nuclear reabre debate sobre cantidad y seguridad de arsenales.”
• Sep 26: Japan Times, “Iran tries to shift scrutiny to Israeli nuclear weapons.”
• Sep 25: Huffington Post, “Scrutiny Of Iran’s Nuclear Program Likely To Highlight Israel’s Secret Atomic Weapons Stockpile.”
• Sep 25: News-Sentinel (AP), “Iran tries to shine light on Israeli nukes.”
• Sep 22: Ohama World-Herald, “Clock is ticking on aging B61 bomb, StratCom chief says.”
• Sep 20: RT (Russia Today), “UN nuclear meeting rejects Arab push for Israel to join weapons pact.”
• Sep 18: Times of India, “India’s development of ICBMs likely to fuel arms race with China.”
• Sep 18: The Standard (Hong Kong), “Syria and nukes on agenda for Obama-Netanyahu chat.”
• Sep 16: PressTV (Iran), “US report confirms Israel has at least 80 nuclear warheads.”
• Sep 16: Russia Today, “Israel has about 80 nukes, can about tripple inventory – report.”
• Sep 15: La Times, “Israel has 80 nuclear warheads, canmake 115-190 more, report says.”
• Sep 15: Israel Hayom, “‘Israel suspended nuclear weapons production in 2004’.”
• Sep 14: Haaretz (Israel), “Israel froze production of nuclear warheads in 2004, foreign experts say.”
• Sep 13: Mondiaal Nieuws (Belgium), Opinion, “Time to go! Kernwapens weg uit België [TIme to go! Nuclear Weapons Out of Belgium].”
• Sep 13: De Morgen (Belgium), “Boosheid om het geheime kernwapenakkoord van Defensie [Anger about the secret nuclear weapons agreement by defense ministry].”
• Sep 13: De Morgen (Belgium), “Leterme: “Geen weet van modernisering kernwapens [Leterme: No one knows about modernization].”
• Sep 13: RIA Novosti (Germany), “Nato-Länder wollen US-Kernwaffen auf ihrem Territorium modernisieren – Medien [NATO countries want to modernize US nuclear weapons on their territory].”
• Sep 13: De Redactie (Belgium), “‘Mogelijk akkoord staat haaks op alle afspraken’ [‘Possible agreement is contrary to all agreements’].”
• Sep 13: HLN (Belgium), “Kleine Brogel krijgt nieuwe en moderne kernwapens [Kleine Brogel gets new and modern nuclear weapons].”
• Sep 13: Knack (Belgium), “Tegen 2020 worden atoombommen in Kleine Brogel gemoderniseerd [By 2020 the nuclear bombs at Kleine Brogel will be modernized].”
• Sep 13: De Standard (Belgium), “Nieuwe kernwapens voor Kleine Brogel [New nuclear weapons for Kleine Brogel].”
• Sep 13: Mondiaal Nieuws (Belgium), “‘Tegen 2020 worden atoombommen uit Kleine Brogel gemoderniseerd’ [By 2020 atomic bombs from Kleine Brogel modernized].”
• Sep 13: Limburg (Belgium), “Nieuwe kernwapens op militaire basis Kleine-Brogel [New nuclear weapons on Kleine Brogel air base].”
• Sep 13: Le Soir (Belgium), “«De nouvelles armes nucléaires à Kleine-Brogel» [New Nuclear Weapons at Kleine Brogel].”
• Sep: James Acton, Silver Bullet: Asking the Right Questions About Conventional Prompt Global Strike, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2013.
• Sep 12: nos.nl (the Netherlands), “Minister Hennis wil niets zeggen over mogelijke nieuwe kernwapens [Minister Hennis to say anything about possible new nuclear weapons].”
• Sep 12: nos.nl (the Netherlands), “Oppositie: opheldering kernwapens [Opposition: clarification about nuclear weapons].”
• Sep 12: Trouw (the Netherlands), “‘Nederland akkoord met nieuw kernwapen op basis Volkel’ [The Netherlands agree to new nuclear weapons at Volkel Air Base.]”
• Sep 12: Knack (Belgium), “Geheim akkoord over nieuwe kernwapens voor Kleine Brogel [Secret agreement about new nuclear weapons for Kleine Brogel].”
• Sep 12: KRO Brandpunt Reporter (the Netherlands), “De Nederlandse atoombom [The Dutch Nuclear Bomb].”
• Sep 12: DutchNews.nl, “US and NL agreed in 2010 to update nuclear bombs, tv show claims.”
• Sep 3: The Economic Times (India), “Pakistan says it has robust control system for nuclear arsenal.” The article appears to use FAS estimate of approximately 120 Pakistani nuclear weapons, but without giving credit.
• Sep 3: Washington Post, “Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan.” The article appears to use FAS estimate of approximately 120 Pakistani nuclear weapons, but without giving credit.
• Sep 2: Flashpoint (The Diplomat), “Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles: Past and Present.”
• Aug 28: Omroep Brabant (the Netherlands), “Brandpunt Reporter: ‘Atoombommen Volkel paar keer per jaar heen en weer gevlogen’ [Brandpunt Reporter: ‘Nuclear bombs at Volkel flown back and forth a couple of times a year].”
• Aug 28: Omroep Brabant (the Netherlands), “Angst voor nucleaire ramp Volkel reëel [Fear of nuclear disaster at Volkel real].”
• Aug 25: Tom Nichols (Naval War College), The National Interest, “The Coming Nuclear War with…the Soviet Union?”
• Aug 20: Vladimir Dvorkin, Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, “There Is a Need To Object. INF Treaty — Rudiments of Cold War.”
• Aug 19: Military Times,”Unit that failed nuclear missile inspection raring for second chance.”
• Aug 9: CNN, “The ‘radical’ nuclear missile test that made history.”
• Jul 26: Pavel Zolotarev, et al., “Russia and the USA at the Crossroads: Obama’s Initiatives and Russia’s Reaction,” Russian International Affairs Council, July 26, 2013.
• Jul: Security Briefing Book, Fifth Edition, Truman National Security Project, July, 2013.
• Jul 23: Anniston Star, “Rogers amendment pushes back at Obama nuke cuts.”
• Jul 16: Brookings Institution, Up Front Blog, “Allegations of Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Violation – Where’s the Beef?”
• Jul 12: Congressional Research Service, “The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions.”
• Jul 11: Global Security Newswire, “New Intel Report Mum on Prior Nuclear Estimates.”
• Jul 9: Huntington News, “Still Preparing For Nuclear War.”
• Jul 6: Lawrence Krauss, The New York Times, “Lettin Go of Our Nukes.”
• Jun 30: IDN-InDepthNews, “ObamaMagic is Gone – Caution Outweighs Zeal.”
• Jun 21: Global Security Newswire, “Fresh U.S. Nuclear Guidance Relies on Some Cold War Elements.”
• Jun 20: NBC News, “Obama’s nuke-reduction goal is just the start of a slow process.”
• Jun 19: CNN, “Does cutting U.S. nukes really matter.”
• Jun 19: Washington Times, “In Brandenburg speech, Obama modifies old campaign goal of ‘a world without nuclear weapons.”
• Jun 18: Japan Times, Michael Richardson, “Cruise missile threat in Asia.”
• Jun 5: Daily Mail (AP), “‘Poor leadership, long hours and no career prospects’: U.S. Air Force crews with finger on the trigger of nuclear missiles complain of morale-sapping pressures.”
• Jun 4: US News & World Report, “Buying Submarines in an Age of Austerity.”
• Jun 4: Associated Press, “Nuclear missile crews cite morale-sapping pressures.”
• Jun 4: Asia News Network, “China defends use of nuclear warheads.”
• Jun 4: China Daily, “Warhead stockpile ‘defensive’.”
• Jun 3: Deutche Welle, “Asia countries pile up nuclear arms.”
• Jun 3: Bloomberg, “China’s Nuclear Stockpile Grows as India Matches Pakistan Rise.”
• Jun 3: Times of Israel, “Israel now has 80 nuclear warheads, report says.”
• Jun 3: Times of India, “Nuclear weapons: India keeps pace with Pakistan, but focuses on China.”
• Jun: Arms Control Today, “Pentagon Sees China Progressing on SLBM.”
• May 31: Der Spiegel, “US-Analyse zu Nordkorea: Kims Langstreckenraketen angeblich einsatzbereit.”
• May 30: Global Security Newswire, “North Korea, China Pursuing Nuke-Ready Cruise Missiles: Air Force.”
• May 28: forbes.com, “Nuclear Weapons: How Few Is Too Few?”
• May 16: breakingdefense.com, “Navy Sub Chief Rebuts Critics Claims On SSBN-X; Don’t Cut Our Boats.”
• May 16: Rear Adm. Richard Beckenridge, “Navy Responds to Debate Over the Size of the SSBN Force,” Navy Live, May 16, 2013. The director of the U.S. Navy Undersea Warfare office responds to my blog about U.S. SSBN deterrent patrols.
• May 8: Eastasia Review, “Russia Bidding Farewell To Soviet Nukes – Analysis.”
• May 7: Scientific American, “U.S. Nuclear Warheads Set to Get a Facelift.”
• May 7: Nature, “US warheads to get facelift.”
• May 3: Frank Pabian, “Making discoveries in virtual worlds via the Cloud,” Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, May 3, 2013.
• May 3: The Diplomat, “Could New SSBN Program ‘Sink’ U.S. Navy?”
• May: Michael D. Swaine, et al., China’s Military & the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 2013.
• Apr: Stephanie Spies and John Warden, Forging a Consensus for a Sustainable U.S. Nuclear Posture, Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 2013.
• Apr 21: The Guardian, “Obama acused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges.”
• Apr 18: Barry Watts, Nuclear-Conventional Firebreaks and the Nuclear Taboo, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, April 18, 2013.
• Apr 13: Wall Street Journal, “U.S.-China Nuclear Silence Leaves a Void.” Uses FAS estimate of Chinese nuclear forces.
• Apr 12: Huffington Post (Reuters), “‘Speculative’ Pentagon Report on North Korea’s Nuclear Missile Sparks Fear as Officials Urge Skepticism.”
• Apr 11: armscontrolwonk.com, “For your (North Korea) reading pleasure.”
• Apr 11: Reuters, “Pentagon says North Korea can likely launch nuclear missile.”
• Apr 10: Congressional Research Service, “Next Steps in U.S. Arms Control With Russia: Issues for Congress.”
• Apr: Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, Implementation of the Conclusions and Recommendations for Follow-On Actions Adopted at the 2010 NPT Review Conference: Disarmament Actions 1-11, 2013 Monitoring Report, Monterey Institute, April 2013.
• Apr 2: DefenseTech.org, “Blast hints at North Korea’s nuke.”
• Apr: Alexei Arbatov and Vladimir Dvorkin, The Great Strategic Triangle, Carnegie Moscow Center, April 2013.
• Mar: Fact Sheet: Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories in 2013, The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
• Mar 21: CNN World, “Nuclear weapons: Who has what?”
• Mar 14: Wired, “That’s No Train! Air Force Eyes Subway For Nuclear Missiles.”
• Mar 12, Nuclear Weapons and U.S.-China Relations, Center for Strategic and Internaitonal Studies, March 2013.
• Mar 7: IISS Voices, “Why China sent its aircraft carrier to Qingdao.”
• Mar 6: Andrew F. Krepinevich, “U.S. Nuclear Requirements in an Era of Defense Austerity,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
• Mar 6: The Diplomat, “For America’s Military: Less Nukes.”
• Mar 4: Washington Post, “Budget cuts and bombs.” Uses “85 percent” eduction, which for U.S. stockpile appears to come from this FAS article.
• Mar 1: Turkey Wonk, “The Sequester and Future Nuclear Weapons in Turkey.”
• Feb 27, Global Security Newswire, “Nuclear Arms Count Might Have Fallen by Hundreds Under Obama.”
• Feb 26: Global Zero, “Get the Facts.” The newly revamped web site appears to use FAS estimates for world nuclear forces, but without credits.
• Feb 22: Jonathan Medalia, et al., Nuclear Weapons R&D Organizations in Nine Nations, Congressional Research Service, February 22, 2013.
• Feb 21: Eurasia Review, “High-Alert Nukes As If The Cold War Didn’t End – Analysis.”
• Feb 17: Eurasia Review, “Managing India’s Missile Aspirations – Analysis.”
• Feb 15: American Security Blog Flashpoint Blog, “A Nuclear Arsenal for the 21st Century.”
• Feb 14: Global Security Newswire, “Russia Might Still Use Sea-Fired Nuclear Cruise Missiles.”
• Feb 14: David Hoffman, Foreign Policy, “Sounds of Silence.”
• Feb 14: LiveScience, “Experts: North Korea Years From a Bomb.”
• Feb 14: nuclear-news.net, “Cutting down on risk of nuclear weapons that are on alert.”
• Feb 13: Foreign Policy, “How does America’s nuclear arsenal stack up against North Korea’s?”
• Feb 12: TV-2 Nyhederne at 22:00 Hours (Denmark).
• Feb 12: New York Times, “A Secretive Country Gives Countries Few Clues to Judge Its Nuclear Program.”
• Feb 8: R. Jeffrey Smith, Center for Public Integrity, “Obama administration embraces major new nuclear weapons cuts.”
• Jan 26: PRESSTV (Iran), “Obama against chinese nuclear great wall.”
• Jan 25: Discovery News, “3 Reasons N. Korea Can’t Nuke the U.S. (Yet).”
• Jan 22: David Hoffman, Foreign Policy, “Is nuclear arms control dead?”
• Jan 18: Times of India (TNN), “Pakistan has world’s fastest growing nuclear stockpile.”
• Jan 17: Steven Pifer, “Nuclear Arms Control: Another New START,” in Big Bets and Black Swans: A Presidential Briefing Brook, Brookings Institution, January 17, 2013. The chaprter uses FAS estimates in Trimming Nuclear Excess for U.S. and Russian nuclear forces.
• Jan 13: actualidad.rt.com (Russia Today in Spanish), “Pánico nuclear: EE.UU. busca neutralizar el revelado arsenal atómico de China.”
• Jan 9: Financial Times, “The Price of Deterrence.” The interactive graphics (“The Trident decision: Options for replacing Trident“) uses FAS estimates for world nuclear forces from SIPRI Yearbook. Note: the estimates have since been updated here.
• Jan 6: Defense News, “New U.S. Law Seeks Answers on Chinese Nuke Tunnels.”

2012

• Dec 25: bloomberg.com (editorial), “Better Nuclear Bombs for a Safer World.” Refers to my B61-12 blog as an example of “well meaning but misguided” arms control advocates.
• Dec 20: Jeffrey Lewis, armcsontrolwonk.com, “Subcritical Experiments.”
• Dec 18: Global Security Newswire, “Russia, U.S. Slow Rate of Nuclear Drawdowns, Report Says.”
• Dec 18: Independent European Daily Express (UK), “Rate of U.S., Russian Nuclear Disarmament ‘slowing’.”
• Dec 17: Washington Post, “How many nukes does it take to be safe?”
• Dec 14: freebeacon.com, “Number the Nukes.”
• Dec 6: swissinfo.ch, “Swiss engange in UN disarmament effort.”
• Nov: Ramy Srour, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons: B61 Bombs and US-Russian Relations,” Instituto di Ricerche Internationazionali, Archivio Disarmo, November 2012.
• Nov 15: Global Secuity Newswire, “U.S. Should Seek Nuke Talks With China, Congressional Report Says.”
• Nov 14: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2012 Report to Congress.
• Nov 13: Popular Mechanics, “What China’s Nuclear Missile Subs Mean for the U.S.”
• Nov 13: Tom Z. Collina, Foreign Policy, “Red Balloon: Is China Inflating the China Threat.”
• Nov 7: Dunya Buletini (Turkey), “Almanya’da ABD nükleer bombaları korkutuyor! [U.S. nuclear bomb scares in Germany].”
• Nov 6: MDR (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk) FAKT (Germany), “US-Atombomben in Deutschland nicht brandsicher” [U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany not fireproof]. Direct link to television program.
• Oct: Frank Miller, “The Need for a Strong U.S. Deterrent in the 21st Century,” The Submarine Industrial Base Council, n.d. [2012].
• Oct 22: politifact.com, “Mitt Romney says Pakistan is on path to overtake the U.S. in nuclear weapons.”
• Oct 12: Steven Pifer and Michael O’Hanlon, The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms, Brookings Institution, October 12, 2012.
• Oct 14: Guardian (global security blog), “Cuba 50 years on – and the lessons for Iran.”
• Oct 12: New Scientists, “Threatwatch: Can we really spot covert nuclear tests?”
• Oct 12: scienceblog.com, “New Weapons Detail Reveals True Depth of Cuban Missile Crisis.”
• Oct 9: RIA Novosti, “NATO Members to Discuss Alliance’s Nuclear Policy.” Uses FAS estimate of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but doesn’t credit.
• Oct 4: DiscoveryNews, “What’s up with Israel’s Nuke Program.”
• October: Critical Nuclear Choices for the Next Administration, American Security Project, October 2012.
• Oct 3: Project on Government Secretary, “Inspector General Warns of Budget Overruns in Nuke Refurbishment.”
• Oct 3: Voice of America (Moscow), “США и Россия раскрыли ядерные карты.”
• Oct 2: Albuquerque Journal, “Report: Nuke Refurbishing Behind Scedule.”
• Sep 25: Global Security Newswire, “Five Nations Believed to Hold Nonstrategic Nuclear Bombs, Experts Say.”
• Sep 19: Discovery News, “What is mystery weapon from 1981?”
• Sep 16: Washingon Post, “The B61 bomb: A case study in costs and needs.”
• Sep 13: Inside the Pentagon, “State Department’s Draft Report on Nuclear-Arsenal Cuts Prompts Debate.” Requires subscription.
• Sep 13: Global Security Newswire, “Seeking Kremlin Engagement, NATO Weighs Next Nuclear Posture Steps.”
• Sep 12: Arms Control Now (Oliver Meier), “No german pledge on nuclear-capable aircraft modernization.”
• Sep 7: Global Security Newswire, “Chinese Communist Newspaper Urges Bolstering Nuclear Deterrent.”
• Sep 5: Foreign Policy (Tom Hundley), “Race to the End.” Uses FAS estimate for the number of Chinese nuclear warheads but doesn’t credit.
• Sep 5: Pakistan Tribune, “India far behind Pakistan, China in nuclear technology: experts.” The article refers to our 2012 Nuclear Notebook on India but the headline hypes what we say in the article.
• Sep 4: India Today, “India’s nuclear arsenal failed by ‘unreliable’ missiles.” The article refers to our 2012 Nuclear Notebook on India but the headline is misleading for what we actually say in the article.
• Sep 3: Daily Mail Online (India), “India’s nuclear arsenal failed by ‘dud’ missiles.” The article refers to our 2012 Nuclear Notebook on India but the headline is misleading for what we actually say in the article.
• Aug 31: armscontrolwonk.com (Michael Krepon), “Worth the Wait.”
• Aug 27: Foreign Policy (Stephen Walt), “Inflating the China Threat.” Uses FAS estimate for the number of Chinese nuclear warheads but doesn’t credit.
• Aug 23: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. General Discounts Projections of Massive Chinese Nuke Stockpile.”
• Aug 23: Washington Free Beacon, “Chinese missile tests continue.”
• Aug 22: Global Seurity Newswire, “Jury Out: Do Advanced Conventional Weapons Make Nuclear War More Likely?”
• Aug 19: Washington Post (editorial), “Exploding Costs.”
• Aug 8: IDN-InDepthNews, “Halting Pakistan-India Nuclear Arms Race.”
• Aug 6: Aviation Week & Space Technology, “Nuclear Bomb’s Cost Increases Draw Congressional Scrutiny.”
• Aug 3: Global Security Newswire, “Pentagon Official Blames U.S. Bomb Cost Hike on ‘Incomplete’ DOD Agency Estimate.”
• Aug 3: China Brief (Jamestown Foundation), “Waypoint or Destination? The Jin-Class Submarine and China’s Quest for Sea-Based Nuclear Deterrence.”
• Aug 1: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Senate Panel Curbs Navy Efforts to Add Missile to Attack Submarines.”
• Jul 24: Economic Times (India), “India currently has 80 to 100 nuclear warheads: US esperts.”
• Jul 11: huffingtonpost.com, “Los Alamos Underestimates Radiaiton Leak Risk.”
• Jun 18: Washington Post blog, “West cuts nuclear warheads as it negotiates with Iran.” Uses FAS estimates produced for SIPRI.
• Jun 14: Times of India, “PM takes stock of nuclear arsenal.” Uses FAS estimates produced for SIPRI.
• Jun 6: Deuche Welle, “SIPRI report shows fewer – but newer – nuclear weapons.’ Uses FAS estimates produced for SIPRI.
• Jun 6: William Hartung and Christine Anderson, Bombs Versus Budgets: Inside the Nuclear Weapons Lobby (Center for INtwernational Policy, June 2012).
• Jun 5: Press TV (India), “2200 nuclear weapons in state of high operational alert: Report.”
• Jun 5: The Telegraph, “India and Pakistan ‘escalate nuclear arms race’.” Uses data from 2012 SIPRI Yearbook.
• Jun 4: Der Spiegel, “`Atomwaffen werden weniger – und moderner” [Fewer nuclear weapons – and more modern].Uses worldwide overview of nuclear forces from latest SIPRI yearbook.
• May 23: SES Turkey, “Turkey Supports Nuclear Status Quo in NATO.”
• May 16: Der Spiegel, “US Nuclear Weapons Upgrades: Experts Report Massive Cost Increase.”
• May 12: armscontrolwonk.com, Extending Deterrence from the Triad.”
• May 11: Global Security Newswire, “B-61 Bomb Project Expense Projection Hits $6 Billion, Report Says,”
• May 11: Miles Pomper, et al., “Delaying Decisions: NATO’s Deterrence and Defense Posture Review,” NTI, May 11, 2012.
• May: Ted Seay, “Escalation by Default: The Future of NATO Nuclear Weapons in Europe,” European Leadership Network, May 2012.
• May 11: Global Security Newswire, “NATO Should Use Summit to Address U.S. Tactical Nukes in Europe, Experts Say.”
• May 10: Global Security Newswire, “Cost Worries Could Derail Plan for Next Bomber to be Unmanned, General Says.”
• May 10: Paul Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin, Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues, Congressional Reserarch Service, May 10, 2012.
• May 8: David Hoffman, “The little nukes that got away – again,” Foreign Policy.
• May 4: Haaretz (Israel), “Israel’s atomic arsenal could fall victim to a new U.S. nuclear policy.”
• May 4: defpro.daily, “Steps Needed to Break Stalemate on Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons.”
• May 4: Nato Watch, “Moving Beyond the NUclear tatus Quo in Europe.”
• Apr: S. Samuel C. Rajiv, Deterrence in the Shadow of Terror: US Nuclear Policy in the Aftermath of 9/11, Institute for Defence Studies & Analysis (India).
• Apr 27: Saarländische Zeitung (online), Germany, “Atomwaffenexpert zu Besuch in Berlin.”
• Apr 17: huffingtonpost.com, “ICBM Coalition Of Rural Senators Fights Nuclear Weapons Cuts.”
• Apr: George Perkovich, et al., Looking Beyond the Chicago Summit: Nuclear Weapons in Europe and the Future of NATO, Carnegie Endowment, April 2012.
• Mar 27: huffingtonpost.com, “Barack Obama’s Broken Nuclear Promises Undermine Success.”
• Mar 26: BBC News, “Which countries have nuclear weapons.”
• Mar 15: Jeffrey Lewis, armscontrolwonk.com, “Honest Johns in Korea.”
• Mar 15: huffingtonpost.com, “Meet the Bangor 5.”
• Feb: Toby Fenwick, Dropping the Bomb: a post Trident future, CentreForum, February 2012.
• Feb 27, Boston Globe, “Smart Nuclear Reduction,” The opinion piece appears to rely on my blog about republican disarmers but it confuses warhead catories and the warhead numbers are off.
• Feb 22: Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues,” February 22, 2012.
• Feb 22: Bradenton Herald (McClatchy-Tribune News Service), “Just how many nuclear weapons should be enough?”
• Feb 18: National Public Radio (AP), “Boldest Nuclear Cutters Recently? It’s Been GOP.” Also carried in Seattle Times and Pakistan’sDaily Times.
• Feb 17: James Traub, Foreign Policy, “Fumbling the Nuclear Football.”
• Feb 15: Mother Jones, “Nuclear Weapons on a Highway Near You.” Advised the magazine on locations on nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered naval vessels.
• Feb 14: Congressional Reseaech Service, Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, February 14, 2012.
• Feb 14: Associated Press, “AP NewsBreak: US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts.”
• Feb 6: Adam Weinstein, Mother Jones, “Obama’s Golden Nuclear Option.”
• Feb: Addressing Nonstrategic Nuclear Forces, Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative, Carnegie Endowment, February 2010.
• Jan 29: Pervez Hoodbhoy, The Tribune (Pakistan), “Pakistan’s rush for more bombs – why?”
• Jan 27: Global Security Newswire, “Pentagon Unveils New Plan for Conventional Submarine-Based Ballistic Missile.”
• Jan 25: Voice of America, “Обама: политика экономики” [Obama: The Politics of Economics].
• Jan 20: Arms Control Association panel, “Briefing on the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal: Issues and Policy Options.”
• Jan 19: Stephen Pifer, “Nuclear Arms Control in 2012,” Brookings Institution, January 2012.
• Jan 19: military.com, “New Strategy Could Presage Smaller US Nuclear Arsenal.”
• Jan 18: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Energy Department Plans to Waste Billions of Dollars on Unneeded Los Alamos Lab Facility, Project on Government Oversight, January 18, 2012.
• Jan 16: Indian Express, “Nukes only for strategic purpose: Army chief.”
• Jan 8: Seattle Times, “Plan for new Navy wharf at Bangor fires up nuke debate.”

2011

• Dec 20: Reuters, “Timeline on Iran bomb narrows, but barely.”
• Dec 19: Washington Post, “Pyongyang’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” The graphic, which accompanies this article, uses FAS estimates of worldwide nuclear weapons inventories.
• Dec 13: Vox Populi, “Professor’s study on China’s nuclear arsenal draws heated reaction.”
• Dec 2: AFP, “US experts skeptical over China nucler force report.”
• Nov 30: Washington Post, “Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons.”
• Nov 30: Vatan (Turkey), “‘Türk nükleer bombaları’ Ceylan taşıyacak.”
• Nov 28: Haberturk (Turkey), “Türkiye’deki nükleer silah sayısı azaldı” [Reduction of Nuclear Weapons in Turkey].

• Nov 23: Washington Post, “Medvedev threatens to target US missile shield in Europe if no deal is reached.”
• Nov 8: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Blueprint for New Nuclear Arms Cuts Expected by Year’s End.”
• Nov 4: Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programs, Arms Control Association. Uses FAS estimate on U.S. nuclear force levels without giving credit.
• Nov 4: Global Security Newswire, “China Seen Deploying New Nuke-Ready Ballistic Missiles.”
• Nov 4: Times of India, “Panic over China’s four new nuclear missiles.”
• Oct 30: Ian Kerns, Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States, Discussion Paper 1 of the BASIC Trident Commission, October 30, 2011.
• Oct 28: Proceso (Mexico), “Estados Unidos: Adiós a la bomba B53″ [United States: Good Bye to the B53 bomb].
• Oct 28: Global Security Newswire, “Some Nuclear Experts Question Ramp-up in U.S. Tritium Production.”
• Oct 27: Washington Post, “U.S. keeps major lead over Russia in nuclear weapons.”
• Oct 26: Voice of America, “US-Russian nuclear surprises.”
• Oct 26: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Release New START Nuke Data.”
• Oct 26: military.com (Associated Press), “Biggest US Nuclear Bomb Dismantled in Texas.”
• Oct 26: USA Today, “U.S.-made ‘monster’ nuclear warhead B53 dismantled.”
• Oct 25: National Public Radio, “Cold War Bomb to be Dismantled.”
• Oct 25: Ekstra Bladet (Denmark), “Splitter verdens kraftigste atombombe ad” [Taking apart the world’s largest nuclear bomb].
• Oct 25: ABC News, “US dismantles last of big Cold War nuclear bombs.”
• Oct 25: Fox News (Associated Press), “US’s most powerful nuclear bomb being dismantled.”
• Oct 25: AFP, “US dismantles last big Cold War nuclear bomb.”
• Oct 25: San Francisco Chronicle (Associated Press), “US’s most powerful nuclear bomb being dismantled.”
• Oct 25: Daily Mail (UK). “Dismantling the mega-nuke.”
• Oct: Fiona Cunningham and Rory Medcalf, The Dangers of Denial: Nuclear Weapons in China-India Relations, Lowy Institute, October 2011.
• Oct 24: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. to Finish Disassembling Massive Nukes.”
• Oct 24: wired.com (Danger Room), “Last Nuclear ‘Monster Weapon’ Gets Dismantled.”
• Oct 24: Wall Street Journal, “How many nukes does China have?”
• Oct 17: Global Security Newswire, “Experts Divided on Impact to U.S. of Russia, China Nuke Modernization.”
• Oct 11: Huffington Post, “Global Zero Nuclear Summit Aims to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons Worldwide.”
• 2011: Ola Dahlman, et al., Detect and Deter: Can Countries Verify the Nuclear Test Ban (New York: Springer, 2011).
• Oct 3: IDN-InDepthNews.info (India), “Nuke-Free World Optimism Fading Away.”
• Sep 20: Albuquerque Journal, “Upgrading a Nuke With No Test Drive.
• Sep 20: Global Security Newswire, “Experts Question Indications of U.S. Nuclear “Hedge” Force Cuts.
• Sep 20: International Business Times, “China Launches Anti-Missile Military Weapon Raises Queries from Pentagon.”
• Sep 16: Albuquerque Journal, “The more qwe change our stockpile, the less we know it.
• Sep 13: New Scientists, “Laser fusion trio team up to develop clean power.”
• Sep: James Acton and Michael Gerson, Beyond New START: Advancing U.S. National Security Through Arms Control with Russia, Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2011.
• Sep: Fissile Materials Working Group, interactive map. Uses estimates generated by FAS for world nuclear weapons arsenals and reproduced by the Ploughshares Fund and in the SIPRI Yearbook.
• Aug 23: Michael Krepon, armscontrolwonk.com, “Fail Safe.”
• Aug: Oliver Meier, Revising NATO’s Nuclear Posture: The Way Forward (ACA, BASIC, IFSH, August 2011).
• Aug 9: ABC Late NIght (Australia), interview on the occasion of Nagazaki Day.
• Aug 5: ABC One Plus One (Australia), interview on the occasion of Hiroshima Day.
• Aug 5: Lowy Institute (Australia), “5-minute Lowy Lunch: Obama’s nukes.”
• Aug 2: Dr. Phillip Karber, China’s Underground Great Wall: Challenge for Nuclear Arms Control, Asia Arms Control Project, Georgetown University, August 2, 2011.
• Jul 28: Asian Scientist, “Report by Atomic Scientists Underscore Rise of Pakistan’s Nuclear Program.”
• Jul 20: Global Security Newswire, “Experts: NATO Should Limit Role of Nukes, Remove U.S. Warheads.”
• Spring 2011: Pavel Podvig, Russia’s Nuclear Forces: Between Disarmament and Modernization, IFRI, July 2011.
• Jul 8: Global Security Newswire, “Mullen: Pakistani Nuclear Controls Should Avert Any Insider Threat.”
• Jul 7: DailyIndia.com (ANI), “‘Politically Unstable’ Pakistan has world’s fastest-growing nuclear stockpile: Experts.”
• Jul 1: Global Security Newswire, “Pakistan Seen as Having Fastest Expanding Nuke Stockpile.”
• Jul 1: Indian Express, “Pak has fastest growing n-arsenal: US study.”
• Jun: Joseph Cirincione, Strategic Turn: New U.S. and Russian Views on Nuclear Weapons, New America Foundation, June 2011.
• Jun 29: CNN (Situation Room), “Iran Testing Potential Nuclear Missile?”
• Jun 28: Andrew Cottey, Multilaterizing Nuclear Arms Control: An Agenda for the P5, BASIC, June 28, 2011.
• Jun 25: Scientific American, “Is Karazai’s Accusation that Coalition Forces are Polluting Afghanistan with Nuclear Material Accurate or an Over-Reaction?”
• Jun 20: Ariel Cohen, et al., “Reset Regret: Obama’s Cols War-Style Arms Control Undermines U.S.-Ruissian Relations,” Heritage Foundation. Uses but misrepresents our estimate from January 2010 of Russian nuclear forces by suggesting, which we don’t, that Russia has nuclear artillery shells and and nuclear land mines. Our 2011 estimate is available here.
• Jun: Bruce Blair and Matthew Brown, World Spending on Nuclear Weapons Surpasses $1 Trillion Per Decade, Nuclear Weapons Cost Study, Global Zero Technical Report, June 2011.
• Jun 16: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Nuke Overhaul Seen Adding New Abilities.”
• Jun 16: inosmi.ru (Bloomberg), ” Модернизация ядерных бомб может разозлить Россию [Modernization of nuclear bomb may irritate Russia].”
• Jun 15: Bloomberg, “Nuclear Bomb Overhaul May Counter Obama Pledge, Anger Russia.”
• June: Shaun Gregory, “Terrorist Tactics in Pakistan Threaten Nuclear Weapons Safety,” in CTC Sentinel, Vol. 4, Issue 6, pp. 4-7.
• Jun 8: The Australian, “South Asia nuclear weapons race hots up.”
• Jun 7: livemint.com (Wall Street Journal), “India, Pakistan continue to build nuclear weapons capacity: report.” Uses data from new SIPRI Yearbook.
• Jun 3: Voice of Russia, “START-3 Interim Report.”
• Summer 2011: Col David J. Baylor, USAF, “Considerations for a US Nuclear Force Structure below a 1,000-Warhead Limit,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, Summer 2011, Vol. 5, No. 2, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL.
• Jun 1: Global Security Newswire, “Pakistan Seen Readying to Cross Nuclear Threshold.”
• May 29: Times of India, “Short-range nukes show Pak targeting Indian forces: Expert.”
• May 27: Baker Spring and Ariel Cohen, Beware the Next  U.S.-Russian Arms Control Treaty, Heritage Foundation, May 27, 2011.
• May 24: India Today, “How safe is Pak nuclear arsenal?”
• May 21: The Sydney Morning Herald, “India may axpand nuclear program, says top adviser.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate of Indian nuclear stockpile but without credits.
• May 20: National Journal, “U.S. Nuclear Agency Releases Strategic Plan for Next Decade.”
• May 19: Global Security Newswire, “Former officials call for U.S., Russian nuclear transparency.”
• May 16: Gregory Kulacki, China’s Nuclear Arsenal: Status and Evolution, Union of Concerned Scientists, allthingsnuclear.org.
• May 15: Newsweek, “Pakistan’s Nucear Surge.”
• May 8, Times of India, “China least potent among N-powers, says Harvard study.” Uses but does not credit FAS/NRDC estimate of Chinese nuclear arsenal.
• May 5: Reuters, “Analysis: Count bin Laden have Reached Pakistan Nuclear Sites?”
• May 4: U.S. Strategic Nucler Forces: Background, Developments and Issues, Congressional Research Service, May 4, 2011.
• Apr: Steven Pifer, The United States, NATO’s Strategic Concept, and Nuclear Issues, ACA/BASIC/IFSH, April 2011.
• Apr: Mustafa Kibaroglu, Turkey, NATO & Nuclear Sharing: Prospects After NATO’s Lisbon Summit, ACA/BASIC/IFSH, April 2011.
• Apr 26: Time Magazine Battleland Blog, “NATO’s Nuclear Weapons: Here to Stay.”
• Apr 7: Gobal Security Newswire, U.S. Nuke Technology to Make British Trident Missile More Accurate.”  The article makes use of, but doesn’t credit, information first published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog.
• Apr 6: Guardian, “Trident more effective with US arming device, tests suggest.” The article makes use of, but doesn’t credit, information first published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog.
• Apr 2: Julian Borger’s Global Security Blog (The Guardian), “‘Destabilizing’ Trident warhead already being tested in US,”
• Mar: Alexei Arbatov, Gambit or Endgame? The New State of Arms Control, Carnegie Endowment, Moscow, March 2011.
• Mar: James Acton, Low Numbers: A Ptractical Path to Deep Nuclear Reductions, Carnegie Endowment, Washington, D.C., March 2011.
• Mar 31: Defence Professionals, “Report: What NATO Countries Think About Tactical Nukes.”
• Feb: Fredrik Lindvall, et al., The Baltic Approach: A Next Step? Prospects for an Arms Control Regime for Sub-strategic Nuclear Weapons in Europe, Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), February 2011.
• Feb 21: Andrei Zargorski, Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Posture, Politics and Arms Control, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, University of Hamburg, February 2011.
• Feb 19: Korea Joongang Daily, “U.S. has plan to hit WMD in north.” The article in several places misrepresents my 2009 reportObama and the Nuclear War Plan.
• Feb 10: Associated Press, “Expert: Pakistan building 4th plutonium reactor.”
• Feb 7: AFP, “Russia rebuffs U.S. call for quick arms talk.” Includes grap using FAS/NRDC estimates, but confuses “stockpiled” and “deployed” number of weapons.
• Feb 4: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Navy Rejected Key Command’s Specs for Next Nuclear-Armed Vessel.”
• Feb 2: Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, Congressional Research Service.
• Feb 1: The Times of India, “At 100, Pak ahead in N-arsenal.”
• Jan 31: Voice of America, “Report Says Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal Tops 100.”
• Jan 30: Washington Post, “Pakistan doubles its nuclear arsenal.”
• Jan 19: AFP, “Russian puts brakes on further nuclear cutbacks.”
• Jan 16: Global Security Newswire, “Tactical Nukes in Europe a ‘Tiny Fraction” of Cold War Arsenal, Report Says.”
• Jan 14: Global Security Newswire, “Top Diplomat Says Arms Control Revived After New START Passage.”
• Jan 12: Associated Press, “Gates gets tour of Chinese nuclear base.”
• Jan 6: Global Security Newswire, “China Reaffirms ‘No First Use’ Nuke Role.”

2010

• Dec 29: Global Fissile Material Report 2010: Balancing the Books, International Panel on Fissile Materials.
• Dec 25: Washington Post, “Military strength eludes China, which looks overseas for arms.”
• Dec 22, monstersandcritics.com (DPA), “Analysis: New START offers ‘modest’ nuclear reductions.”
• Dec 22: New York Times, “Senate Works on Treaty Amendments to Draw G.O.P. Votes.”
• Dec 22, Washington Post, “Senate poised to ratify new U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons treaty; vote would be major foreign-policy victory for Obama” (uses FAS/NRDC estimates in graph).
• Dec 22: Wall Street Journal, “Nuclear Arms Pact is Poised to Pass.”
• Dec 21: New York Times, “Arms Treaty With Russia Headed to Ratification.”
• Dec 21: Global Security Newswire, “Navy Said Likely to Back New Design for Ballistic Missile Submarine.”
• Dec 20: Miami Herald (McClatchy Newspapers), “McConnell slams START, but facts don’t back him up.”
• Dec 19: Senator John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on New START. Uses FAS/NRDC estimates of Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons.
• Dec 16: redorbit.com, “Federation of American Scientists Urges Nuclear Weapons Treaty Before New Year.”
• Dec 15: Senator Dianne Feinstein, “New START Treaty,” Congressional Record.
• Dec 9, Bob Alvarez, The Huffington Post, “Time for Nuclear Savings Bonds?”
• Dec 1: CNN, “WikiLeaks: Heated debate in Germany over nuclear weapons on its soil.”
• Dec: Michael Izbicki (ENS, USN), “What’s Wrong with America’s Nuclear Hawks?,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, Winter 2010, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 134-143.
• Nov 30: Voice of America (Russia), “Гонка вооружений: старая угроза на новый лад [The arms race: the old threat in a new way].”
•  Nov 27: Kitsap Sun, “Navy’s Trident Nuclear Warheads Hit the Highway, Bound for Texas.”

• Nov 26: Information (Denmark), “Obama må begrave sin vision om en atomvåbenfri verden” [Obama must bury his vision of a nuclear free world].
• Nov 24: Global Security Newswire, “NATO Sets Basis for Tactical Nuclear Cutbacks, But Path Remains Uncertain.”
• Nov 21: Julian Borger’s Global Security Blog, The Guardian, “NATO’s tactical nuclear weapons: the new doctrine.”
• Nov 20, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Los Angeles Times, “Indefensible.”
• Nov 19, New York Times, “Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Treaty Debate.”
• Nov 19: James Traub, Foreign Affairs, “The Bomb Squad.”
• Nov 11: The Economist, “Fewer dragons, more snakes.”
• Nov 11: A. H. Nayyar and Zia Mian, The Limited Military Utility of Pakistan’s Battlefield Use of Nuclear Weapons in Response to Large Scale Indian Conventional Attack, Pakistan Security Research Unit (PSRU), Brief NUmber 61, November 11, 2011.
• Nov 10: David Hoffman, Foreign Affairs, “The Nuclear Excess.”
• Nov: Micah Zenco, Toward Deeper Reductions in U.S. and Russian Nuclear Weapons (Council on Foreign Relations, November 2010).
• Nov: Jeffrey Lewis, Managing the Dangers from Pakistan’s Nuclear Stockpile (New America Foundation, November 2010).
• Oct 28: Russia Today, “Oops! US Air Force Looses 50 Nukes.”
• Oct 28: USA Today, “‘Glitch’ took US nuclear missiles offline.”
• Oct 14: The Guardian, “Germany demands Nato show greater commitment to nuclear disarmament.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe without credits.
• Oct 12: Global Security Newswire, “NATO Defense, Diplomatic Chiefs to Mull Strategy Document.”
• Oct 10: The Telegraph, “Pakistan’s nuclear arms push angers America.”
• Oct 7: Time Magazine, “NATO Ponders What to Do with Its Nuclear Weapons.”

• Sep 30: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity.”
• Sep 27: Global Security Newswire, “Proposed Ballistic-Missile Submarine Nears Pentagon Review.”
• Sep 27: Fred Kaplan, Time Magazine, “No More Nukes?”
• Sep 22: Global Security Newswire, “Senate Panel Again Cuts Funds for Conventional Trident Missile.”
• Sep 14: Global Security Newswire, “NNSA Chief Sees Opportunity, Challenge in Merging Two Warhead Updates.”
• Sep 1: Bruce Blair, et al., “Smaller and Safer: A New Plan for Nuclear Postures,” Foreign Affairs, Technical Appendix, September 1, 2010, p. 56.
• Aug 26: Steven Andreasen, Malcolm Chalmers and Isabelle Williams, “NATO and Nuclear Weapons: Is a New Consensus Possible?,” RUSI, August 24, 2010.
• Aug 26: Jacob Kipp, “Russian Drivers of Russia’s Nuclear Force Posture,” NPEC, August 26, 2010.
• Aug: Samuel Black, “The Changing Political Utility of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Threats from 1970 to 2010,” Stimson Center, August 2010.
• Aug 17: Global Security Newswire, “Nations Look Increasingly to U.S. Conventional Forces for Deterrence.”
• Aug 10: Global Security Newswire, “Future Navy Submarine to Stick With Nuclear Mission.”
• Aug 8: Times of India, “India lags behind Pakistan in nuclear armoury: US expert.”
• Aug 6: Moeed Yusuf and Ashley Pandya, The Quest for Nuclear Disarmament in South Asia: A Reality Check, United States Institute for Peace, August 6, 2010.
• Aug 2: Times of India (TNN), “Pak has as much fissile material as India: Report.”
• Jul 30: Time, “Britain Takes Another Look at Its Nuclear Subs.”
• Jul 16: Jane’s Defence Weekly, “US nuclear stewardship plan could herald stockpile reduction.”
• Jul 15: Washington Post, “Obama plan outlines reductions in U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
• Jul 15: Los Angeles Times, “U.S. plans to increase nuclear spending.”
• Jul 15: China Post (Taiwan), “Obama plans to cut up to 40 percent of nukes in U.S.”
• Jul 14, Baltimore Sun Blog, “Even as Obama plan reduces nuclear arsenal, overall spending increases.”
• Jul 14: CSIS poniblogger’s blog, “Obama Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan Details Stockpile Cuts, Infrastructure Investments.”
• Jul 13: Associated Press, “Obama plans to cut up to 40 percent of nukes.”
• Jul 13: Wired News, “Fewer Nukes, More Cash: Energy Dep’t Wants $175 Billion for Weapons Complex.”
• Jul 13: UPI, “DOE plan to cut nuke weapons by 40 percent.”
• Jul 13: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Details Planned Nuclear Stockpile Cut, Funding Priorities.’
• Jul 10: S D Pradhan, Times of India, “Growing Chinese Nuclear Power.”
• Jun 29: Discovery News, “Recycles Missiles Tapped to Launch Satellites.”
• Spring: Jing-dong Yuan, Chinese Perceptions of the Utility of Nuclear Weapons: Prospects and Potential Problems in Disarmament(French Institute for Interntional Relations (IFRI), Spring 2010).
• Jun: Mustafa Kibaroglu, “Reassessing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Turkey,” Arms Control Today, June 2010.
• Jun 13: Associated Press, “Air Force nuclear squadron in NM passes inspection.”
• Jun 3: The Times of India, “Pakistan’s nuke arsenal bigger than India’s.”
• Jun 3: Strategic Security Newswire, “Eight Nations Hold 7,540 Deployed Nukes, Report Finds.”
• May: Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament (New Jersey: Princeton University, International Panel on Fissile Materials, May 2010).
• May: Malcolm Chalmers, Nuclear Narratives: Reflections on Declaratory Policy (London: RUSI, 2010)
• May 18: Global Security Newswire (Albuquerque Journal), NNSA Seeks $40M for Nuke Refurbishment Study.”
• May 12: Reuters, “Russia says may lift veil on nuclear arsenal.”
• May 10: Guardian (Associated Press), “Outdated, unwanted, US nuke hang on in Europe.” The article extensively relies on FAS/NRDC estimates but without giving credit.
• May 5: Associated Press, “Private sleuths once pierced nuclear veil.”
• May 5: Global Security Newswire, “Russia Seen Under Pressure to Disclose Arsenal Details.”
• May 4: Science Magazine, “U.S. Reveals 5113 Nukes in Stockpile, Estimate by ‘Nuclear Geek’ Was Off by Only 87.”
• May 4: The Guardian (Jualian Borger’s Global Security Blog), “Coming clean on nuclear weapons.”
• May 4: Bloomberg Businessweek, “Iran Faces Pressure to Prove Peaceful Aims of Nuclear Program.”
• May 4: Los  Angeles Times, “U.S. discloses size of nuclear arsenal.”
• May 3: New York Times, “Europe Lacks Plan on Nuclear Arms.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but without giving credit.
• May 4: Washington Post (AP), “US says it has 5,113 nuclear warheads.”
• May: Tara McKelvey, Boston Review, “A New Start: Prospects for Obama’s ‘Global Zero’.”
• Apr 29: Periodismo Humano (Spain), “EEUU guarda en Europa 200 bombas atómicas.”
• Apr 28: David Hoffman, Foreign Policy, “Obama’s Atomic Choices.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. non-deployed nuclear weapons, but without giving credit.
• Apr 26: Lt. Col. Michael Byrne, CDR Douglas Edson and Lt. Col. Andrea Hlosek, American Diplomacy, “A Nuclear Weapons Free NATO.”
• Apr 25: Daily Kos, “No “Reset Button” for Tactical Nuclear Weapons.”
• Apr 23; Washington Post, “NATO seeks limits on plan for nuclear disarmament.”
• Apr 22: New York Times, “U.S. Resists Push by Allies for Tactical Nuclear Cuts.”
• Apr 22: Washington Post, “NATO ministers want disarmament, within limits.”
• Apr 22: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Urged to Remove Tactical Nukes in Europe.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but without giving credit.
• Apr 22, Assocated Press, “Clinton reaffirms US commitment to defend Europe.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but without giving credit.
• Apr 22: Washington Post, “NATO ministers to discuss U.S. nuclear arms.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but without giving credit.
• Apr: KLS Review (Malaysia), three interviews relating to China, April 2010. Requires subscription.
• Apr: Matthew Bunn, Securing the Bomb 2010, Project on Managing the Atom, April 2010.
• Apr 15: Dallas News, “Arms treaty to bring more work Pantex’s way.”
• Apr 15: Julien Mercille, Asia Times Online, “New treaty is a slow start.”
• Apr 14: Russia Today, “Keeping Pandora’s box shut.”
• Apr 13: Russia Today, “Nuclear summit addresses a post-Cold War world.”
• Apr 13: U.S. News & World Report, “A Change for U.S. Nuclear Strategy: Hans Kristensen on nuclear war planning and non-proliferation.”
• Apr 13: CNN Newsroom, 9 AM EST, Nuclear Summit coverage. Uses FAS map for estimated locations of nuclear weapons.
• Apr 13: Global Security Newswire, “Norway, Poland Urge Talks on Tactical Nukes in Europe.”
• Apr 13: Focus Online (Germany), “In Deutschland gelagerte US-Atombomben rücken in Blickpunkt.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe but apparently without giving credit.
• Apr 12: CNN The Situation Room, “President Obama Holds Nuke Summit.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimated for world nuclear weapons.
• Apr 12: Globe and Mail (Canada), “Q&A: Hans Kristensen, nuclear arms expert.”
• Apr 12: Discovery News, “Nuclear Summit 2010: It’s Kind of a Big Deal.”
• Apr 11: David Hoffman, Washington Post, “Despite new START, the U.S. and Russia still have too many nuclear weapons.”
• Apr 10: Yonhap News Agency (South Korea), “N. Korea has up to 6 nuclear weapons: Clinton.” For our actual weapons estimates, gohere.
• Apr 8: Jonathan Shell, CNN, “Nuclear balance of terror must end.”
• Apr 8: NATO Parliamentary Assembly, U.S.. Non-Strategic Nuclear  Weapons in Europe: A Fundamental NATO Debate, April 8, 2010.
• Apr 8: New York Times, “With Arms Pact, Disarmament Challenge Remains.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for warhead levels.
• Apr 8: Associated Press: “Nuclear treaty would cut only long-range arms.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for warhead levels.
• Apr 7: physicstoday.org, “Obama’s nuclear posture review.”
• Apr 7: Washington Post, “New nuclear arms policy shows limits U.S. faces.”
• Apr 7: Time, “Obama’s Nuclear Strategy: What’s Different?”
• Apr 6: Globe and Mail (Canada), “Obama’s new nuclear strategy maintains first-strike option.”
• Apr 1: Air Force Times, “New treaty could trim nuclear role of bombers.”
• Mar: Union of Concerned Scientists, “New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Factsheet.”
• Mar 30: New York Times, “Arms Control May Be Different Things on Paper and on the Ground.”
• Mar 30: Time Magazine, “U.S.-Russia Nuke Treaty: Small Step on a Long Road.”
• Mar 29: Global Security Newswire, “China Weighs Engaging With U.S. on Nuclear Posture.”
• Mar 27: Washington Post, “U.S., Russia agree to nuclear arms control treaty.”
• Mar 26: Politico (in frederiksburg.com), “Lab chiefs share nuke safety doubts.”
• Mar 26: Los Angeles Times, “Russian, US presidents to finalize arms treaty, set date for signin.”
• Mar 25: New York Times, “Treaty Advances Obama’s Nuclear Vision.”
• Mar 25: Associated Press, “Treaty to cut US-Russia nukes; signing in 2 weeks.”
• Mar 24: Russia Today (The Alyona Show), “A New START.”
• Mar 22: Asian Tribune, “Pakistan lobbying hard for n-deal akin to India-US pact.”
• Mar: Gregory Kulacki, Japan and America’s Nuclear Posture, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2010.
• Mar 22: Interfax (Russia), “”Если договор СНВ не будет подписан до мая, это станет плохим сигналом.” A not very good Google translation is here.
• Mar 20: ABC News, “What’s the Point of Nuclear Weapons on Instant Alert?”
• Mar 18: Breitbart (Kyodo News), “U.S. Air Force includes frozen nuke project in draft FY2011 budget+.”
• Mar: Malcolm Calmers and Simon Lunn, NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma, Royal United Services Institute, March 2010.
• Mar 15: Der Spiegel Online, “Washington Mulls Modernization of Aging Bombs.”
• Mar 14: armscontrolwonk.com, “NATO’s Nuclear Opacity.”
• Mar 14: Associated Press, “US cautious on removing nuclear arms from Europe.”
• Mar 12: Mark Stokes, China’s Nuclear Warhead Stoage and Handling System, Project 2049 Institute, March 12, 2010.
• Mar 11: National Public Radio, All Things Considered, “Japan Confirms Secret Nuclear Pacts With U.S.”
• Mar 11: Global Security Newswire, “China Seen Building Long-Range Missiles for Conventional Strikes.”
• Mar 11: Space War (AFP), “Top campaigner scoffs at Euro noises on US nukes.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe and size of global arsenal, but without giving credit.
• Mar 9: Global Security Newswire, “Pentagon Eyes More Than $800 Million for New Nuclear Cruise Missile.”
• Mar 6: Washington Post, “Obama must decide degree to which U.S. swears off nuclear weapons.”
• Mar 4: mil.huanqiu.com, “谷歌地球曝光094核潜发射筒打开状态图.”
• Mar 3: Sydney Morning Herald (AFP), “US nuclear arms treaty stalls over Russian demands.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for U.S. nuclear forces, but without giving credit.
• Mar 3: Stars and Stripes, “NATO allies want U.S. nuclear weapons out of Europe.”
• Mar 3: Globe and Mail, “Nuclear cuts, yes, but still plenty of U.S. bombs.”
• Mar: Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Association, “Elimate NATO’s Nuclear Relics,” Arms Control Today, March 2010″ Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, but without giving credit.
• Mar 2: Space War (AFP), “Five NATO nations call for nuclear rethink.” Uses earlier FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, but without giving credit.
• Mar 2: Russia Today, “US reducing nukes, arsenal to remain strong.”
• Mar 2: Johan Bergenäs, World Politics Review, “Bombs Away: Removing Tactical Nukes from Europe.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for US nuclear weapons in Europe but without giving credit.
• Mar 1: Global Security Newswire, “Obama Team Might Speed Up Disassembly of Older Nuclear Warheads.”
• Mar 1: AFP, “Obama plans ‘dramatic reductions’ in US nuclear weapons.”
• Mar 1: Julian Borger’s Global Security Blog, The Guardian Online, “Living up to nuclear expectations.’
• Mar 1: Adam B. Lowther, Air Force Research Institute, “Should the United States Maintain the Nuclear Triad?,” Air & Space Power Journal, March 1, 2010.
• Feb: Christopher A. Preble, From Triad to Dyad, Nuclear Proliferation Update, Cato Institute, February 2010. Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. nuclear warheads but without giving credit.
• Feb: NATO’s Nuclear Deterrent and its Relevance in the 21st Century, NATO Defence College, Senior Course 115, February 2010.
• Feb 28: The Guardian/Observer, “Barack Obama orders new nuclear review amid growing feud.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for US nuclear weapons in Europe without giving credits.
• Feb 27: FUTUR QUANTIQUE (France), “Des missiles de croisière nucléaires destinés à qui?”
• Feb 25: Der Spiegel Online, “German Foreign Minister Pushes for NATO Nuclear Drawdown.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe without giving credits.
• Feb 25: The Cable (Foreign Policy), “Nuclear Posture Review delayed until mid to late March.”
• Feb 25: Pavel Podvig, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “What to do about tactical nuclear weapons.”
• Feb 22: The Guardian, “Five Nato states to urge removal of US nuclear arms in Europe.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for nuclear weapons in Europe, but without credits.
• Feb 22, Global Security Newswire, “Nuclear Agency Officials Defend Rate of Warhead Dismantlement.”
• Feb 22: Greg Thielmann, Arms Control Association, “New START Verification: Fitting the Means to the Ends.”
• Feb 20: AFP, “Allied bid for Obama to remove US European nuclear stockpil.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for nuclear weapons in Europe but doesn’t credit.
• Feb 17: Global Security Newswire, “Peace Activists Trespass at Belgian Base Housing U.S. Nukes.”
• Feb 16: Der Spiegel, “Ex-NATO Head Robertson Skeptical of Removing Nukes from Germany.” The article as well as Mr. Robertson uses FAS/NRDC estimates for the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe and for Russian non-strategic weapons.
• Feb 15: James Carroll, The Boston Globe, “Nuclear sites vulnerable to break-ins.”
• Feb 11: Los Angeles Times (AP), “Official: Problems at Air Force nuclear weapons site in New Mexico were administrative.”
• Feb 10: Washington Post (AP), “Air Force decertifies nuclear warheads unit in NM.”
• Feb 10: Los Angeles Times (AP), “Squadron that handles nuclear warheads at New Mexico base is decertified by Air Force.”
• Feb 10, David J. Baylor, Lt Col, USAF, Considerations for U.S. Nuclear Force Structure Below a 1,000 Warhead Limit (Alabama: Air War College, Air University, February 10, 2010).
• Feb 9: Inside Defense, “Defense Officials Defer To NATO On Fate of U.S. Nuclear Arms in Europe.” Requires subscription.
• Feb 8: Franklin Miller, et al., Germany Opens Pandora’s Box, Centre for European Reform, February 8, 2009.
• Feb 8: Inside the Air Force, “Kirtland AFB unit loses nuclear mission.
• Feb 4: AOL News, “Belgian Activists Breach Security Around US Nukes.”
• Feb 4, RTBF (Belgium), “Des pacifistes filment leur incursion à Kleine Brogel.”
• Feb 4: De Morgen (Belgium), “Bomspotters op Kleine-Brogel filmden inval.”
• Feb 3: Washington Post, “Obama budget seeks 13.4 percent increase for National Nuclear Security Administration.”
• Feb 2: Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski, New York Times/International Herald Tribune, “Next, the Tactical Nukes.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for non-strategic nuclear weapons.
• Jan: Simon Saradzhyan, Russia’s Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons in Their Current Configuration and Posture: A Strategic Asset or Liability? (Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, December 2010).
• Jan 25: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Should Embrace Using Nukes for Nuclear Threat Only, Experts Say.”
• Jan 19: Global Security Newswire, “Nuclear Bomb Update Effort Slowed by Posture Review, Science Studies.”
• Jan 18: Air Force Times, “Report backs end of bombers’ nuclear role.”
• Jan 13: Taiwan News, “China says missile defense system test successful.”
• Jan 12: The Telegraph, “China tests new technology to shoot down missiles in mid-air.”
• Jan 12: The Guardian, “China ‘successfully tests missile interceptor.
• Jan 12: Time (AP), “China: Missile Defense System Test Successful.”
• Jan 7: Global Security Newswire, “U.S., British Might Share Firing Device to Update Nuclear Arms.”
• Jan 7: Time Magazine, “Obama’s Nuclear Arms Pledge Hits Stumbling Block.”
• Jan 4: Los Angeles. “Obama’s nuclear-free vision mired in debate.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for US nuclear arsenal and deployment in Europe without credits.

2009

• Fall: Dennis Gormley, MIIS, The Path to Deep Nuclear Reductions. Dealing with American Conventional Superiority, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, fall 2009.
• Dec: Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers, International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. Widely uses FAS/NRDC estimates for strategic and non-strategic warhead numbers.
• Dec 27: Chicago Tribune, “Obama’s Nuke-Free Vision Drawing Fire.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for US nuclear arsenal without credits.
• Dec 22: Greg Thielmann with Luke Champlia, Arms Control Association, “Dealing With Long-Range Missile Threats: It’s All About Russia.”
• Dec 18: Russian Today, “Nuclear limbo? No new START.”
• Dec: Dana J. Johnson, et al., Triad, Dyad, Monad? Shaping the U.S. Nuclear Force for the Future, Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies.
• Dec 11: arstechnica.com, “Google opens satellite images, tools, to study deforestation.”
• Dec 7: Yonhap News Agency (South Korea), “N. Korea not yet developed nuke delivery system: expert.”
• Dec 2: Time.com, “What to Do About Europe’s Secret Nukes.”
• Dec: James Acton, “Extended Deterrence and Communicating Resolve,” in Strategic Insights, Volume VIII, Issue 5, Naval Postgraduate School, December 2009.
• Nov 30: Defense News, “China’s Subs Getting Quieter: But Still Louder Than Older Russian Submarines.”
• Nov 30: Global Security Newswire, “South Korean President Proposes Nuclear Summit With Kim Jong Il.”
• Nov 27: The Malaysian Insider, “The ‘secret’ US-Japan pact with loaded content.”
• Nov 23: Bob Van Der Zwaan and Tom Sauer, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Time to reconsider U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.”Uses FAS/NRDC estimates for US nuclear weapons in Europe without credit, and misrepresents data.
• Nov 23: Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The status of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey.”
• Nov 17: The Faster Insider, “How Nukes Are Like Toys Still in Their Box on ‘Antiques Roadshow’.”
• Nov 24, armscontrolwonk.com, “China’s Noisy New Boomer.”
• Nov 23: Reuters, “U.S., Russia study ways to extend START verification.”
• Nov 23: Kyodo News (Japan), “Japan lobbied for robust nuclear umbrella before power shift.”
• Nov 22: Daily Kos, “Playing Chess With Russia: An Update on the New START Agreement.”
• Nov 17: RTT News (India), “Pakistan Possesses More Nuclear Weapons Than India: Report.”
• Nov 16: Army Times, “237 nuke handling deficiencies cited since 2001.”
• Nov 16: Global Security Newswire, “Russia, U.S. Expect New Nuke Treaty in December.”
• Nov 14: Russia Today, “‘Deep nuke cuts impossible unless other nuclear states join US and Russia’.”
• Nov 13: Washington Post, “A nuclear power’s act of proliferation.”
• Nov 10: Russia Today, “‘Russian and US both have huge interest in signaling the Cold War is over’.”
• Nov 7: Asahi Shimbun, “Japan in call to U.S. to retain nukes.”
• Nov 6: The Guardian, “Germans press for removal of US nuclear weapons in Europe.” The article cites FAS research on the U.S. nuclear deployment in Europe, but without credits.
• Nov 4: Global Security Newswire, “Multilateral Input Needed on German Plan for U.S. Nukes, NATO Head Says.”
• Nov: Masa Takubo, Arms Control Today, “The Role of Nuclear Weapons: Japan, the U.S., and ‘Sole Purpose’”
• Fall: Michael Krepon, The French Institute of International Relations, “Numerology in the Second Nuclear Age.”
• Oct 29: International Panel on Fissile Materials, “Global Fissile Material Report 2009.” FAS and NRDC produced the worldwide list of nuclear weapons storage locations. An inventory narrative from the report is here.
• Oct 28: Russia Today, “US will welcome request to withdraw nukes from Germany.”
• Oct 28: New York Times, “Ridding Germany of U.S. Nuclear Weapon.” The article unfurtunately lists the number of nuclear bombs in Europe as 480 bombs (the number in 2001), instead of the current number of approximately 200.
• Oct 25: Deutche Welle, “Experts support Westerwelle’s quest to rid Germany of US nuclear arms.”
• Oct 23: Associated Press, “Pakistan: Bomber kills 7 near military complex.”
• Oct 22: defence.professionals (Germany), “New German administration likely to ask US to remove remaining nuclear weapons from Germany.”
• Oct 20, Global Security Newswire, “Russia, U.S. Urged to Address Nuclear Alert Postures.”
• Oct 20: Washington Post, “Lowering the alert levels in U.S. and Russia.”
• Oct 17: German Times, “Forgotten Bombs.”
• Oct 13: Huffington Post (Joe Cirincione), “Will Japan Go Nuclear?”
• Oct 12: India Daily, “Will Israel and India allow unsecured Pakistani nukes in the wake of audacious weekend assault by Islamic militants on Pakistan’s army headquarters?”
• Oct 12: Associated Press, “Security of Pakistan nuclear weapons questioned.”
• Oct 7: Mitsuo Takai, UPI Asia, “U.S.-China nuclear strikes would spell doomsday.”
• Oct 1: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Sea-Based Missiles Seen as “Core” Nukes, Maybe at ICBM Expense.”
• Oct: Catherine M. Kelleher and Scott L. Warren, Arms Control Today, “Getting to Zero Starts Here: Tactical Nuclear Weapons.”
• Sep 25: China Daily, “Nuke-free world urged.”
• Sep 22: Live Science, “Why It’s So Hard to Make Nuclear Weapons.”
• Sep 21: Associated Press (Beijing), “China says military arsenal comparable with West.”
• Sep 14: Outlook India, “‘Not A Fizzle, But Certainly Not What India Claims’.”
• Sep 11: Yonhap News (South Korea), “N. Korea appears to have 10 nuclear warheads: report.” The article headline misrepresents ourestimate.
• Sep 9: The Canberra Times, “Folly in India’s nuclear ways.”
• Sep 8: New York Times, “Pentagon Checks Arsenal in Race for Nuclear Treaty.”
• Sep 8: Global Security Newswire, “Pakistan Seeks Additional Nuclear-Weapon Capabilities, Analysts Assert.”
• Sep 6: Times of India, “May have to revisit nuclear no-first use policy: Army chief.”
• Sep 4: UPI, “Pakistan denies nuclear arsenal claim.”
• Sep 3: The Telegraph (UK), “Pakistan ‘developing’ advanced nuclear technology.”
• Sep 2: DNAIndia (PTI), “Army chief says Pakistan going ‘beyond nuclear deterrence’.”
• Sep 2: TimesNow.tv (India), “Army chief slams Pak for ‘secret nuclear expansion’.” Video of Indian Army chief statement here.
• Sep 2: Economic Times (India), “‘Pak busy increasing nuke stockpile’.”
• Sep 2: TimesNow.tv (India), “Debate: How should we respond to Pak’s nuclearisation?” (includes lengthy TV debate).
• Sep 1: India Today, “Pak nuclear storage site on satellite map.”
• Sep 1: Deccan Herald (Indian), “‘Pak enhancing its nuclear weapons capabilities’.”
• Sep 1: Times of India, “Pak’s ‘India specific’ nuke arsenal exposed.”
• Sep 1: IBN (India), “Pak increasing nuclear weapons: US scientist.”
• Sep: Sekai Magazine (Japan), “被爆国日本は核軍縮の足かせとなるのか.”
• Sep: Paul Schulte, “Alliance Requirements for Deterrence: Capabilities and Options for the Next Decade,” Strategic Insights, Volume VIII, Issue 4, Monterey Postgratuate School, September 2009.
• Aug 27: Global Security Newswire. “Pentagon Vetting Could Delay Warhead Modernization Plan.”
• Aug 26: C-SPAN, “U.S. Nuclear Policy.” [Note: The start of the video overlaps with another program. The FAS meeting starts about 2.5 minutes into the video.]
• Aug 21: Slate, “Will the Pentagon Thwart Obama’s Dream of Zero?”
• Aug 21: Nezavisimaya Gazeta (ng.ru), “For the collapse of Russia, and after…” The article makes extensive use of information on this FAS Strategic Security Blog but without giving credit.
• Aug 18: Global Security Newswire, “Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads.”
• Aug 5: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Could Pull Back Europe-Based Nukes, State Department Official Says.”
• Aug 3: bgfactor.org (Russia), “От 1945 г. САЩ са произвели 66 500 атомни бомби и ядрени бойни глави” [Since 1945 the United States Built 66,500 Nuclear Weapons].
• Aug: Svend Aage Christensen, “The Marshal’s Baton: There is no bomb, there was no bomb, they were not looking for a bomb,” Danish Institute for International Studies, August 2009.
• Aug: Physics Today, “Obama and Medvedev set new limits on nuclear arsenals; further cuts likely.”
• Jul 29: De Morgen (Belgium), “Tactische kernwapens hebben geen nut meer in Europa.”
• Jul 28: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Defense Official Skeptical of Revising Nuclear Deterrence Strategy.”
• Jul: Dennis Gormley, et al., “Four Emerging Issues in Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation: Opportunities for German Leadership,” Monterey Institute. Study prepared for the Policy Planning Staff Foreign Office, Federal Republic of Germany.
• Jul 10: xinjunshi.com (China), “中印对峙:中国大量最新杀手锏被逼提前服役!” [Google translation: Confrontation between China and India: China’s trump card forced a large number of up-to-date service in advance!].
• Jul 9: San Francisco Chronicle (op-ed by Senator Feinstein), “Russian nuclear agreement a good start.”
• Jul 9: Asia Times Online, “Mixed signals over Chinese missiles.”
• Jul 9: CIGI (Canada), “Thank goodness the nuclear accountants are back.”
• Jul 8: Nukes of Hazards Blog, “Keith Payne vs. Keith Payne.”
• Jul 8: Politics Daily, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons, the Menace No One Is Talking About.”
• Jul 8: The Sun Daily (Malaysia), “‘Joe One’ sparks nuclear arms race.”
• Jul 8: USA Today, “U.S., Russia settle on nuclear arsenal cuts.”
• Jul 7: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Arms Control Proponents Laud Obama-Medvedev Pact as ‘Progress’.”
• Jul, NHK (Japan), “No More Hibakusha.” Uses estimates for nuclear weapons.
• Jun-Jul: Scott Sagan, “The Case for No First Use,” Survival, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 163-182.
• Jun 30: Global Security Newswire, “‘Global Zero’ Backers Propose U.S.-Russian Nuclear Cuts to 1,000 by 2018.”
• Jun 29, segye.com (South Korea), columnish, “Urgent Need for Action.” The columnist says FAS estimates Israel has 100-200 nuclear weapons of which about 10 percent ar thermonuclar. The actual estimate is around 80 warheads.
• Jun 24: New Scientists, “Bombers vs verifiers: A nuclear race worth winning.”
• Jun 16: Associated Press, “China acknowledges incident between sub, US ship.”
• Jun 12: Jamestown Foundation, Andrew S. Erickson, Michael S. Chase, “China’s SSBN Forces: Transitioning to the Next Generation.”
• Jun 11: Reuters, “North Korea, Iran joined on missile work: U.S. general.”
• Jun 10: Global Security Newswire, “Talk of U.S. Plans to Secure Pakistani Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Wildly Hypothetical’.” Refers to our warhead estimate for Pakistan.
• Jun 10: Global Security Newswire, “Iran Could Put U.S. in Missile Range by 2015, Air Force Report Warns.”
• June: U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, “An Undersea Deterrent?”
• Spring: Disarmament Policy (Acronym Institute), “From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons.”
• May 30: National Journal Magazine, “Road To Zero Nukes Remains Fraught.”
• May 28: The Australian, “Beijing’s missile stockpile growing.” The article uses our warhead estimates, while describing a new Jane’s report that appears to recycle old news about China’s nuclear modernization.
• May 26: Rolling Stone, “Another North Korean Dud?”
• May 26: New York Times, “North Korean Nuclear Claim Draws Global Criticism.”
• May 26: New York Times, “Seismic Readings From North Korea Blast Appear to Point to a Small Nuclear Test.”
• May 25: ABC News, “U.S. reacts to N.K. nuclear tests.” You’ll have to wait for the commercial to end.
• May 25: wirednews.com, “North Korea’s Nuke: How Big?”
• North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test, UN Council to Meet Today.”
• May 24, Taipei Times, “China calls on US, Russia to cut their nuclear arsenals.”
• May 15: Congressional Research Service, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues.”
• May 15, Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Holds Blueprint for Securing Pakistani Nukes, Sources Say.” Uses our estimate for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but doesn’t credit.
• May 15: Trend News (Azerbaijan), “Inaccuracy in counting nuclear warheads can complicate U.S.-Russia negotiations: expert.”
• May 13: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Needs 15 Years to Dismantle Retired Warheads; Backlog Could Increase Under Obama.”Refers to FAS/NRDC dismantling estimate described in USA Today article but cuts out FAS.
• U.S. warhead disposal in 15-year backlog.”
• May 7: Toronto Star, “Pakistan calls fears over nuclear security overblown.”
• May 6: William Perrry, et al., American’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, May 6, 2009. The report uses our estimates in its list of estimated world nuclear warhead arsenals (p. 111).
• May 6: Global Security Newswire, “U.S., Russia Could Discuss Nonstrategic Nuke Cutbacks After START Talks.”
• May 5: Paul Bernstein (SAIC), “The Evolution of United States Nuclear Strategy and War Planning1945-2000 – A Primer,” unpublished briefing to MORS (Military Operations Research Society) Nuclear Online Workshop.
• May 1: National Security Archive, “‘How Much is Enough?’: The U.S. Navy and ‘Finite Deterrence’.”
• May: Steven Pifer, “Beyond START: Negotiating the Next Step in U.S. and Russian Strategic Nuclear Arms Reductions,” Brookings Institution.
• Apr: William Perry, et al., U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2009.
• Apr 28: Associated Press (on yahoo news), “Russia: START replacement talks set for May.” Uses estimates for U.S. and Russia deployed strategic nuclear forces, but without credit.
• Apr 27: Global Security Newswire, “New U.S. Global Strike Command to Juggle Nuclear, Conventional Missions.”
• Apr 18: Wall Street Journal, “China, Friend or Foe?”
• Apr 17: Pravda, “Russia’s nuclear attack on U.S. may start with major banks.”
• Apr 17: RIA Novosti, “12 Russian targets for U.S. nuclear missiles.”
• Apr 16: bigness.ru, “Ядерный удар по США должен начаться с банков.”
• Apr 16: RIA Novosti (comment), “Pentagon’s new concept: what will Russia respond with?”
• Apr 16: RIA Novosti, “Senior Russian senator hits out at U.S. nuclear deterrence report.”
• Apr 15: Russia Today, “An alternative nuclear posture?” FAS’s Hans Kristensen interview about FAS/NRDC study on a new nuclear policy toward elimination of nuclear weapons.
• Apr 15: Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman, Russian Duma International Affairs Committee (on Russia Today). Kosachev and journalist misrepresent FAS/NRDC study by suggesting it recommends retargeting US nuclear forces against Russian industry.
• Apr 15: Aleksandr Pikaev (on Russia Today), ““Russia needs its intellectual response to US scientists’ nuclear report’.” Interview is onyoutube.com.
• Apr 15: Russia Today, “Nuclear deterrent needs reform – US think tank.”
• Apr 15: Kommersant (Russia), “U.S. scientists pinpoint new nuclear targets for President Obama.”
• Apr 15: Pravda, “U.S. retargets nuclear missiles to 12 Russian economic facilities.” This news report is highly misleading by misrepresenting what the study says.
• Apr 15: RIA Novosti, “U.S. experts propose minimal deterrence nuclear targeting policy.”
• Apr 14: Washington Post, “Report Urges Updating of Nuclear Weapons Policy.”
• Apr 10: Global Security Newswire,”Nuclear Analysts Propose ‘Minimal Deterrence’ Force Numbering 500 Warheads.”
• Apr 10: IRNA (Iran), “German FM urges removal of US atomic weapons from Germany.”
• Apr 10: RTBF (Belgium), “Steinmeier pour un retrait des armes nucléaires américaines d’Allemagne.”
• Apr 9: Global Security Newswire, “Nuclear Arsenal Reductions Face Serious Obstacles, Experts Say.”
• Apr 9: Time Magazine, “Reducing Nuclear Weapons: How Much Is Possible?”
• Apr 8: Science Daily, “Nuclear Policy On The Path Toward Nuclear Disarmament: New Report.”
• Apr 8: rightsidenews.com, “New Report Recommends Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Nuclear Disarmament.”
• Apr 6: CNN Situation Room, “Ridding the World of Nuclear Weapons.”
• Apr 6: Der Spiegel, “Abrüstungsplan entfacht Debatte um US-Atomwaffen in Deutschland.” Uses FAS/NRDC estimate for U.S. weapons in Europe, but credits secondary source. 
• Apr 4: Secret Défense (Liberation, France), “Otan: le retour de la défense collective.” Uses estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe in speculating that President Obama’s Prague speech would announce (which it didn’t) the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.
• Apr 1: Chuck Hagel, et al., Op-Ed, Financial Times, “Scrapping Nuclear Arms is Now Realpolitik.” Uses estimate for total nuclear weapons.
• Apr: Stimson Center, Unlocking the Road to Zero: China and India.
• Apr: Jeffrey A. Larsen, “Arms Control in the Obama Administration,” in Strategic Insights, Volume VIII, Issue 2, Naval Postgraduate School, April 2009.
• Mar 30: World Council of Churches, Appeal to NATO. Letter includes estimate for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.
• Mar 28: Associated Press (Moscow), “Hitting reset: US, Russia face tough nuclear talks.”
• Mar 24: New York Times (editorial), “Watershed Moment on Nuclear Arms.” Uses estimate for nuclear weapons in Europe, but without credits.
• Mar 23: International Herald Tribune, “France will compensate victims of nuclear tests.” Uses older estimate as “last year’s” estimate of French nuclear forces; the updated estimate is here.
• Mar 23: New York Times, “France Agrees to Pay Nuclear Test Victim.” Uses older estimate as “last year’s” estimate of French nuclear forces; the updated estimate is here.
• Mar 22: chinanews.com.cn, “美核潜艇巡航频繁 “8010核战计划”指向中俄(图).” Google translation here. Refers to AP story on March 16, 2009, about FAS blog on U.S. ballistic missile submarine patrols.
• Mar 20: Global Security Newswire, “Quickly Interpreting North Korea Launch Could Prove Difficult, U.S. General Says.”
• Mar 16: Russia Today, “For the U.S. Submarine Fleet, It’s Still a Cold War.”
• Mar 16: Tapped (The American Prospect), “It’s 3 AM; Do You Know Where Your Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine Is?”
• Mar 16: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Missile Submarines Sustain Active Schedule.”
• Mar 16: Defense Professionals (def.pro.com), “U.S. Strategic Submarine Patrols Continue at Near Cold War Tempo.”
• Mar 16: Manila Standard Today (Philippines), “US, China send warships to Spratlys.”
• Mar 12: International Herald Tribune, “U.S. vessel’s standoff with Chinese sub ‘dangerous,’ analyst says.”
• Mar 12: Associated Press, “China’s top diplomat visiting Obama at White House.”
• Mar 12: The Virginian-Pilot, “Destroyer escorting ship involved in US-China incident.”
• Mar 12: Associate Press (Beijing), “China demands end of US Navy surveillance.”
• Mar 12: Taipei Times, “Taiwan ‘driving Chinese military goals’.”
• Mar 11: MarineBuzz.com, “China Warns U.S.Navy Ocean Surveillance Ship to Stay Away from Hainan Island.”
• Mar 11: Irish Times, “China accuses US navy ship of breaking maritime laws.”
• Mar 11: USA Today, “China demands end of US Navy surveillance.”
• Mar 11: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Subwatching Ship Claims Chinese Harassment.”
• Mar 10: USA Today, “Bad parallels seen in Chinese naval clash.”
• Mar 10: Der Spiegel Online, “China testet Obamas Entschlossenheit.”
• Mar 10: Los Angels Times, “China says U.S. provoked naval confrontation.”
• Mar 3: The Numbers Guy (Wall Street Journal Blog), “The Crash Calculations.”
• Mar 3: IEEE Spectrum, “What About The Nukes?”
• Feb: Carnegie Endowment, “World Nuclear Arsenals 2009.”
• Feb 27: Global Security Newswire, “Top U.S. General Spurns Obama Pledge to Reduce Nuclear Alert Posture.”
• Feb 24: Dominion Post editorial (New Zealand), “Editorial: Cut the bluster in nuclear talk.”
• Feb 22: StrategyPage.com, “The Russian Navy Crawls Out Of The Cellar.” Uses data from blog on Russian submarine patrols without (as usual) referencing the source.
• Feb 20, Time, “The nuclear risk: How long will our luck hold.”
• Feb 19: Time, “Why we should still fear a nuclear war.”
• Feb 18: Global Security Newswire, “Russia Restores Nuclear-Armed Submarine Patrols.”
• Feb 18: STRATFOR, “Geopolitical Diary: A Sign of Russia’s Renewed Confidence.”
• Feb 16: Time, “Did France’s Secrecy Cause a Nuclear Submarine Collision?”
• Feb 13: Washington Post, “U.S. Ahead of Moscow Treaty in Reducing its Nuclear Arsenal.”
• Feb 13: barentsobserver.com, “Only seven nuclear submarine patrols in 2008.”
• Feb 11: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Meets Moscow Treaty Nuclear Reduction Commitment Three Years Early.”
• Feb 11: Air Force Times, “Schwartz, Donley to talk nukes with lawmakers.”
• Feb 7: Indian Express, “China’s submarine patrols raise eyebrows in India.”
• Feb 6: China Journal (Wall Street Journal blog), “From the Depths: China Invests in Submarines.”
• Feb 5: Macau Daily Times, “China increases submarine patrols, says US report.”
• Feb 4: DOD Buzz, “China Doubles Sub Patrols; Threat Increase?”
• Feb 4: STRATFOR, “China: More Submarine Activity.”
• Feb 4: inquerer.net (Philippines), “China increases submarine patrols.”
• Feb 4:The Straits Times (Singapore, “China ops submarine patrols.”
• Feb 4: Jongo News (Shanghai/Hong Kong), “China increases submarine patrols – report.”
• Feb 4: Asia One News, “China ops submarine patrols.”
• Feb 4: Asia Times, “Beijing wants it both ways in space.”
• Feb 3: spacewar.com, “China increases submarine patrols – report.”
• Feb 3: Yahoo News, “China increases submarine patrols – report.”
• Feb 3: France 24, “China increases submarine patrols – report.”
• Feb 3: AFP, “China increases submarine patrols – report.”
• Feb 3: UPI, “China conducting far more sub patrols.”
• Feb 2: Omaha World-Herald, “Omaha has rivals for 2 commands.”
• Feb 1: AFP, “Obama, Pentagon pull in different directions on no nukes goal.”
• Jan 26: Global Security Newswire, “China Shows Nuclear Transparency in New Report.”
• Jan 26: Time Magazine, “Obama’s nuclear war.” The article’s graphic of the global nuclear balance uses estimates developed by FAS and NRDC but without giving credit.
• Jan 17: Asia Times Online, “Smart power play in Pyongyang.”
• Jan 16: scienceline.org, “Battling Over Aging Nuclear Warheads.”
• Jan 14: Air Force Times, “62nd Airlift Wing passes nuclear inspection.”
• Jan 13: Seattle Post Intelligencer (seattlepi.com), “McChord boasts high-grade nuclear airlift team.”
• Jan 9: Air Force Times, “Reports: Air Force worst in dealing with nukes.”
• Jan 6: nuclearweaponsfree.org, “Cold War “baggage” passed on to Obama.”
• Jan: Stephen Schwartz and Deepti Choubey, Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

2008

• Dec 25: The Nation (Pakistan), “‘Indian missiles can trigger N-conflict’.”
• Dec 21: Air Force Times, “Kehler: NSI failures part of solution.”
• Dec 16: Global Security Newswire, “World Faces ‘Cascade of Proliferation,’ Report Says.”
• Dec: Air Force Magazine, “A Flagging Nuclear ‘Enterprise’.” (Lists warhead estimates, which since 2001 has been produced jointly by NRDC and Kristensen (since 2005 with FAS)).
• Dec 4: bianet.org (Turkey), “İncirlik Üssü Gerçekleri.”
• Dec 3: Joe Cirincione/Boston Globe, “Need cash? Cut nuclear weapons budget.” (Uses warhead estimates).
• Dec 1: Focus Storia (Italy), “L’Arma Totale.” (Subscription required)
• Dec: WMD Insights, “China’s Strategic Modernization: Balancing Assessments.”
• Nov 17: Orienting the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review: A Roadmap (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress/Ploughshares Fund, November 17, 2008).
• Nov 7: Global Security Newswire, “Strategic Arms Funds Tilt Conventional in 2009.”
• Nov 3: Global Security Newswire, “Gates Nuclear Speech Fails to Sway Opponents.”
• Oct 29: Global Security Newswire, “Gates Sees Stark Choice on Nuke Tests, Modernization.”
• Oct 28: Las Vegas Sun (editorial), “Nuclear Weapons: Plans to revamp the nation’s arsenal should be carefully reviewed by Congress.”
• Oct 27: K L Security Review (Malaysia), “‘China’s Strategic Modernization.’ Will the Report Trigger a New Cold War Between China and the United States?”
• Oct 26: Associated Press, “U.S. Considering Implications of Nuclear Decline.”
• Oct 23: Japan Times, “’58 Taiwan Strait Crisis Saw Nukes in Okinawa.”
• Oct 9: TheTelegraph (UK), “US told to increase nuclear arsenal as China threat looms.”
• Oct 7: Inside the Air Force, “New Focus on Nukes.”
• Sep 29: wired.com, “Report: Time for a New Arms Race With China.”
• Sep 29: Omaha World-Herald, “Nuclear readiness high on StratCom chief’s agenda.”
• Sep 26: news.de (Germany), “«Atomwaffen verleihen Prestige».”
• Sep 26: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. Air Force Might Modify Nuclear Bomb.”
• Sep 25: objektifhaber.com (Turkey), “İNCİRLİK GÜVENLİ DEĞİL.”
• U.S. Nuclear Arms Paper Underlines Need for RRW.”
• Sep 12: OnlineOpinion.com.au, “Is the Navy talking up China’s nuclear submarine threat?”
• Sep: Arms Control Today, “NATO Mulls Nuke Modernization, Security.”
• Aug 29: Congressional Research Service, “Turkey: Selected Foreign Policy Issues and U.S. Views.”
• Aug 12: ISN Security Watch (Switzerland), “The Tactical Nuclear Weapons Game.”
• Aug 5: Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues”
• Jul 23: Air Force Times, “Minot’s latest alarm: napping with launch codes.”
• Jul 22: Wired News, “Pentagon Kills Russian Nuclear Strike Plan.”
• Jul 21: Discover, “CanYou Spot the Chinese Nuclear Sub?” (Describes discovery of Jin-class, but without giving credit).
• Jul 21: Global Security Newswire, “No Need for U.S. Nukes In Europe, Observers Say.”
• Jul 17: Global Security Newswire, “Navy Eyes New Weapon for Global Strike, Missile Defense.”
• Jul 2: Evrensel (Turkey), “İncirlik’in önemi İran’a yakın olması .”
• Jul 2: Global Security Newswire (NTI), “Netherlands Disputes U.S. Nuclear Security Report.”
• Jul 2: Washington Post, “Air Force Finds Lax Nuclear Security.”
• Jul 1: Der Spiegel, “Berlin Holds on to Obsolete Weapons.”
• Jul 1: Stars and Stripes, “110 B-61 warheads reported moved from RAF Lakenheath.”
• Jul: Joint Forces Quarterly, “China’s New Undersea Nuclear Deterrent: Strategy, Doctrine, and Capabilities.”
• Jul: Center for Defense Information, “An Examination of the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike Program: Rationale, Implementation, and Risks”
• Jul: James Rickard, “Sun Tzu, Nuclear Weapons and China’s Grand Strategy,” in Strategic Insights, Volume VII, Issue 3, Naval Postgraduate School, July 2008.
• Jun 30: Turkish Daily News, “Incirlik becomes major host for American nuclear weapons.”
• Jun 28: East Anglian Daily Times, “‘We’re staying put’, say air base chiefs.”
• Jun 28: Stars and Stripes, “U.S. nukes moved from Lakenheath, official claims.”
• Jun 27: Pugwash, “Pugwash Urges Removal of All NATO Nuclear Weapons.”
• Jun 27: Jerusalem Post, “Watchdog group: US nukes reportedly withdrawn from UK base.”
• Jun 27: BBC, “US weapons ‘withdrawn’ from base.”
• Jun 27: Star Tribune, op-ed, “Steve Andreasen: With nuclear weapons, a lot can go wrong.” Uses information from blog without crediting.
• Jun 27: East Anglian Daily Times, “Future of American air base at risk.”
• Jun 27: The Scotsman, “US nuclear weapons ‘leave British soil at last’ after half a century of controversy.”
• Jun 27: AFP, “US withdraws nuclear bombs from Britain: report.”
• Jun 27: The Times, “Last US nuclear weapons ‘withdrawn from UK’.”
• Jun 26: STRATFOR, “Nuclear Weapons: The Question of Relevance in the 21st Century.”
• Jun 26: Press TV (Iran), “US withdraws nuclear bombs from UK.”
• Jun 26: UPI, “Germany wants U.S. to remove nukes.”
• Jun 26: East Anglian Daily Times (UK), “Nuclear weapons removed from Suffolk.”
• Jun 26: The Telegraph (UK), “America removes nuclear weapons from Britain after 50 years.”
• Jun 26: Reuters, “U.S. pulls nuclear weapons from U.K.”
• Jun 26: The Guardian, “US removes it nuclear weapons from Britain.”
• Jun 24: Daily Times (Pakistan), “German Opp says US nuclear bombs must go.”
• Jun 23: Air Force Times, “German politicians seek nuclear weapon removal.”
• Jun 23, Reuters, “U.S. report shows gaps in European nuclear security.”
• Jun 23: ZDF (German National TV), “Wie sicher sind US-Atombomben in Deutschland?” (background)
• Jun 23: ZDF (German National TV), lead story in prime time evening news.
• Jun 23: International Herald Tribune, “German parties press U.S. to withdraw nuclear arms.”
• Jun 23: AFP (Brussels), “Security of US nuclear arms in Europe is not our problem: NATO.”
• Jun 23: Deutsche Welle, “Politicians Urge Removal of US Nuclear Weapons From Germany.”
• Jun 23: Der Spiegel, “German Politicians Want Nukes out of Europe.”
• Jun 23: Air Force Times, “Russia’s nuclear interest revived.”
• Jun 22: RAI News 24 (Italy), “Rapporto Usaf: le basi europee e italiane con armi nucleari Usa non sono sicure.”
• Jun 23: Partito Democratico (Italy), “Il Pentagono contro le proprie basi in Europa.”
• Jun 22: La Repubblica (Italy), “Usa, allarme basi nucleari ‘In Italia sono a rischio’.”
• Jun 21, Associated Press, “Report: European nuclear facilities need security upgrades.”
• Jun 21: Qui Brescia (Italy), “Ghedi, testate atomiche a rischio.”
• Jun 21, AFP, “Security lacking at nuclear weapons sites in Europe: US report.”
• Jun 21, Alalam (Iran), “Memo: US Nukes in Europe Not Secure.”
• Jun 21, Deutsche Welle, “European Nuclear Weapons Sites Lack Security, Says US Report.”
• Jun 21, Megachip.com (Italy), “USAF Report: “Most” Nuclear Weapon Sites In Europe Do Not Meet US Security Requirements” (reprints entire blog).
• Jun 21, De Morgen (Belgium), “Kleine Brogel.” (editorial or comment)
• Jun 21, De Morgen (Belgium), “Kleine Brogel niet veilig.”
• Jun 21: Stars and Stripes, “Air Force investigators: Most European bases with nukes lacking in security.”
• Jun 20, Belga (Belgian), “Kernwapens Kleine Brogel ? Niet goed beveiligd ?” (Belgian TV)
• Jun 20, De Standaard (Belgium), “Defensie reageert niet op Amerikaanse rapport nucleaire sites.”
• Jun 20, hbvl.be (Belgium), “Defensie reageert verveeld op veiligheidsrapport Kleine Brogel.”
• Jun 20: Der Spiegel, “Sicherheitmängel in europäischen Atomwaffenlagern.”
• Jun 19, LeVif.be (Belgium), “Des sites nucléaires US en Europe ne satisfont pas aux normes.”
• Review Questions Security Over U.S. Nukes in Europe.”
• Jun 19, De Standaard (Belgium), “Amerikaanse nucleaire sites in Europa voldoen niet aan normen.”
• Jun 19, Time Magazine, “Are US Nukes in Europe Security.”
• Jun 9: FederalTimes.com, “Roadrunner breaks computer speed barrier.”
• May 31: Washington Post, “Air Force Unit’s Nuclear Weapons Security Is ‘Unacceptable’.”
• May 30: Air Force Times, “Minot’s 5th Bomb Wing flunks nuclear inspection.” Also reproduced in USA Today.
• May 21: NewsMax.com, “Massive New Chinese Missile Base Uncovered.”
• May 20: Associated Press, “China: Earthquake buried 32 sources of radiation.” 
• May 19: CNN, morning news report on Chinese earth quake.
• May 18: Monster and Critics, “Military nuclear facilities safe in quake zone, China says.”
• May 18: MSN India, “Chinese threat to India mounting?”
• May 17: Associated Press, “US monitoring China’s nuclear sites after quake.”
• May 17: Associated Press (Beijing), “China on alert for nuclear accidents after quake.”
• May 17: Peter Coates Int Blog, “Chinese and American Information Campaigns.” This blogger accuses FAS of getting help from the US Defense Intelligence Agency to produce the recent article about a Chinese missile site.
• May 17: The Hindu, “China missile base larger than expected: study”
• May 17: Indian Express, “China upgrading n-missile launch site nearest to India.”
• May 16, Times of India, “Massive Chinese missile site uncovered.”
• May 16, Washington Times, Inside the Ring, “China base.”
• May 16: International Herald Tribune, “Western experts monitor China’s nuclear sites for signs of damage.”
• May 16: New York Times, “Western experts monitos China’s nuclear sites for signs of earthquake damage.”
• May 16: DNA (India), “Chinese nuclear missile base has north India in sight.”
• May 16, Daily Times (Pakistan), “Satellite reveals extensive missile site in China: analyst.”
• May 15: Focus News (AFP), “Extensive missile site in China revealed by satellite: analyst.”
• May 13: Christian Science Monitor, “Global scrutiny follows reports of Chinese nuclear base.”
• May 9: National Public Radio, “China’s Underground Submarine Base Scrutinized.”
• May 9: Press Trust of India, “Navy to keep watch on Chinese nuclear submarine movements.”
• May 8: Rediff.com (India), “About those Chinese military capabilities.” Comments to claims made in this article.
• May 8: InformationWeek, “Google Among Sites Under Investigation In China For Illegal Mapping.”
• May 6: ARS Technica, “Upset by sensitive images, China cracks down on online maps.”
• May 5: Pravda, “US intelligence notices less activity in Russian nuclear submarines.”
• May 5: Thaindian News (Thailand), “India concerned at China’s growing n-submarine fleet.”
• May 3: The Sunday Express (India), “China’s new n-submarine base sets off alarm bells.”
• April 30: Japan Today, “China deploys new nuke-powered sub.”
• April 30: Kyodo News (Japan), “China deploys new nuke-powered sub at E. China Sea base.”
• April 29: guidemoscow.com, “Submarine patrols in 2007.”
• April 29: L’Association des Réservistes de la Marine, “Les SNLE russes ont effectué seulement 3 patrouilles de dissuasion en 2007.”
• April 28: Middle East Times, “Russia ‘no longer uses’ nukes sub deterrent.”
• April 29: United Press International, “Russia ‘no longer uses” nukes sub deterrent.”
• Apr 10: Peace Talk (Ploughshares Fund), “Lessons from the nuclear fly-by.”
• Apr 7: military.com, “Lessons From the Accidental Nuke Flyby.”
• Apr 3: Washington Observer, “五角大楼摆“乌龙”，核误运暴露台湾“核野心”？”
• Mar 31: Air Force Times, “Lost ballistic fuses spark investigations.”
• Mar 27: Air Force Times, “Details emerging on how fuses got to Taiwan.”
• Mar 27: The China Post (AFP), “Fuse components the brain of thermonuclear weapon: expert.”
• Mar 26: AFP, “US sent Taiwan nuclear missile components by mistake.”
• Mar 26: Aljazeera.net, “US admits Taiwan nuclear error.”
• Mar 26: Air Force Times, “ICBM fuses mistakenly sent to Taiwan in 2006.”
• Mar 22: The New York Times (AP), “Sarkozy Dedicates Nuclear Submarine.”
• Mar 21: International Herald Tribune (AP), “Sarkozy says France will cut nuclear arsenal.” Slightly different version here.
• Mar 18: San Francisco Chronicle, “Livermore: Major cuts planned at nuclear labs” (uses research but doesn’t credit).
• Mar 8: New Scientist, “Trident missiles delayed by mystery ingredient” (requires password, but full version is here).
• Mar 7: Global Security Newswire, “Chinese Nuke Arsenal Spiked Since 2006, Report Shows”
• Mar 7: Wired News, “Secret Ingredient Delays Missile Upgrade.”
• Mar 6: Global Security Newswire, “U.S. General Calls for Faster Action on Reliable Replacement Warhead.”
• Mar 4: Fox News (AP), “Commander: Update US Nuclear Arsenal.”
• Feb 28: Global Security Newswire, “Air Force Omits Nuke Error from 2007 Incident List.”
• Feb 26: Air Force Times, “Nuclear safety slipped for years before Minot.”
• Feb 25: Taipei Times, “PRC still expanding sub fleet: analysts.”
• Feb 25: International Herald Tribune, “Chinese Submarine Fleet is Growing, Analysts Say.”
• Feb 24: New York Times, “Chinese Submarine Fleet is Growing, Analysts Say.” A letter to the editor has been sent to correct errors, and will be linked when it appears.
• Feb 22: Popular Mechanics, “3 Things We Learned From the Accidental US Nuke Flyby.”
• Feb 20: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends, Congressional Research Service, updated February 20, 2008.
• Feb 15: KSLA News 12: “Mixed Signals on Barksdale AFB’s Nuclear Weapons Safety.” The video broadcast is available.
• Feb 14: Daily Kos, “Nukes on a plane and why they got there.”
• Feb 12: Air Force Times, “237 nukes handling deficiencies cited since 2001.”
• Feb 7: International Herald Tribune, “U.S. military officials wary of China’s expanding fleet of submarines.”
• Feb 4: Air Force Times, “Minot chief sets bar high after nuke gaffe.”
• Feb 2: Dickinson Press, “Commander says ‘goal is perfection’ after nuclear gaffe.”
• Feb 2: Ian Anthony, SPIRI, “The Future of Nuclear Weapons in NATO.”
• Feb: Noam Ophir, “The Core of the Matter: US Doctrine on Nuclear Weapons Use, 1988-2008,” in Strategic Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 4, Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, February 2008.
• Jan 23: U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure, Congressional Research Service, updated January 23, 2008.
• Jan 16: Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, Congressional Research Service, updated January 16, 2008.
• Jan 13: Tampa Tribune, “Nuclear Bombs Down, Risk the Same.”
• Jan 9: Wired News, “China’s Subs: Six Patrols in 2007.”
• Jan 8: Global Security Newswire (NTI), “Chinese missile submarines remained quite in 2007.”
• Jan 8: GovernmentExecutive.com, “China’s largely inactive submarine fleet stirs.” Article listed as “today’s most popular.”

2007 and earlier

Project news examples from 2007 and previous years are available here.

Early next year the Obama administration, with eager backing from hardliners in Congress, is expected to commit the U.S. taxpayers to a bill of $20 billion to $30 billion for a new nuclear weapon the United States doesn’t need: the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) air-launched cruise missile.

The new nuclear cruise missile will not be able to threaten targets that cannot be threatened with other existing nuclear weapons. And the Air Force is fielding thousands of new conventional cruise missiles that provide all the standoff capability needed to keep bombers out of harms way, shoot holes in enemy air-defenses, and destroy fixed and mobile soft, medium and hard targets with high accuracy – the same missions defense officials say the LRSO is needed for.

But cool-headed thinking about defense needs and priorities has flown out the window. Instead the Obama administration appears to have been seduced (or sedated) by an army of lobbyists from the defense industry, nuclear laboratories, the Air Force, U.S. Strategic Command, defense hawks in Congressional committees, and academic Cold Warriors, who all have financial, institutional, career, or political interests in getting approval of the new nuclear cruise missile.

LRSO proponents argue for the new nuclear cruise missile as if we were back in the late-1970s when there were no long-range, highly accurate conventional cruise missiles. But that situation has changed so dramatically over the past three decades that advanced conventional weapons have now eroded the need for a nuclear cruise missile.

That reality presents President Obama with a unique opportunity: because the new nuclear cruise missile is redundant for deterrence and unnecessary for warfighting requirements, it is the first opportunity for the administration to do what the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, and 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy all called for: use advanced conventional weapons to reduce the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy.

Muddled Mission Claims

Defense officials have made a wide range of claims for why a new nuclear cruise missile is needed, ranging from tactical use against air-defense systems, rapid re-alerting, generic deterrence, escalation-control, to we-need-a-new-one-because-we-have-an-old-one. In a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2014, Nuclear Weapons Council chairman Frank Kendall provided one of the most authoritative – and interesting – justifications. After reminding the lawmakers that DOD “has an established military requirement for a nuclear capable stand-off cruise missile for the bomber leg of the U.S. Triad,” Kendall further explained:

Nuclear capable bombers with effective stand-off weapons assure our allies and provide a unique and important dimension of U.S. nuclear deterrence in the face of increasingly sophisticated adversary air defenses. The bomber’s stand-off capability with a modern cruise missile will provide a credible capability to penetrate advanced air defenses with multiple weapons attacking from multiple azimuths. Beyond deterrence, an LRSO-armed bomber force provides the President with uniquely flexible options in an extreme crisis, particularly the ability to signal intent and control escalation, long-standing core elements of U.S. nuclear strategy.

Nuclear Weapons Chair Frank Kendall says the LRSO is needed for deterrence and warfighting missions

The “Beyond deterrence” wording is interesting because it suggests that what precedes it is about deterrence and what follows it is not. It essentially says that flying around with bombers with nuclear cruise missiles that can shoot through air-defense systems will deter adversaries (and assure Allies), but if it doesn’t then firing all those nuclear cruise missiles will give the President lots of options to blow things up. And that should calm things down.

But this is where the LRSO mission gets muddled. Because although nuclear cruise missiles could potentially penetrate those air-defenses, so can conventional cruise missiles to hold at risk the same targets. And because it would be much harder for the President to authorize use of nuclear cruise missiles, he would in reality have considerably fewer options with the LRSO than with conventional cruise missiles.

The “options” that Kendall referred to are essentially just different ways to blow up facilities that U.S. planners have decided are important to the adversary. Yet LRSO provides no “unique” capability to blow up a target that cannot be done by existing or planned conventional long-range cruise missiles or, to the limited extent a nuclear warhead is needed to do the job, by other nuclear weapons such as ICBMs, SLBMs, or gravity bombs.

So what’s missing from the LRSO mission justification is why it would matter to an adversary that the United States would not blow up his facilities with nuclear cruise missiles but instead with conventional cruise missiles or other nuclear weapons. And why would it matter so much that the adversary would conclude: “Aha, the United States does not have a nuclear cruise missile, only thousands of very accurate conventional cruise missiles, hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles with thousands of nuclear warheads, and five dozen stealthy bombers with B61-12 guided nuclear bombs that can and will damage my forces or destroy my country. Now is my chance to attack!”

Some defense leaders confuse the need for the nuclear LRSO with broader defense requirements, as illustrated by this statement reportedly made by STRATCOM commander Adm. Haney at the Army & Navy Club in 2014.

A favorite phrase for defense officials these days is that nuclear weapons, including a new air-launched cruise missile, are needed to “convince adversaries they cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict, and that restraint is a better option.” The scenario behind this statement is that an aggressor, for example Russia attacking a NATO country with conventional forces, is pushed back by superior U.S. conventional forces and therefore considers escalating to limited use of nuclear weapons to defeat U.S. forces or compel the United States to cease its counterattack on Russian forces.

Unless the United States has flexible regional nuclear forces such as the LRSO that can be used in a limited fashion similar to the aggressor’s escalation, so the thinking goes, the United States might be self-deterred from using more powerful strategic weapons in response, incapable of responding “in kind,” and thus fail to de-escalate the conflict on terms favorable to the United States and its Allies. Therefore, some analysts have begun to argue (here and here), the United States needs to develop nuclear weapons that have lower yields and appear more useable for limited scenarios.

The argument has an appealing logic – the same dangerous logic that fueled the Cold War for four decades. It carries with it the potential of worsening the very situation it purports to counter by increasing reliance on nuclear weapons and further stimulating development of regional nuclear warfighting scenarios. While promising to reduce the risk of nuclear use, the result would likely be the opposite.

It also ignores that existing U.S. nuclear forces already have considerable regional flexibility, yield variations, and are getting even better. And it glosses over the fact that U.S. military planners over the past three decades, while fully aware of modernizations in nuclear adversaries and a significant disparity with Russian non-strategic nuclear forces, nonetheless have continued to unilaterally eliminate all land- and sea-based non-strategic nuclear forces that used to serve many of the missions the advocates now say require more regionally tailored nuclear weapons.

Some senior defense officials have also started linking the LRSO justification to recent Russian behavior. Brian McKeon, the Pentagon’s principal deputy defense under secretary for policy, told Congress earlier this month that the Pentagon is “investing in technologies that will be most relevant to Russia’s provocations,” including “the long-range bomber, the new long-range standoff cruise missile…”

Last Time The Air Force Wanted A New Nuclear Cruise Missile…

Such advocacy for the LRSO is like playing a recording from the 1970s when defense officials were urging Congress to pay for nuclear cruise missiles. Back then the justifications were the same: provide bombers with standoff capability, shoot holes in air-defense systems, and provide the President with flexible regional options to hold targets at risk that are important to the adversary. And just as today, many of the justification were not essential or exaggerated.

With a range of more than 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles), the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM; AGM-86B) was seen as the answer to protecting bombers by holding targets at risk from well beyond the reach of Soviet advanced air-defense systems. After the first test flights in 1979, the ALCM became operational in December 1982 and more than 1,700 ALCMs were produced between 1980 and 1986. But a need for a long-range cruise missile that could actually be used in the real world soon resulted in conversion of hundreds of the ALCMs to conventional CALCMs (AGM-86C) that have since been used in half a dozen wars.

Billions were spent on the nuclear Advanced Cruise Missile for capabilities that had little operational significance. The weapon was retired in 2008.

No sooner had the ALCM entered service before the Air Force started saying the more capable Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM; AGM-129A) was needed: Soviet advanced air-defense systems expected in the 1990s would be able to destroy the ALCMs and the bombers carrying them. Sounds familiar? The initial plan was to produce 2,000 ACMs but the program was cut back to 460 missiles that were produced between 1990 and 1993.

The Air Force described the ACM as a “subsonic, low-observable air-to-surface strategic nuclear missile with significant range, accuracy, and survivability improvements over the ALCM.” And the missile had specifically been “designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within an enemy’s territory.” A fact sheet on the Air Force’s web site still describes the unique capabilities:

 When the threat is deep and heavily defended, the AGM-129A delivers the proven effectiveness of a cruise missile enhanced by stealth technology. Launched in quantities against enemy targets, the ACM’s difficulty to detect, flight characteristics and range result in high probability that enemy targets will be eliminated.

The AGM-129A’s external shape is optimized for low observables characteristics and includes forward swept wings and control surfaces, a flush air intake and a flat exhaust. These, combined with radar-absorbing material and several other features, result in a missile that is virtually impossible to detect on radar.

The AGM-129A offers improved flexibility in target selection over other cruise missiles. Missiles are guided using a combination of inertial navigation and terrain contour matching enhanced with highly accurate speed updates provided by a laser Doppler velocimeter. These, combined with small size, low-altitude flight capability and a highly efficient fuel control system, give the United States a lethal deterrent capability well into the 21st century.

Yet only 17 months after the ACM first become operational in January 1991, a classified GAO review concluded that “the range requirement for [the] ACM offers only a small improvement over the older ALCM and that the accuracy improvement offered does not appear to have real operational significance.”

Even so, ACM production continued for another year and the Air Force kept the missile in the arsenal for another decade-and-a-half. Finally, in 2008, after more than $6 billion spent on developing, producing, and deploying the missile, the ACM was unilaterally retired by the Bush administration. Although not until after a dramatic breakdown of Air Force nuclear command and control in August 2007 resulted in six ACMs with warheads installed being flown on a B-52 across the United States without the Air Force knowing about it.

It is somewhat ironic that after the ACM was retired, the Air Force official who was given the ceremonial honor to crush the last of the unneeded missiles was none other than Brig. Gen. Garrett Harencak, then commander of the Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland AFB. The following year Harencak was promoted to Maj. Gen. and Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration (A-10) at the Pentagon where he became a staunch and sometimes bombastic advocate for the LRSO. Harencak has since been “promoted” to commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service in Texas.

The last Advanced Cruise Missile is destroyed by Brig. Gen. Jarrett Harencak in 2012, then commander of the Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland AFB, before he became a primary Air Force advocate for the LRSO.

JASSM-ER: Deterrence Without “N”

The ALCM and ACM were acquired in a different age. LRSO advocates appear to argue for the weapon as if they were still back in the 1970s when the military didn’t have long-range conventional cruise missiles.

Today it does and those conventional weapons are getting so effective, so numerous, and so widely deployed that they can hold at risk the same targets and fulfill the same targeting missions that advocates say the LRSO is needed for. Moreover, the conventional missiles can do the mission without radioactive fallout or the political consequences from nuclear use that would limit any President’s options.

Curiously, defense officials use very similar descriptions when they describe the missions and virtues of the nuclear LRSO and the new conventional long-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER; AGM-158B). In many cases one could swap the names and you wouldn’t know the difference. The LRSO seems to offer no unique or essential capabilities that the JASSM-ER cannot provide:

2015 LRSO Mission Capabilities

The Pentagon describes the JASSM as a next-generation cruise missile “enabling the United States Air Force (USAF) to destroy the enemy’s war-sustaining capabilities from outside its area air defenses. It is precise, lethal, survivable, flexible, and adverse-weather capable.” Armed with a 1000-pound class, hardened, penetrating warhead with a robust blast fragmentation capability, the JASSM’s “inherent accuracy” (3 meters or less using the Imaging Infrared seeker and less than 13 meters with GPS/INS guidance only) “reduces the number of weapons and sorties required to destroy a target.”

The concept of operations (CONOPS) for JASSM states “employment will occur primarily in the early stages of conflict before air superiority is established, and in the later stages of conflict against high value targets remaining heavily defended. JASSM can also be employed in those cases where, due to rules of engagement/political constraints, high value, point targets must be attacked from international airspace. JASSM may be employed independently or the missile may be used as part of a composite package.”

Full-scale production of the JASSM-ER was authorized in 2014 and the weapon is already deployed on B-1 bombers, each of which can carry 24 missiles – more than the maximum number of ALCMs carried on a B-52H. Over the next decade JASSM-ER will be integrated on nearly all primary strategic and tactical aircraft – including the B-52H. Operational units equipped with the missile will, according to DOD, employ the JASSM-ER against high-value or highly defended targets from outside the lethal range of many threats in order to:

• Destroy targets with minimal risk to flight crews and support air dominance in the theater;
• Strike a variety of targets greater than 500 miles away;
• Execute missions using automated preplanning or manual pre-launch retargeting planning;
• Attack a wide range of targets including soft, medium, and very hard (not deeply buried) targets.

The new long-range JASSM-ER standoff cruise missile is already operational on the B-1 bombers (seen here in 2014 drop-test) and will be added to nearly all bombers and fighter-bombers. A sea-based version will also have land-attack capabilities. A shorter-range version (AGM-158A) is being sold to European and Pacific allies.

Says Kenneth Brandy, the JASSM-ER test director at the 337^th Test and Evaluation Squadron: “While other long range weapons may have the capability of reaching targets within the same range, they are not as survivable as the low observable JASSM-ER…The stealth design of the missile allows it to survive through high-threat, well-defended enemy airspace. The B-1’s effectiveness is increased because high-priority targets deeper into heavily defended areas are now vulnerable.”

Indeed, the JASSM-ER is “specifically designed to penetrate air defense systems,” according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The JASSM-ER is already now being integrated into STRATCOM’s global strike exercises alongside nuclear weapons. During the Global Lightning exercise in May 2014, for example, B-52s at Barksdale AFB loaded JASSM-ER (see below). And in September 2015, two JASSM-ER equipped B-1 bomb wings were transferred from Air Combat Command (ACC) to Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) control to operate more closely alongside the nuclear B-2 and B-52H bombers in long-range strike operations.

A JASSM-ER is loaded onto the wing pylon of a B-52H bomber at Barksdale AFB during STRATCOM’s Global Lightning exercise in May 2014.

As if the Air Force’s JASSM-ER were not enough, the missile is also being converted into a naval long-range anti-ship cruise missile known as LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile; AGM-158C) that in addition to sinking ships will also have land-attack capabilities. The LRASM will be launched from the Mk41 Vertical Launch System on cruisers and destroyers and is also being integrated onto B-1 bombers and carrier-based FA-18 aircraft.

In case anyone doubts who the target is, this Lockheed-Martin illustration shows the LRASM honing in on a Russian Slava-class cruiser.

A Clear Pledge To Reduce Nuclear Role

The considerable standoff targeting capabilities offered by the JASSM-ER and LRASM, as well as the Navy’s existing Tactical Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, and the enhanced deterrence capability they provide fit well with U.S. policy to use advanced conventional weapons to reduce the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons in regional scenarios.

The intent to reduce the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons has been clearly stated in key defense planning documents issued by the administration over the past five years: the February 2012 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, and the June 2013 Nuclear Employment Strategy.

According to the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, “Against nuclear-armed states, regional deterrence will necessarily include a nuclear component (whether forward-deployed or not). But the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in these regional deterrence architectures can be reduced by increasing the role of missile defenses and other capabilities.” (Emphasis added.)

The February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review explained further that “new, tailored, regional deterrence architectures that combine our forward presence, relevant conventional capabilities (including missile defenses), and continued commitment to extend our nuclear deterrent…make possible a reduced role for nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.” (Emphasis added.)

The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report added more texture by stating that, while nuclear weapons are still as important, “fundamental changes in the international security environment in recent years – including the growth of unrivaled U.S. conventional military capabilities, major improvements in missile defenses, and the easing of Cold War rivalries – enable us to fulfill those objectives at significantly lower nuclear force levels and with reduced reliance on nuclear weapons. Therefore, without jeopardizing our traditional deterrence and reassurance goals, we are now able to shape our nuclear weapons policies and force structure in ways that will better enable us to meet today’s most pressing security challenges.” (Emphasis added.)

Most recently, in June 2013, the Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United State “narrows U.S. nuclear strategy to focus on only those objectives and missions that are necessary for deterrence in the 21st century,” and in doing so, “takes further steps toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy.” The guidance directs the Department of Defense “to strengthen non-nuclear capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks,” and specifically “to conduct deliberate planning for non-nuclear strike options to assess what objectives and effects could be achieved through integrated non-nuclear strike options, and to propose possible means to make these objectives and effects achievable.” (Emphasis added.)

The Employment Strategy emphasizes that, “Although they are not a substitute for nuclear weapons, planning for non-nuclear strike options is a central part of reducing the role of nuclear weapons.” (Emphasis added.)

The pledge to reduce the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons has not risen from a naive unilateral nuclear disarmament gesture but as a consequence of decades of revolutionary advancement of conventional weapons. Those non-nuclear strike capabilities have increased even further since the NPR and the employment guidance were published and will increase even more in the decades ahead as the JASSM-ER and LRASM are integrated onto more and more platforms.

Conclusions and Recommendations

President Obama is facing a crucial decision: whether to approve or cancel the Air Force’s new Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear air-launched cruise missile. The decision will be his last chance as president to demonstrate that the United States is serious about reducing the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons in its defense strategy.

The President’s decision will also have to take into consideration whether the administration is serious about the pledge it made in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, that “Life Extension Programs (LEPs)…will not…provide for new military capabilities.” The LRSO will most certainly have new military capabilities compared with the ALCM it is intended to replace.

In their arguments for why the President should approve the LRSO, proponents have so far not presented a single mission that cannot be performed by advanced conventional weapons or other nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

Indeed, a review of many dozens of official statements, documents, a news media articles revealed that proponents argue for the LRSO as if they were back in the late-1970s arguing for the ALCM at a time when conventional long-range cruise missiles did not exist. As a result, LRSO proponents confuse the need for a standoff capability with the need for a nuclear standoff capability.

Yet in the more than three decades that have passed since the ALCM was approved, a revolution in non-nuclear military technology has produced a wide range of conventional weapons and strategic effects capabilities that can now do many of the targeting missions that nuclear weapons previously served. Indeed, the Navy and Army have already retired all their non-strategic nuclear weapons and today rely on conventional weapons for those missions.

Now it’s the Air Force’s turn; advanced conventional cruise missiles can now serve the role that nuclear air-launched cruise missiles used to serve: hold at risk heavily defended strategic and tactical targets at a range far beyond the reach of modern and anticipated air-defense systems. The Navy already has its Tactical Tomahawk widely deployed on ships and submarines, and now the Air Force is following with deployment of thousands of long-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM-ER) on bombers and fighter-bombers. The conventional missiles will in fact provide the President with more (and better) options than he has with a nuclear air-launched cruise missile; it will be a more credible deterrent.

This reality seems to not exist for LRSO advocates who argue from a point of doctrine instead of strategy. And for some the obsession with getting the nuclear cruise missile appears to have become more important than the mission itself. STRATCOM commander Adm. Cecil Haney reportedly argued recently that getting the LRSO “is just as important as having a future bomber.” It is perhaps understandable that a defense contractor can get too greedy but defense officials need to get their priorities straight.

The President needs to cut through the LRSO sales pitch and do what the NPR and employment guidance call for: reduce the role of and reliance on nuclear weapons by canceling the LRSO and instead focus bomber standoff strike capabilities on conventional cruise missiles. Doing so will neither unilaterally disarm the United States, undermine the nuclear Triad, nor abandon the Allies.

Now is your chance Mr. President – otherwise what was all the talk about reducing the role of nuclear weapons for?

This publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

By Hans M. Kristensen

With a series of highly advertised sea- and air-launched cruise missile attacks against targets in Syria, the Russian government has demonstrated that it doesn’t have a military need for the controversial ground-launched cruise missile that the United States has accused Russia of developing and test-launching in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

Moreover, President Vladimir Putin has now publicly confirmed (what everyone suspected) that the sea- and air-launched cruise missiles can deliver both conventional and nuclear warheads and, therefore, can hold the same targets at risk. (Click here to download the Russian Ministry of Defense’s drawing providing the Kalibr capabilities.)

The United States has publicly accused Russia of violating the INF treaty by developing, producing, and test-launching a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) to a distance of 500 kilometers (310 miles) or more. The U.S. government has not publicly identified the missile, which has allowed the Russian government to “play dumb” and pretend it doesn’t know what the U.S. government is talking about.

The lack of specificity has also allowed widespread speculations in the news media and on private web sites (this included) about which missile is the culprit.

As a result, U.S. government officials have now started to be a little more explicit about what the Russian missile is not. Instead, it is described as a new “state-of-the-art” ground-launched cruise missile that has been developed, produced, test-launched – but not yet deployed.

Whether or not one believes the U.S. accusation or the Russian denial, the latest cruise missile attacks in Syria demonstrate that there is no military need for Russia to develop a ground-launched cruise missile. The Kalibr SLCM finally gives Russia a long-range conventional SLCM similar to the Tomahawk SLCM the U.S. navy has been deploying since the 1980s.

What The INF Violation Is Not

Although the U.S. government has yet to publicly identify the GLCM by name, it has gradually responded to speculations about what it might be by providing more and more details about what the GLCM is not. Recently two senior U.S. officials privately explained about the INF violation that:

• it is not the R-500 cruise missile (Iskander-K);
• it is not the RS-26 road-mobile ballistic missile;
• it is not a sea-launched cruise missile test-launched from a ground launcher;
• it is not an air-launched cruise missile test-launched from a ground launcher;
• it is not a technical mistake;
• it is not one or two test slips;
• it is in development but has not yet been deployed.

Rose Gottemoeller, the U.S. under secretary of state for and international security, said in response to a question at the Brookings Institution in December 2014: “It is a ground-launched cruise missile. It is neither of the systems that you raised. It’s not the Iskander. It is not the other one, X-100. Is that what it is? Yeah, I’ve seen some of those reflections in the press and it’s not that one.” [The question was in fact about the X-101, sometimes used as a designation for the air-launched Kh-101, a conventional missile that also exists in a nuclear version known as the Kh-102.]

The explicit ruling out of the Iskander as an INF violation is important because numerous news media and private web sites over the past several years have claimed that the ballistic missile (SS-26; Iskander-M) has a range of 500 km (310 miles), possibly more. Such a range would be a violation of the INF. In contrast, the U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) has consistently listed the range as 300 km (186 miles). Likewise, the cruise missile known as Iskander-K (apparently the R-500) has also been widely rumored to have a range that violates the INF, some saying 2,000 km (1,243 miles) and some even up to 5,000 kilometers (3,107 miles). But Gottemoeller’s statement seems to undercut such rumors.

Gottemoeller told Congress in December 2015 that “we had no information or indication as of 2008 that the Russian Federation was violating the treaty. That information emerged in 2011.” And she repeated that “this it is not a technicality, a one off event, or a case of mistaken identity,” such as a SLCM launched from land.

Instead, U.S. officials have begun to be more explicit about the GLCM, saying that it involves “a state-of-the-art ground-launched cruise missile that Russia has tested at ranges capable of threatening most of [the] European continent and out allies in Northeast Asia” (emphasis added). Apparently, the “state-of-the-art” phrase is intended to underscore that the missile is new and not something else mistaken for a GLCM.

Some believe the GLCM may be the 9M729 missile, and unidentified U.S. government sources say the missile is designated SSC-X-8 by the U.S. Intelligence Community.

Forget GLCM: Kalibr SLCM Can Do The Job

Whatever the GLCM is, the Russian cruise missile attacks on Syria over the past two months demonstrate that the Russian military doesn’t need the GLCM. Instead, existing sea- and air-launched cruise missiles can hold at risk the same targets. U.S. intelligence officials say the GLCM has been test-launched to about the same range as the Kalibr SLCM.

Following the launch from the Kilo-II class submarine in the Mediterranean Sea on December 9, Putin publicly confirmed that the Kalibr SLCM (as well as the Kh-101 ALCM) is nuclear-capable. “Both the Calibre [sic] missiles and the Kh-101 [sic] rockets can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads.” (The Kh-101 is the conventional version of the new air-launched cruise missile, which is called Kh-102 when equipped with a nuclear warhead.)

The conventional Kalibr version used in Syria appears to have a range of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles). It is possible, but unknown, that the nuclear version has a longer range, possibly more than 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles). The existing nuclear land-attack sea-launched cruise missile (SS-N-21) has a range of more than 2,800 kilometers (the same as the old AS-15 air-launched cruise missile).

The Russian navy is planning to deploy the Kalibr widely on ships and submarines in all its five fleets: the Northern Fleet on the Kola Peninsula; the Baltic Sea Fleet in Kaliningrad and Saint Petersburg; the Black Sea Fleet bases in Sevastopol and Novorossiysk; the Caspian Sea Fleet in Makhachkala; and the Pacific Fleet bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.

The Russian navy is already bragging about the Kalibr. After the Kalibr strike from the Caspian Sea, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk, the Russian navy’s deputy Commander-in-Chief, warned NATO: “The range of these missiles allows us to say that ships operating from the Black Sea will be able to engage targets located quite a long distance away, a circumstance which has come as an unpleasant surprise to counties that are members of the NATO block.”

With a range of 2,000 kilometers the Russian navy could target facilities in all European NATO countries without even leaving port (except Spain and Portugal), most of the Middle East, as well as Japan, South Korea, and northeast China including Beijing (see map below).

As a result of the capabilities provided by the Kalibr and other new conventional cruise missiles, we will probably see many of Russia’s old Soviet-era nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles retiring over the next decade.

The nuclear Kalibr land-attack version will probably be used to equip select attack submarines such as the Severodvinsk (Yasen) class, similar to the existing nuclear land-attack cruise missile (SS-N-21), which is carried by the Akula, Sierra, and Victor-III attack submarines, but not other submarines or surface ships.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Now that Russia has demonstrated the capability of its new sea- and air-launched conventional long-range cruise missiles – and announced that they can also carry nuclear warheads – it has demonstrated that there is no military need for a long-range ground-launched cruise missile as well.

This provides Russia with an opportunity to remove confusion about its compliance with the INF treaty by scrapping the illegal and unnecessary ground-launched cruise missile project.

Doing so would save money at home and begin the slow and long process of repairing international relations.

Moreover, Russia’s widespread and growing deployment of new conventional long-range land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles raises questions about the need for the Russian navy to continue to deploy nuclear cruise missiles. Russia’s existing five nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles (SS-N-9, SS-N-12, SS-N-19, SS-N-21 and SS-N-22) were all developed at a time when long-range conventional missiles were non-existent or inadequate.

Those days are gone, as demonstrated by the recent cruise missile attacks, and Russia should now follow the U.S. example from 2011 when it scrapped its nuclear Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile. Doing so would reduce excess types and numbers of nuclear weapons.

Background:

• Russian Nuclear Forces, 2015, FAS Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
• Status of World Nuclear Forces, 2015

This publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

By Hans M. Kristensen

The new Polish government caused a stir last weekend when deputy defense minister Tomasz Szatkowski said during an interview with Polsat News 2 that Poland was taking “concrete steps” to consider joining NATO’s so-called nuclear sharing program.

The program is a controversial arrangement where the United States makes nuclear weapons available for use by a handful of non-nuclear NATO countries.

The Polish Ministry of Defense quickly issued a denial saying Poland “is not engaged in any work aimed at joining NATO’s nuclear sharing program.”

Mr. Szatkowski’s statement, the Ministry said, “should be seen in the context of recent remarks made by serious Western think tanks, which point to deficits in NATO’s nuclear deterrent capability on its eastern flank.”

No Smoke Without A Fire

NATO has stated that it has no plans or intensions to deploy nuclear weapons further east in new NATO countries. Despite the Polish denial, however, Mr. Szatkowski’s statement didn’t come out of thin air but reflects deepening discussions within NATO about how the alliance should adjust its nuclear posture in Europe in response to Russia’s recent military operations and statements.

Only a few weeks ago senior U.K. officials said NATO was actively considering whether to reinstate nuclear escalation exercises in Europe to counter Russia. “Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has done conventional exercising and nuclear exercising, both, but not exercised the transition from one to the other,” said Sir Adam Thomson, the British permanent representative to NATO. That recommendation is now being looked at he said and added: “It is safe to say the UK does see merit in making sure we know how, as an Alliance, to transition up the escalatory ladder in order to strengthen our deterrence.” Defence Secretary Michael Fallon added: “We have to know how they fit together, nuclear and conventional.”

The British statements followed preliminary NATO discussion in June and more formal talks in October after warnings in February that Russia was adjusting its nuclear posture. Back then Fallon explained there were three concerns: “first that they (the Russians) may have lowered the threshold for use of nuclear. Secondly, they seem to be integrating nuclear with conventional forces in a rather threatening way and [third]… at a time of fiscal pressure they are keeping up their expenditure on modernizing their nuclear forces.”

While the diplomats in public are talking about considerations, the military has already begun to adjust the nuclear posture. As part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, a new set of military operations and exercises recently created to provide “a unified response to revanchist Russia,” U.S. European Command (EUCOM) has quietly “forged a link between STRATCOM Bomber Assurance and Deterrence missions to NATO regional exercises” to beef up the NATO nuclear deterrence mission.

One of the first examples of this new “link” was Operation Polar Growl, a bomber exercise in April where four B-52 bombers took off from the United States and flew a non-stop strike mission over the North Pole and North Sea. The bombers did not carry nuclear weapons on the exercise but were equipped to carry a total of 80 air-launched cruise missiles with a total explosive power equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima bombs – a subtle warning to Putin not seen since the Cold War.

Conclusions and Recommendations

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, increased military operations, and explicit nuclear threats, General Philip Breedlove, the head of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and NATO’s military commander, told the US Congress that the crisis in Europe is “not based on the nuclear piece. That’s not what worries me.” And U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter declared that “In our response [to Russia], we will not rely on the Cold War play book.”

Yet NATO is starting to adjust its nuclear posture in Europe in ways that seem similar (but far from identical) to the Cold War play book: increased reliance on U.S. nuclear forces, adjustment of strategy and planning, more exercises and rotational deployments of nuclear-capable forces.

The statement by Polish deputy defense minister Tomasz Szatkowski is but the latest sign of that development.

It is unlikely that NATO will broaden its nuclear sharing arrangement to include Poland. It is already a member of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group where it participates and votes on issues related to NATO nuclear planning. And Poland already participates in the so-called SNOWCAT program where it contributes non-nuclear capabilities in support of the nuclear mission in Europe but is not directly nuclear tasked. Last year we saw Polish F-16s participate in NATO’s nuclear strike exercise for the first time in SNOWCAT role.

Taking this one step further for Poland to become part of the nuclear sharing arrangement similar to Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy and Turkey that store US nuclear weapons on their territory, equip their national jets and train their national pilots with the capability to deliver U.S. nuclear weapons, would be an unnecessary and counterproductive overreaction to Putin’s unacceptable military escapades.

It would worsen, not improve, security in Europe, waste resources that are needed for conventional forces, and deepen the political and military crisis between NATO and Russia. It would be akin to Russia deciding to provide nuclear weapons for Belarusian fighter jets.

Moreover, while the existing nuclear sharing arrangements in NATO (all of which are bi-lateral arrangements between the United States and the host country) date back from before the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) came into effect and therefore was accepted by the treaty regime, broadening the arrangement to Poland (or anyone else) would be a new situation and therefore a violation of the NPT.

Yet some NATO officials, former government officials, and academics, have been trying for years to persuade NATO to increase – or at least not reduce – reliance on nuclear weapons in Europe. For them, Putin’s actions represent a refreshing opportunity to get what they wanted anyway. The NATO Summit in Warsaw next summer is expected to decide on how far to go.

NATO should reject attempts to reinvigorate the nuclear posture in Europe and instead focus its military planning where it matters: enhancing conventional capabilities (to the extent it doesn’t further increase Russian reliance on nuclear weapons) with U.S. nuclear forces (and to a lesser extent those of Britain and France) providing an assured nuclear retaliatory capability in the background.

This publication was made possible by a grant from the New Land Foundation and Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.