Nuclear Weapons Proliferation:
How Much?

Countries that have Nuclear Weapons and their current capabilities:

• UNITED STATES - 

Arsenal and missile range: 12,000 warheads; 8,100 miles (13,000km)

Nuclear weapons are located in 14 states. New Mexico, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, and North Dakota are the top five and account for about 70 percent of the total. The other nine are Wyoming, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, California, Virginia, and Colorado. The number of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe has shrunk dramatically, from over 6,000 of many types in the early 1980s to some 150 B61 bombs at ten air bases in seven countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) by the end of 1997. The United States is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders.

• RUSSIA - 

Arsenal and missile range: 22,500 warheads; 6,800 miles (11,000 km)

Weapons are deployed at about 90 sites in Russia. Soviet, and then Russian, members of the 12th Main Directorate have consolidated, over the past decade, a far-flung arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at hundreds of locations in Eastern Europe and 14 republics to under a hundred sites in Russia today.

• GREAT BRITAIN - 

Arsenal and missile range: 380 warheads; 7,500 miles (12,000 km)

The British stockpile is about to be turned into a single weapon type -- the Trident II missile on Vanguard-class submarines. In 1998, the last WE-177 gravity bombs were retired, and the Tornado bombers that once carried them will have only conventional missions.

• FRANCE - 

Arsenal and missile range: 450 warheads; 3,300 miles (5,300 km)

The French stockpile consists of three types of warheads at four locations, down from a dozen bases at the beginning of the 1990s.

• CHINA - 

Arsenal and missile range: 400 warheads; 6,800 miles (11,000 km)

The Chinese stockpile is located at some 20 sites.

• INDIA - 

Arsenal and missile range: 12-18 warheads; 1,550 miles (2,500 km)

India first decided to build its own nuclear weapons after China began nuclear tests in the mid-1960s. A key factor in India's desire to be a nuclear power has been China's presence on its northern border as well as Pakistan's nuclear capability.

Indian scientists claim the five devices tested in 1998 included one with an explosive yield of 43 kilotons - more than twice the force inflicted on Hiroshima in 1945.

NEW INFORMATION: (From Canadian Security Intelligence Services Report)

    India first demonstrated its nuclear-weapons capability by exploding what it termed a "peaceful nuclear device" (with a yield estimated at 5-12 kt) in May 1974. Since that time, it has been assumed to be capable of quickly assembling a limited number of weapons in a relatively short time, using plutonium from non-safeguarded reactors. According to a 1992 report, India possessed enough plutonium not subject to IAEA inspection for nearly 60 nuclear weapons at that time, or as many as 80 by 1995. In addition, it possessed two uranium enrichment facilities not subject to IAEA monitoring that could be used to produce weapons material. A 1995 source notes that "By the late 1980s, when it became clear that Pakistan could deploy several weapons, it was generally assumed that India had quietly acted to meet this challenge by preparing a readily deployable nuclear force, of perhaps several dozen weapons."

    On 11 May 1998, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee announced that his country had conducted three underground nuclear tests at its Pokharan site. He described them as tests of "a fission device, a low-yield device, and a thermonuclear device." His principal secretary, Brajesh Mishra, said afterwards that the tests had established "that India has a proven capability for a weaponized program" and would help in the design of "nuclear weapons of different yields for different applications and for different delivery systems." Two days later, India announced that it had conducted two more underground tests of a "sub-kiloton" yield intended "to generate additional data for improved computer simulation of designs and for attaining the capability to carry out sub-critical experiments, if considered necessary."

    US officials were quoted as saying that the total yield of the first three, simultaneous explosions appeared to be 10 to 20 kilotons, and that the purpose was likely to confirm a bomb design for the 1,400-mile-range Agni missile (capable of reaching much of China). Indian officials later maintained that the tests included a 43-kt fusion device and a 15-kt fission weapon. Some US officials reportedly questioned Vajpayee's claim of a thermonuclear test, suggesting that the larger blast was probably of a boosted-fission device (if indeed it were a test of a hydrogen bomb, this would mean that the Indians were much further advanced in their nuclear-weapons research and development than previously thought). According to estimates by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, India by the end of 1998 had stockpiled sufficient weapons-grade plutonium for between 40 and 90 nuclear warheads, and was producing enough from its Dhruva reactor at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre near Mumbai to add another four weapons per year.

    A June 2000 report by the US television network NBC, citing US military and intelligence reports and unnamed US officials, claimed that India's nuclear arsenal was far inferior to that of Pakistan. It credited India with only "about five" nuclear weapons and described its delivery capabilities as "seriously lagging," including no nuclear-capable missiles and fewer nuclear-capable aircraft than Pakistan. According to the report, "US analysts believed India had begun work on missile warhead design and warhead miniaturization only recently and would not fit nuclear warheads on its Agni missile for another ten years." The report was denounced as inaccurate by various Indian officials, one "expert" maintaining that India had possessed a "fully viable and operational nuclear warhead capability" for its Agni-II ballistic missile from the time of its testing in April 1999. He also claimed that four nuclear-armed Prithvi missiles and one nuclear-armed Agni had been deployed for retaliatory strikes during the Kargil crisis that had erupted shortly afterwards.

    For his part, the former head of the Pakistani armed forces, Mirza Aslam Beg, was quoted in June 2001 as estimating the size of the Indian nuclear stockpile at 200 weapons. The Pentagon's latest public report on proliferation, released in January 2001, stated that "India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week. The most likely delivery platforms are fighter-bomber aircraft."

• PAKISTAN - 

Arsenal and missile range: 12-18 warheads; 930 miles (1,500 km)

Thought to have begun its secret weapons program in 1972 to reach parity with India, but restricted by U.S. sanctions since 1990. Tested a medium range missile in April of 1998. The following month, Pakistan responded to India's tests with six of its own.

NEW INFORMATION: (From Canadian Security Intelligence Services Report)

    Until the 1998 series of tests in South Asia, Pakistan was believed to share the same nuclear status as its neighbour and rival India—that is, albeit not having matched India's 1974 explosive test, nevertheless having the capability to assemble a relatively small number of nuclear weapons in a very short period. Unlike India, however, its nuclear weapon program so far has been based primarily on the enrichment of uranium, at an unsafeguarded plant at Kahuta, near Islamabad, using gas-centrifuge technology and components procured covertly in the West. Various US officials have been reported as stating that China supplied Pakistan with a nuclear weapon design requiring about 15 kg of HEU. Pakistan also appears to be pursuing the plutonium route (which would enable it to produce smaller warheads for missiles), building an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor and separation plant, at Khushab and Chasma, respectively, possibly with Chinese assistance. The Khushab reactor, capable according to US experts of producing sufficient plutonium for 2-3 nuclear weapons per year, was reported to have gone critical in August 1998. The Pentagon in January 2001 stated that the reactor "will produce plutonium that could be reprocessed for weapons use at facilities under construction."

    On 28 May 1998, Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif announced that Pakistan had successfully conducted five nuclear tests at the Ras Koh range in the Chagai Hills region of its southwestern province of Baluchistan. The Pakistani press reported that the strongest of the explosions was equivalent to between 40 and 45 kt, but Indian authorities estimated it at only 10 kt (the chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission later claimed a yield of 35-36 kt for the "first round," while his Indian counterpart put it at 10-15 kt; seismologists elsewhere in the world, while declaring themselves unable to confirm the number of tests, estimated their yield at between 5 and 20 kt; US intelligence officials were reported to have suspected only two rather than five tests, and in the range of 5-10 kt). The "father" of the Pakistani program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, told the press that all five devices tested had been boosted-fission weapons using uranium 235; that the first had had a yield of 30-35 kt, and been followed by four small tactical weapons of lesser yield; and that, although none had been thermonuclear, Pakistan did have the capability of conducting a fusion test. A Pakistani government statement immediately after the tests claimed that its new Ghauri ballistic missile (range=1,500 km) was "already being capped with the nuclear warheads," but this was later denied by the Foreign Ministry.

    Two days after the initial series, on 30 May, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary told reporters that there had been one additional test, "of a device compatible with a weapons system"—suggesting to some observers that it may have been a warhead for the Ghauri. US intelligence reportedly estimated its yield at just 1-5 kt. In the aftermath of the tests, one American analyst cited US officials to the effect that Pakistan appeared to have resumed the production of HEU that it had suspended in 1991.

    Recent estimates of the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal have not varied greatly. A late 1999 report by the Washington-based ISIS estimated that at the end of 1998, Pakistan had 425-680 kg of weapons-grade uranium, sufficient for 22-43 weapons. In June 2000, NBC, in its story asserting Pakistani superiority over India in the nuclear sphere, cited "US military and intelligence reports" as putting the number of Pakistani weapons at between 25 and 100, up from an earlier estimate of 10-15. It added that "Pakistan possessed 30 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles as well as F-16 and Mirage aircraft that were superior to aircraft possessed by the Indian Air Force." In response, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry described the NBC report as "an extraordinary assertion in view of the fact that in comparison with a few Pakistani facilities, India has a vast nuclear program comprising dozens of nuclear installations outside international safeguards, which have been operating to produce fissile materials over decades." Mirza Aslam Beg, former head of the Pakistani armed forces, stated his belief in June 2001 that his country then had "no more than 30 nuclear weapons." The Pentagon in January 2001 would not hazard a figure, but did say that "Islamabad's nuclear weapons are probably stored in component form," and that it "probably could assemble the weapons fairly quickly and has aircraft and possibly ballistic missiles available for delivery." It added that "Pakistan has provided assurances that it will not assemble or deploy its nuclear warheads."

    Although Pakistan has been widely credited with a more sophisticated command-and-control system than India (at least in part due to the fact that its nuclear weapons program has always been closely controlled by the military), concerns have nevertheless been expressed periodically about the security of its nuclear arsenal, given generally unsettled political conditions in the country. For example, outgoing US Central Command commander General Anthony Zinni, described as "known to be close to Pakistan's military establishment," was reported to have said in October 2000 that it was "'very possible' that religious extremists could gain custody of Pakistan's nuclear weapons." Such fears have been amplified, of course, in the wake of the 11 September 2001 events and the subsequent attacks on neighbouring Afghanistan.

 

• ISRAEL (Undeclared) -

Israel refuses to confirm or deny the widespread belief that it has the bomb, but it is believed to have over 100 atomic weapons. The center of Israel's weapons program is reported to be the Negev Nuclear Research Center near the desert town of Dimona. Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres in a rare television interview recently made a public admission that Israel began developing a "nuclear option" in the 1950s.

NEW INFORMATION: (From Canadian Security Intelligence Services Report)

    Israel is believed to have constructed a substantial force of nuclear weapons, using plutonium from a French-supplied research reactor (and separated in a French-supplied plant) at a site near Dimona in the Negev Desert. The site is also believed to house a small uranium enrichment facility, and Israel is known to have pursued laser enrichment and possibly gas-centrifuge technology. There is no conclusive proof that it has ever conducted a full-scale nuclear explosive test, although it is widely suspected of having done so over the South Atlantic in September 1979. According to one report, its nuclear weapons are "thought to have been developed, in part, through the testing of non-nuclear components and computer simulations—and through the acquisition of weapons design and test information from abroad" (France and the US).

    Published estimates of the number of Israeli nuclear weapons vary considerably, from less than 100 to as many as 400 (with a combined yield of 50 megatons). The SVR in 1995 maintained that Israel was capable of manufacturing 5 to 10 nuclear weapons per year (an estimate shared by the US Federation of American Scientists (FAS)), and that it may have produced between 100 and 200 by that time. According to a 1997 American study, based on plutonium production estimates, Israel could have constructed between 64 and 112 warheads up to the end of 1994, at an annual rate of 2-4. It is also believed to be knowledgeable about sophisticated designs, including thermonuclear and boosted-fission weapons. It has reportedly produced tritium, which could have been used for the latter. In general, its nuclear armoury is assumed to be a diverse one. According to a May 2000 assessment by the FAS, "The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ('neutron bombs'), as well as nuclear artillery shells." It maintains that "Following the 1973 [Arab-Israeli] war, Israel fielded at least three batteries of atomic-capable self-propelled 175mm cannons equipped with a total of no less than 108 warheads, and placed atomic land mines in the Golan Heights during the early 1980s." The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has credited Israel with "up to 100 warheads" and delivery vehicles including aircraft and its Jericho 1 (range=500 km) and Jericho 2 (range=1,500-2,000 km) ballistic missiles. In August 1999 Israel was reported to be planning to equip new German-supplied Dolphin-class diesel-electric submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

 

Suspected Nuclear Developers:

• IRAN - Iran launched a nuclear program in the 1970s but slowed it down after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The U.S. believes Iran is developing weapons using its nuclear power program.

NEW INFORMATION: (From Canadian Security Intelligence Services Report)

     Iran's Shah Pahlevi is reported to have had a small nuclear weapon RD program until his ouster in 1979. Present-day Iran is also widely believed to be seeking nuclear weapons, but to have made limited progress so far. The CIA in March 1995 stated that Iran was "aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and, if significant foreign assistance were provided, could produce a weapon by the end of the decade." However, CIA Director R. James Woolsey was considerably less alarmist in remarks quoted in September 1994 that "We believe that Iran is 8-10 years away from building such weapons, and that help from the outside will be critical in reaching this timetable." He added in his remarks the following year that Iran was "also looking to purchase fully-fabricated nuclear weapons in order to accelerate sharply its timetable." However, April 1998 press reports that Iran had obtained four nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan several years previously lacked credibility, according to unnamed US officials.

    A "senior [US] intelligence official" was cited in a 1997 study as maintaining that "the Iranian nuclear weapon programme suffers from poor management, a paucity of scientifically and technically trained people, and a lack of infrastructure." Nevertheless, the July 1998 Rumsfeld Commission on ballistic missiles expressed the concern that "While Iran's civil nuclear program is currently under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, it could be used as a source of sufficient fissile material to construct a small number of weapons within the next ten years if Iran were willing to violate safeguards. If Iran were to accumulate enough fissile material from foreign sources, it might be able to develop a nuclear weapon in only one to three years."

    In December 1998, US intelligence reports were publicly cited as having revealed that two Russian nuclear research institutes were actively negotiating to sell Iran a 40-megawatt heavy-water research reactor and a uranium-conversion facility, while "Russian scientists were already assisting Iran on the production of heavy water and nuclear-grade graphite." In January 2000, it was reported that the CIA's most recent assessment "could not rule out the possibility that Iran had acquired nuclear weapon capability," given the US "inability to monitor alleged clandestine Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapon technology and nuclear materials."

    In its January 2001 proliferation report, the Pentagon declared that Iran was "seeking fissile material and technology for weapons development through an elaborate system of military and civilian organizations," and had "an organized structure dedicated to developing nuclear weapons by trying to establish the capability to produce both plutonium and highly enriched uranium." It added that "One of Iran's primary goals is the acquisition of a heavy water-moderated, natural uranium-fueled nuclear reactor and associated facilities suitable for the production of weapons-grade plutonium." The previous October, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Einhorn had told Congress that "Russian entities-most of them subordinate to MINATOM [the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy]...-have engaged in extensive cooperation with Iranian nuclear research centers....Much of this assistance involves technologies with direct application to the production of weapons-grade fissile materials, including research reactors, heavy-water production technology, and laser isotope separation technology for enriching uranium."

   The CIA's September 2001 public report on proliferation highlighted Iran's pursuit of a uranium conversion facility (UCF) that "ostensibly would be used to support fuel production for the Bushehr power plant" (currently under construction), but that "could be used in any number of ways to support fissile material production needed for a nuclear weapon-specifically, production of uranium hexafluoride for use as a feedstock for uranium enrichment operations and production of uranium compounds suitable for use as fuel in a plutonium production reactor." According to the (non-governmental) Monterey Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Following a strategy similar to Iraq's and Pakistan's nuclear development programs, Iran has attempted to acquire a uranium enrichment capability by purchasing centrifuge components piecemeal from Western European suppliers."

• IRAQ - Iraq had its nuclear program dismantled under United Nations auspices after its defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, but many believe they were hiding new development. The evidence has
• LIBYA - Analysts believe that while Libya may be unable to develop a bomb, it has the money and apparently the desire to buy nuclear technology from the former Soviet Union. What's stopping it, they say, is a strict embargo.
• NORTH KOREA - North Korea put its atomic program on hold in 1994 but recently threatened to resume it if Washington did not deliver promised nuclear power plants. Under a landmark 1994 accord, the U.S. pledged to replace Pyongyang's graphite reactors, which are capable of producing weapons-grade material, with the safer light-water plants.

NEW INFORMATION: (From Canadian Security Intelligence Services Report)

     North Korea, a party to the NPT, is believed to have violated that agreement by separating plutonium from spent fuel in pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Specifically, it is believed to have obtained as much as 12 kg of plutonium from a 5 Mwe experimental reactor at its Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, 90 km north of Pyongyang, in 1989. US intelligence was publicly cited in 1993 as estimating that there was a "better than even chance" that North Korea had used this material to manufacture one or two nuclear weapons. In an October 1994 "Agreed Framework" negotiated with the US, North Korea agreed to freeze and eventually dismantle its existing and planned gas-graphite reactors (one of which, at 50 Mwe, would have produced enough plutonium for 7-12 nuclear weapons per year) and associated spent-fuel reprocessing plant; not to reprocess a stock of spent fuel that it had unloaded earlier that year (sufficient to provide enough plutonium for four or five nuclear weapons); and (again, eventually) to comply fully with its IAEA safeguards obligations, including satisfying the IAEA that it does not have an undeclared stockpile of separated plutonium. In return, it will receive—courtesy of a "Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization" (KEDO)—two 1,000-Mwe light-water reactors (LWRs), considered more "proliferation-resistant" (in the Pentagon's words, "less easily exploited for weapons production") than the gas-graphite reactors.

    Since 1994, albeit slowly and with occasional interruptions, the parties to the Agreed Framework have lived up to their obligations, effectively halting the production of new weapons-usable nuclear materials at designated facilities. However, as one 1995 study put it, North Korea "may be continuing work...on other aspects of its nuclear weapons program, such as designing a nuclear weapon or fabricating such weapons from materials it already possesses." US intelligence officials were reported in 1997 as believing that the North had clandestine nuclear weapon manufacturing sites that had eluded Western detection, and was capable of producing a first-generation implosion device, between 500 and 1,000 kg in mass, that would fit on a No Dong, but not a Scud, ballistic missile.

    During 1998 the US became concerned about an underground construction project at Kumchang-ni, in northern North Korea, that was believed to be large enough to house a plutonium production reactor and/or a reprocessing plant. After lengthy and difficult negotiations, the US was permitted to inspect the facility in May 1999. According to the Pentagon's January 2001 report, "Based on the 1999 team's findings, it was concluded that the facility, as then concurrently configured, was not suited to house graphite-moderated reactors or reprocessing operations. A second visit to Kumchang-ni was conducted in May 2000, during which the team found no evidence to contradict the 1999 conclusions."

     Nevertheless, suspicions remain about continuing North Korean nuclear weapons activity. In October 1999, the unclassified version of the "Perry Report" on US North Korea policy noted that "despite the critical achievement of a verified freeze on plutonium production at Yongbyon under the Agreed Framework, the policy review team has serious concerns about possible continuing nuclear weapons-related work in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]." The following month, a US Congressional report charged that "There is significant evidence that undeclared nuclear weapons development activity continues, including efforts to acquire uranium enrichment technologies and recent nuclear-related high explosive tests. This means that the US cannot discount the possibility that North Korea could produce additional nuclear weapons outside of the constraints imposed by the 1994 Agreed Framework."

    Meanwhile, North Korea remains in non-compliance with respect to its obligations under its nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA until such time as, under the terms of the Agreed Framework, it is required to account for its past activities (that is, before key nuclear components can be delivered for the two new LWRs). Work on the LWRs has been delayed beyond the time-frame envisaged in the Agreed Framework, resulting in occasional North Korean threats to scrap the arrangement and resume its former program. Early in 2001, it appeared that the incoming US administration of George W. Bush might seek to substitute coal-fired power plants for the LWRs, eliciting similar North Korean threats. Amid continuing (especially US Congressional) concern about the political precedent of appearing to reward a wayward proliferator, about reactor safety, and about the proliferation potential of even safeguarded LWRs, the future of the Agreed Framework seems somewhat less than assured.

History of Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Chart (1945-1995):

NOTE: Totals are estimates. Lists include strategic and non-strategic warheads, as well as warheads awaiting dismantling