How many tactical nuclear warheads does the US have?

[rupol2000]

How many tactical nuclear warheads does the US have?

I think that tactical nuclear weapons are the most in demand right now, because missile defense systems intercept strategic warheads.

Tactical nuclear missiles can be fired even from ordinary Himers, right? And a flight range of more than 500 km is enough to cover any territory.

It is most convenient to place them on submarines. And in the United States there are a lot of submarines.

Is there reliable data on US strategic nuclear warheads, how many of them are deployed and on what carriers?

 

[occupied]

I'm sure they have enough.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i give up.....how many?.....

 

[Donald H]

How many tactical nuclear warheads does the US have?

I think that tactical nuclear weapons are the most in demand right now, because missile defense systems intercept strategic warheads.

Tactical nuclear missiles can be fired even from ordinary Himers, right? And a flight range of more than 500 km is enough to cover any territory.

It is most convenient to place them on submarines. And in the United States there are a lot of submarines.

Is there reliable data on US strategic nuclear warheads, how many of them are deployed and on what carriers?

Enough to destroy Russia without having Russia destroy the US too?

That's the question and answer you're really entertaining isn't it?

FYI, America has destroyed it's last nation. Russia has decided to stand strong and is ready to turn the tables.

 

[mamooth]

The USA phased out most of their tactical nuclear weapons. What's left is about 200 B61 gravity bombs, of which about 100 are forward-deployed to Europe (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey.)

The US Army no longer has any artillery-based nuke systems, or any short-range missile systems with nukes.

The US Navy no longer mounts nukes on Tomahawk cruise missiles.

 

[Donald H]

The USA phased out most of their tactical nuclear weapons. What's left is about 200 B61 gravity bombs, of which about 100 are forward-deployed to Europe (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey.)

The US Army no longer has any artillery-based nuke systems, or any short-range missile systems with nukes.

The US Navy no longer mounts nukes on Tomahawk cruise missiles.

You shouldn't be so sure. America has set the stage for a tactical nuclear war against Russia and won't be releasing the truth to the public. Only Russian spies will know the facts needed to prepare.
Can Russia win a nuclear war without coming out of it severely injured? They don't believe so.

 

[Thunk]

Biden probably sold them all to russia and pocketed the cash!

 

[Toro]

How many tactical nuclear warheads does the US have?

I think that tactical nuclear weapons are the most in demand right now, because missile defense systems intercept strategic warheads.

Tactical nuclear missiles can be fired even from ordinary Himers, right? And a flight range of more than 500 km is enough to cover any territory.

It is most convenient to place them on submarines. And in the United States there are a lot of submarines.

Is there reliable data on US strategic nuclear warheads, how many of them are deployed and on what carriers?

A lot

 

[ABikerSailor]

How many tactical nuclear warheads does the US have?

I think that tactical nuclear weapons are the most in demand right now, because missile defense systems intercept strategic warheads.

Tactical nuclear missiles can be fired even from ordinary Himers, right? And a flight range of more than 500 km is enough to cover any territory.

It is most convenient to place them on submarines. And in the United States there are a lot of submarines.

Is there reliable data on US strategic nuclear warheads, how many of them are deployed and on what carriers?

Dude......................did you ever stop to think that the information you are asking about is classified? Nations aren't going to advertise exactly how many nukes they have.

As far as the rest of your post? Have you ever stopped to think about the ramifications of using nuclear weapons? Even small ones will cause a lot of damage that will be long lasting in the area they are used. That's one of the reasons that countries DON'T want to see them used in a war.

 

[Donald H]

Dude......................did you ever stop to think that the information you are asking about is classified? Nations aren't going to advertise exactly how many nukes they have.

As far as the rest of your post? Have you ever stopped to think about the ramifications of using nuclear weapons? Even small ones will cause a lot of damage that will be long lasting in the area they are used. That's one of the reasons that countries DON'T want to see them used in a war.

rupol2000 is another hit and run act who doesn't want to get involved in any serious discussions on the hard questions concerning America's wars.

The current war by America is the rubber meeting the road, on the possibility of answering any of the important questions.

Does Russia have as many or more tactical nuclear warheads than America?

And which country has the greatest ability to deliver them at hypersonic speed?

 

[whitehall]

Years ago a foreign poster might get a visit from the CIA for asking that question. I guess it doesn't matter these days.

 

[rupol2000]

The USA phased out most of their tactical nuclear weapons. What's left is about 200 B61 gravity bombs, of which about 100 are forward-deployed to Europe (Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey.)

The US Army no longer has any artillery-based nuke systems, or any short-range missile systems with nukes.

The US Navy no longer mounts nukes on Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Where does this information come from?

And here we are not talking about short-range missiles. Tactical missiles can fire at a distance of more than 500 km, this is not a short range in terms of tactics.

 

[rupol2000]

Enough to destroy Russia without having Russia destroy the US too?

I think that no matter how many warheads are deployed in the Russian Federation, they still have no chance against America, because there are no means of delivery. There are very few submarines and ships in the Russian Federation, there are no aircraft carriers fleet forces, and so on.
As far as I understand, the Russian Federation focused on launching strategic ICBMs, but now this is not a winning option, because there is missile defense. And only submarines and ships are suitable for delivery to the USA, mostly submarines, to be invisible. Here the Russian Federation has absolutely no chance.

 

[rupol2000]

In addition, America has an advantage in geopolitical position. They can use NATO geolocation in Europe and bases in the Middle East, and the Russian Federation has the ability to deploy tactical weapons only in Cuba, but Cuba is too vulnerable to attacks from the United States, and if at least one American who is not a spy remains in the Pentagon, deployment in Cuba will not work.

 

[rupol2000]

The most losing position of the Russian Federation is in Eastern Europe. Poland will be ready to host as many US nuclear weapons as it likes, besides, Western Belarus will easily go over to the side of Poland, this is already almost a fact. From this distance, it is possible to destroy all control centers, all the most important command posts, they are all in the European part, not far from the Polish and Ukrainian borders.
From the point of view of what Moscow would not like most of all, this is precisely the destruction of historical Russia - the northwest of the Russian Federation. If there is an attack there, the regime does not even have the slightest chance of retaining power, because separatist sentiments in the Russian Federation are already very strong. This will lead not only to the fall of Moscow, but also to the collapse of the Russian Federation.

 

[rupol2000]

I do not see a realistic scenario for the Russian Federation to realize its nuclear superiority in the number of tactical warheads, regardless of whether there is an advantage or not.

 

[braalian]

Tactical nukes are too risky. Why risk full scale nuclear war just to use some battlefield weapons that mean nothing if the real mussels start flying

 

[Donald H]

I think that no matter how many warheads are deployed in the Russian Federation, they still have no chance against America, because there are no means of delivery.

There actually are madmen who will argue about one side or the other being able to win a nuclear war!

This can only be because the god will presumedly side with America, to fulfill prophesy.

 

[Stryder50]

I think that no matter how many warheads are deployed in the Russian Federation, they still have no chance against America, because there are no means of delivery. There are very few submarines and ships in the Russian Federation, there are no aircraft carriers fleet forces, and so on.
As far as I understand, the Russian Federation focused on launching strategic ICBMs, but now this is not a winning option, because there is missile defense. And only submarines and ships are suitable for delivery to the USA, mostly submarines, to be invisible. Here the Russian Federation has absolutely no chance.

While there may be "missile defense", the quantity factor doesn't match the number of missiles that could be fired (with or without warheads, ie. decoys).

 

[Stryder50]

"Tactical" is a relative term. Here's a more informative list, though may be limited in full accuracy;
...

Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?​

1. Russia — 6,257 (1,458 active, 3039 available, 1,760 retired)
2. United States — 5,550 (1,389 active, 2,361 available, 1,800 retired)
3. China — 350 available (actively expanding nuclear arsenal)
4. France — 290 available
5. United Kingdom — 225 available
6. Pakistan — 165 available
7. India — 156 available
8. Israel — 90 available
9. North Korea — 40-50 available (estimated)

.....

Nuclear Weapons by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com