Air University

AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Challenging Nuclear Abolition

Adam Lowther, PhD

Defense Analyst, Air Force Research Institute

Research Paper 2009-4

Air Force Research Institute

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6026

August 2009

00-frontmatter.indd 1 9/14/09 10:35:55 AM
ii

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US Government 

agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

Air Force Research Institute (AFRI) papers and Air University monographs are occasional studies written by 

Air Force researchers at large and military defense analysts assigned to the Air University and beyond. The 

purpose of this series is to provide useful ideas and 

independent analysis of issues of current or potential 

importance to Air Force commanders and their staffs. 

This monograph and others in the series are also available electronically and at the Maxwell Archives Web site 

at https://research.maxwell.af.mil.

00-frontmatter.indd 2 9/14/09 10:35:56 AM
iii

Contents

Page

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ABOUT THE AUTHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHALLENGING NUCLEAR ABOLITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Nuclear Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Nuclear Abolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

00-frontmatter.indd 3 9/14/09 10:35:56 AM
00-frontmatter.indd 4 9/14/09 10:35:56 AM
v

Foreword

The attractiveness of Adam Lowther’s study of American 

nuclear weapons policy is that it explains the complexities of 

the issue in very clear terms. It will help all readers understand the debate. In particular, it frames the issue of nuclear 

weapons in relationship to the most basic concept of primary 

importance—how we view American strength in the world.

Nuclear weapons policy has recently gained national exposure 

by the fact that the president declared a desire to reduce the 

number of nuclear weapons with a final goal of eliminating them 

all together. The other factor that gave yeast to the issue was the 

pronouncement by former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger 

and George Shultz; former secretary of defense William Perry; 

former senator Sam Nunn; and other luminaries that the nation 

should support elimination of nuclear weapon all together.

Dr. Lowther breaks down the elements of the debate between 

“abolitionists” on the one hand, and the “modernizers” on the 

other, who have opposing views of the utility of nuclear weapons. 

What makes the issue complex is that there is clearly a value to 

nuclear weapons, and total elimination tends to be a far off, if 

attractive goal. In the meantime the nation has to decide how to 

deal with our reality which not only has national and international deterrent implications, but is also a matter of science. 

In the interim the nation must modernize its weapons because 

they are getting old. We must also update our delivery systems 

and even decide whether we need three systems: airplanes, 

missiles and submarines. Finally, we need to refresh our aging 

scientist and engineering base. We cannot easily replace those 

who put together our current arsenal.

Daniel R. Mortensen

Dean, Air Force Research Institute

00-frontmatter.indd 5 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM
00-frontmatter.indd 6 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM
vii

About the Author

Dr. Adam Lowther is a military defense analyst at the Air 

Force Research Institute, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He is the 

author of Americans and Asymmetric Conflict: Lebanon, Somalia, 

and Afghanistan and coeditor of Terrorism’s Unanswered Questions. Dr. Lowther has also written papers on the Iraq War 

and military strategy. He would like to thank the members 

of the Air Staff, US Strategic Command, Global Strike Command, and the Institute for Deterrence Studies who provided 

extensive feedback on drafts of this article. 

00-frontmatter.indd 7 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM
00-frontmatter.indd 8 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM
ix

Summary

A generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse 

of the Soviet Union, the United States stands at a crossroad. 

One path leads to a reinvigoration of the nuclear enterprise, 

while the other promises an end to nuclear weapons. 

Those that advocate the recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise fall into the “modernizer” camp. They believe that America’s 

nuclear arsenal prevented the United States and Soviet Union 

from engaging in a large-scale conventional conflict during the 

Cold War. Deterrence was successful because the consequences 

of its failure were too terrible to risk. Thus, the modernizers advocate a renewed emphasis on the nuclear enterprise, design of new 

warheads, and the development of new delivery platforms. For 

modernizers, capability and credibility are inextricably linked, 

and both are an important element of deterrence. And, perhaps 

most importantly, modernizers do not believe that the end of the 

Cold War fundamentally changed the nature of power, persuasion, and the use of violence. Today, just as during the Cold War, 

nuclear weapons remain a vital element of US national security. 

Those advocating that the nation follow a different path are 

the “abolitionists.” Often found in academia, Washington-based 

lobbying organizations, and the remnants of the peace movement, abolitionists are focused on eliminating nuclear weapons 

completely. They suggest that these weapons are too destructive and could fall into the hands of someone willing to use 

them. Thus, the United States must lead the way in their reduction and elimination. As abolitionists suggest, the world 

will be a safer place without them.

This msonograph challenges the logic of nuclear abolitionists, 

addressing each of their arguments and highlighting the flaws. 

It also suggests that nuclear weapons are as relevant today as 

they were during the Cold War. They continue to force America’s 

adversaries to move down the spectrum of violence, choosing 

means that do not present an existential threat to the nation.

00-frontmatter.indd 9 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM
00-frontmatter.indd 10 9/14/09 10:35:57 AM


Challenging Nuclear Abolition 

On 5 April 2009, the president of the United States stood before a cheering crowd in Hradcany Square in the Czech Republic’s capital of Prague. He spoke at length about his desire to 

continue reforming America’s nuclear enterprise, including pursuing additional nonproliferation agreements with the world’s 

nuclear powers.1

There can be little doubt that 2009 and 2010 are certain to 

be historic years for the United States. With the country facing 

economic and security challenges, tough choices regarding defense spending and national security strategy are likely to 

come, and they may significantly affect nuclear weapons policy. 

Although the president’s efforts to develop a “new New Deal” 

may overshadow shifts in nuclear weapons policy, Pres. Barack 

Obama may oversee a truly unprecedented change in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and the policy governing their use. 

In 2009–10 the administration will produce a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which will serve as the rationale for major 

revision to the current policy, and oversee the expiration and/

or possible extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 

(START), which expires on 5 December 2009. The president 

will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with obligations in the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), which 

requires the United States to reduce its operationally deployed 

strategic warheads from around 5,000 to 1,700–2,200 by 2012. 

In addition to the president’s Prague speech, the White House 

released President Obama’s agenda, stating the policies he will 

pursue regarding the nuclear arsenal. According to the White 

House, there are three foci of the president’s nuclear agenda: 

securing loose nuclear material, strengthening the Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and moving toward a nuclearfree world.2

Attempting to influence President Obama’s nuclear weapons 

policy are a number of disparate groups with very different 

views on the appropriate size of the nuclear arsenal, the role of 

nuclear weapons, and the best approach to achieving deterrence. Although it is difficult to accurately present the separate 

and distinct views of individuals once they are aggregated into 

01-Text.indd 1 10/23/09 9:30:33 AM
a group, it is useful to represent the diversity of thought on 

nuclear weapons by dividing those who write about, think 

about, and make nuclear weapons policy into two, somewhat 

mutually exclusive, groups. 

On the one hand are “modernizers,” with many in this group 

drawn from the leadership of the Departments of Defense (DOD) 

and Energy (DOE). Between 2006 and early 2009, these military leaders oversaw the production of a substantial number of 

reports and studies addressing questions related to nuclear 

weapons policy and the broader nuclear weapons complex. 

They gave a number of public speeches and interviews while 

also writing various articles that outlined their thinking on the 

issue.3 What is clear is that modernizers see the nuclear arsenal as playing a vital role in preserving the national security of 

the United States and its allies. The modernizers believe that 

the United States must develop a new warhead and advanced 

delivery platforms if the nation wishes to maintain the most 

advanced and secure nuclear arsenal in the world.4 Recent reports published by such groups as the Task Force on DOD 

Nuclear Weapons Management, Defense Science Board, and 

the Air Force helped shape the current views of modernizers.5

On the other hand are the abolitionists. Although they do 

not have a clearly defined leadership, it is clear that some will 

assume key roles in the current administration. Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz; former 

secretary of defense William Perry; former senator Sam Nunn; 

Ivo Daalder, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution; Jan 

Lodal, past president of the Atlantic Council of the United 

States; billionaire Richard Branson; and a substantial number of senior faculty at elite universities support nuclear disarmament in recent writings and efforts. While it would be 

incorrect to suggest that these two groups necessarily have an 

adversarial relationship, they do represent very different visions 

for the nuclear arsenal. 

Because of the president’s past support for reducing and 

eliminating nuclear weapons, opponents of the nuclear arsenal 

see an opportunity to oversee substantial reductions in the 

number of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.6 Prior 

to President Obama’s electoral victory in November, numbers 

of reports were published calling for the reduction or elimination 

01-Text.indd 2 10/23/09 9:30:33 AM
of the nuclear arsenal. And, since President Obama’s inauguration, members of the abolitionist movement have assumed 

prominent positions in the administration, with the recent confirmation of Rose Gottemoeller as the assistant secretary of 

state for verification and compliance being one example.

Based on information flowing from the White House, the 

Pentagon, and news outlets, it is reasonable to suggest that 

abolitionists are now in ascendance, with modernizers clearly 

concerned that proposed reductions will go too far and jeopardize the continued credibility of US nuclear deterrence. This 

concern is also shared by many within the DOD and the DOE 

at lower levels. 

The pages that follow take a critical look at the fundamental 

arguments offered by abolitionists and conclude that the rationale offered, while admirable, is utopian and makes predictions 

about human behavior that are not supported by historical 

example or logic, which must be relied on when examining nuclear deterrence. Successful deterrence, conventional or nuclear, 

is difficult to demonstrate since “proving the negative” is exceptionally hard. This requires the reader to balance the need for empirical 

evidence with the need to act as Thomas Schelling’s “armchair” 

strategist.

Nuclear Modernization

The rationale for modernization of the nuclear arsenal is extensively described in a number of DOD reports issued between 

2006 and 2009. Pentagon leadership has highlighted three 

pressing needs to modernize the nuclear arsenal. First, the 

United States has not developed a new nuclear warhead in 

more than two decades.

Although the current stockpile is regularly maintained, most 

of the warheads were designed and built either in the early 

1960s, the late 1970s, or early 1980s. It is important to note 

that nuclear warheads were designed to be replaced every 10–

15 years, which was the case for more than 40 years. This led 

top policy makers and military leaders to call for the development of a safer and more technologically advanced Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).7 See appendix for a complete list of 

all manufactured US nuclear warheads.

01-Text.indd 3 10/23/09 9:30:34 AM
Shortly after taking command of US Strategic Command 

(USSTRATCOM), which is the combatant command responsible 

for US nuclear war plans, Gen Kevin Chilton spoke to attendees at the “Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century” conference 

in Washington, DC. An excerpt from his speech provides excellent insight on this specific issue: 

The primary design requirement in the 50s and the 60s was to maximize 

yield and minimize volume. We had certain size rockets that could carry 

certain size things, and we wanted to get as many warheads as we could 

available to the nation. That’s what we needed to do in the Cold War.

The longevity of the weapons, performance margins, and manufacturability and maintainability were requirements that were traded off and 

prioritized lower than bang and volume. And I think that’s an important 

point. That is what we are living with today are those weapons, and those 

were the requirements that laid the foundation for what we have today.

Figure 1. An aging stockpile of uncertain and likely declining reliability. 

(Reprinted from a briefing by retired admiral Richard Meis.)

01-Text.indd 4 10/23/09 9:30:34 AM
He continued, making a significant point, which plays a key 

role in shaping the outlook of modernizers.

Tight performance margins and maintainability. Why were we able to 

trade those off? I think there are a couple of reasons. One, we had an 

engine in place to produce weapons at a pretty phenomenal rate, and 

the thought was we could replace them and we did in fact, with new 

designs about every 15 to 20 years, if not more frequently. And we kept 

them. So you could take risk in your design, maximize bang, minimize 

volume, take risk in maintainability, take risk in margins because of 

those two factors.

Then what happened in the 1990s? We took away some underlying assumptions that bolstered those requirements on which you’d like your 

weapons to look like. We got rid of our production capacity in this country 

and we stopped testing. So now things like maintainability and performance margins come to the forefront in the discussions on what you 

really want in the weapons that you have assigned to you to conduct 

your mission as the Strategic Command Commander.

One additional point is worth noting because it underscores 

much of the support for such programs as the RRW. As General 

Chilton stated,

The other thing I learned about nuclear weapons is when you set one off 

it’s a high energy physics experiment. It’s pretty hard to understand 

and explain in models, but we’re trying like crazy to do all that. But 

when they’re sitting on the shelf what I didn’t appreciate was that they’re 

chemistry experiments. They’re chemistry in motion. Things are changing. They’re not static at all. In fact the physics package is not static and 

the things that surround the physics package are being impacted by the 

fact that it is not static. It affects the life and functionality of any nonnuclear and in some cases nuclear components of the weapon system 

that are absolutely important to the function of the system.8

The second point regularly highlighted by modernizers focuses 

on the aging personnel responsible for designing and maintaining the nuclear stockpile and the important point that most of 

these scientists are rapidly approaching retirement. There is an 

immediate need to find young scientists and engineers willing to 

dedicate their careers to the nuclear mission before the 

knowledge and skills of the present workforce are lost.9

General Chilton said of the scientists who design and maintain the nation’s nuclear weapons, “Someone said, I’ll steal this 

quote from somebody, ‘The knowledge of how to design and fix 

and work on and understand nuclear weapons in the country 

01-Text.indd 5 10/23/09 9:30:34 AM
today is aging faster than the plutonium in the weapon system.’ That is a real concern. A real concern. Human capital is 

every bit as important to having a nuclear capability second to 

none as is the appropriate bricks and mortar and infrastructure to support that capability.”10

Third, the weapons platforms responsible for delivering the 

nation’s nuclear weapons to their targets are also aging. This is 

of particular concern for the Air Force, which is responsible for 

two of the three legs in the nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and bombers. Although some of the subordinate systems in ICBMs and nuclear bombers are periodically 

upgraded and modernized through various programs, such as 

the life extension programs, the remaining 450 Minuteman III 

ICBMs were designed in the early 1960s and are older than the 

Airmen managing and maintaining them.11 This problem will 

only worsen because the Minuteman III is mandated to remain 

in service until 2030. The B-52H, the mainstay of nuclearcapable bombers, is even older and is unable to penetrate defended airspace.12 And, like the Minuteman III, the 76 remaining 

B-52Hs are expected to continue in service until 2030–40. The 

19 current B-2 bombers, designed while Pres. Ronald Reagan 

was in office, remain the fleet’s only nuclear-capable bombers 

that can potentially penetrate defended airspace. 

The Air Force was developing the next generation bomber 

(NGB) as a stopgap measure until the maturation of hypersonic 

technology.13 But, with the recent release of Secretary of Defense 

Robert Gates’s budget, the NGB will not continue in development, perhaps because some in the Obama administration questioned whether a bomber with the NGB’s limited capabilities is a 

wise use of precious resources.14 In a fiscal environment where 

the federal government is borrowing at record levels, and in an 

administration that has expressed a desire to reduce defense 

spending, it may be unlikely that the president will support a 

new multibillion dollar bomber program anytime in the near future. Given the negative coverage in the press and Congress the 

Air Force has received regarding the F-22, the leadership may 

also be unwilling to risk such criticism for a bomber that is considered an interim solution.15 

On a more positive note, America’s fleet of 14 ballistic missile 

submarines (SSBN) is in the best relative condition of the nuclear 

01-Text.indd 6 10/23/09 9:30:35 AM
weapons delivery platforms but is also aging. The nation’s oldest 

Ohio class SSBN, the USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 730), was 

commissioned in 1977 while the newest, the USS Louisiana

(SSBN 743), was commissioned in 1997. A replacement for the 

Ohio class SSBN is not scheduled to enter service until 2029.16

Absent a change in current planning, the United States will be 

replacing every major nuclear weapons platform (Minuteman 

III, B-52H, and Ohio Class SSBN) at approximately the same 

time. If past and current examples of weapons development 

and procurement are any indicator of future performance (e.g., 

B-1B, B-2, F-22, Future Combat Systems), delays and cost 

overruns may make it unfeasible to replace these vital delivery 

systems at the same time.

As General Chilton said in recent testimony before the House 

Armed Services Committee, “USSTRATCOM’s job is to ensure 

that our national leadership has credible capabilities available, 

Figure 2. B-52H bomber. (USAF photo by MSgt Mike Kaplan)

01-Text.indd 7 10/23/09 9:30:35 AM
and that adversaries and allies alike grasp their nature and our 

constant readiness to employ them.”17 

Figure 3. B-1 bomber. (USAF photo)

The professional bureaucracy in the DOD and DOE is a repository of knowledge on the subject and generally stable across 

administrations. Among the Obama administration political 

appointees, there is a clear shift away from a preference for 

modernization, which was promoted during the Bush administration. All members of the bureaucracy, however, are careful 

not to be viewed as overtly political, which makes it difficult to 

gage the exact level of support for modernization. 

This effort to remain nonpartisan often leads analysis in official documents to focus on operational system strengths or 

weaknesses and technical requirements. Broader political/

strategic issues are more frequently avoided as senior officials 

seek to avoid wading into shark-infested waters, and with good 

reason. Most official publications also avoid overtly challenging 

01-Text.indd 8 10/23/09 9:30:36 AM
an administration or its political detractors. The weakness of 

this approach to addressing key issues is that it cedes the high 

ground, in this case, to nuclear abolitionists. Thus, these pages 

focus on providing a clear understanding of the arguments advanced by modernizers and their critique of nuclear abolition 

in an effort to provide a better understanding of the less frequently heard side of this debate. In doing so, there is a desire 

to promote a healthy debate about the usefulness and nature 

of the nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear Abolition

When “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” appeared in the 

editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal on 4 January 2007, 

many leading intellectuals took notice. Surprisingly, Shultz, 

Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn united in an effort to call for the 

end of nuclear weapons as soon as possible. That Nunn, a longtime advocate of nuclear nonproliferation, coauthored the article 

came as no surprise. Neither was it shocking that Perry, Pres. 

Bill Clinton’s former secretary of defense, was calling for an 

end to the age of assured destruction. The same could not be 

said of former secretaries of state Kissinger and Shultz. Both 

served in Republican administrations during the Cold War and 

had a record of promoting American strength in the world. Exactly why these political icons joined together for the sake of 

reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons is debatable. What 

is apparent is that their editorial and the election of a new 

president reinvigorated opponents of nuclear weapons after 

eight years of clear disappointment. 

In the two and a half years since the editorial ran, a myriad of 

reports and articles has echoed the same sentiment. The Arms 

Control Association, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Nuclear Threat Initiative, American Physics Society, 

and Sir Richard Branson’s newly formed Global Zero have 

all followed suit with articles, conferences, reports, and advocacy supporting a nuclear-free world.18 More recently, 

the November/December 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, the 

nation’s most influential foreign policy journal, published 

Daalder and Lodal’s “The Logic of Zero,” which explained in 

greater detail the thoughts of nuclear abolitionists.

01-Text.indd 9 10/23/09 9:30:36 AM
10

While all of these men have proven themselves to be intelligent and thoughtful leaders with the best interests of the 

United States at heart, there are, however, fundamental 

problems with “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” “The Logic 

of Zero,” and similar articles advocating nuclear disarmament. The main arguments in these articles are representative of the broader debate and worthy of discussion. 

Figure 4. Retired US Army general and former secretary of state Colin Powell 

and Henry Kissinger at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC, 2 Dec 

2008. (DOD photo by MSgt Adam M. Stump) 

01-Text.indd 10 10/23/09 9:30:36 AM
11

The Cold War Is Over 

Nuclear abolitionists begin most articles by informing the 

reader that the Cold War is over. Shultz, et, al.,’s 2007 Wall 

Street Journal article reported, “Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War 

because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold 

War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence 

obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration 

for many states with regard to threats from other states. But 

reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”19

Daalder and Lodal are less generous in their description of 

the transition from the Cold War to the post–Cold War when 

they say, “The reality is yet to sink in. US nuclear policies remain stuck in the Cold War, even as the threats the United 

States faces have changed dramatically.”20

These statements suggest that Presidents George H. W. Bush, 

Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush failed to understand the significance of the Cold War’s end. This implication does not stand 

up against empirical analysis. The rationale for this view is 

largely based on criticism of the 1993 and 2001 NPR, which 

abolitionists suggest failed to fundamentally reform US nuclear 

weapons policy. They are, however, incorrect for several reasons. These policy documents, unilateral action by all three 

presidents and the START and SORT, significantly reformed 

American nuclear weapons policy by altering the size, targeting, posture, and justification for use of the nuclear arsenal. 

In addition to faulting America’s political leadership, abolitionists also question the strategic understanding of senior 

military officers with suggestions that they no longer understand the strategic environment and the role nuclear weapons 

play in national security.21 Despairingly, it is said that general 

officers are “stuck in the Cold War” or are “looking for the next 

Cold War.” Both statements are inaccurate and suggest unfamiliarity with the military and the quality of its leadership.

While abolitionists acknowledge the US nuclear stockpile 

has declined by 80 percent since 1991—declining from more 

than 24,000 warheads to around 5,000—as it moves from 

2,200 to 1,700 by 2012, this is not seen as a fundamental shift 

01-Text.indd 11 10/23/09 9:30:37 AM
12

in nuclear weapons policy.22 This view is incorrect for four 

primary reasons. 

Figure 5. US nuclear stockpile is declining. (Adapted from a Federation of American 

Scientists fact sheet.)

First, the 80 percent reduction in operationally deployed 

strategic warheads achieved through START and SORT makes 

an approach to nuclear weapons policy—reliant on a survivable second strike—more difficult. Cold War policy began on 

the “assured destruction” concept which called for a secure 

second strike capability and an absence of defensive measures.23 In order to carry out a second strike, it was necessary 

for the United States to possess enough strategic weapons to 

survive a first strike capable of destroying Soviet targets. 

Since it was, and is, difficult to know if a Soviet first strike 

would destroy 10, 20, 50, or 90 percent of the US nuclear arsenal, past presidents erred on the side of caution. This meant 

the United States maintained a large nuclear arsenal as a hedge 

against a successful Soviet first strike. This was, in part, shaped 

by the fact that Americans found the idea of purposefully 

threatening the eradication of large numbers of civilians, even 

Soviets, unethical. US weapons were primarily targeted at Soviet nuclear missiles, bomber bases, and military targets.24

This “counterforce” strategy required a greater number of nuclear weapons because the targets were often small and without a precise known location—a mobile nuclear missile for 

example—and sometimes protected in hardened facilities. 

01-Text.indd 12 10/23/09 9:30:37 AM
13

While a “countervalue” strategy targeting Soviet cities and infrastructure would have required fewer nuclear weapons, the 

United States still required a survivable second strike capability in order to maintain a credible deterrent. 

With the continuing drawdown—under way for almost two 

decades—bringing the size of the nuclear arsenal down 90 percent by 2012, the assured destruction strategy that was the 

basis of Cold War nuclear policy is becoming untenable. Those 

who argue that a small number of nuclear weapons are sufficient operate on the assumption the United States would have 

a 100 percent success rate of “weapons on target” with a high 

kill ratio. There is little room for potential threats to the successful prosecution of a nuclear conflict, which include

• A first strike against the US nuclear arsenal

• Minuteman III and Trident II launch failures

• The shooting down of nuclear armed aircraft

• The sinking of SSBNs

• Incorrect targeting 

• Detonation failures

A number of additional acts or circumstances arising in the 

fog and friction of war could prevent the United States from 

achieving perfection in nuclear weapons use. Thus, advocates 

of further reductions must account for the probability that a 

nuclear conflict will not go as planned. 

It is important to understand the strategic significance of 

continued reductions. One shift is the required change in targeting strategy that is necessary to move to a small nuclear 

arsenal. A counterforce targeting strategy is difficult to sustain 

as fewer operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons are 

available to allocate to military targets. This forces a shift to a 

countervalue targeting strategy and selection of civilian targets, 

which require far fewer nuclear weapons to hold the Russian, 

Chinese, or other nation’s citizens at risk. Where the United 

States once targeted mobile Soviet missile launchers or remote 

Siberian missile bases—similar to US bases in Montana, North 

Dakota, and Wyoming—with multiple ICBM or bomber strikes, 

01-Text.indd 13 10/23/09 9:30:37 AM
14

the president will soon be forced to target Moscow and St. Petersburg because the arsenal includes too few weapons to effectively 

threaten Russian military targets. Drawdowns also force the Russians to make the same choice, pushing Atlanta, New York, Los 

Angeles, and other major cities to the top of the target list. 

There can be little doubt that reductions in the nuclear arsenal size force a change in nuclear weapons policy. The potential 

dilemma created by further reductions is exacerbated when the 

lower yields of current warheads are taken into account. Not 

only are there fewer weapons, but they are less powerful. The 

real question remains, does the United States desire to back 

itself into a position where it must rely on a countervalue strategy 

and focus on the destruction of an adversary’s population?

Second, the smaller the nuclear arsenal becomes, the fewer 

adversary countries the United States can reasonably expect 

to effectively hold at risk. This changes the cost/benefit calculation of an adversary who may desire to change the status 

quo. As the subjective theory of value suggests, with fewer nuclear weapons the United States is likely to place greater value 

on each weapon, raising the minimum requirement for their 

use.25 Thus, the deterrent value of the nuclear arsenal is degraded as an adversary perceives the minimum standard for 

use to be higher. 

And, if the United States continues to reduce the size of its 

nuclear force, an adversary is likely to view a first strike against 

the US nuclear arsenal as having a greater probability of success and a lower potential cost. For example, eliminating the 

ICBM force could reduce the Russian targeting problem in the 

continental United States to as few as six targets, greatly increasing the appeal of a first strike. By maintaining a large 

nuclear arsenal, the United States effectively raises the fee to 

enter the nuclear club as a peer, potentially dissuading prospective entrants. By reducing the arsenal to a number that is 

less difficult to achieve by the Iranians, for example, the entry 

fee is reduced and more nations view entry into the nuclear 

club as a viable option. 

Third, a major shift in force structure is readily apparent. 

There can be little doubt that strategic and tactical nuclear 

forces are very different today than they were the day the Soviet 

Union collapsed. For example, the Peacekeeper, the newest 

01-Text.indd 14 10/23/09 9:30:37 AM
15

long range nuclear-capable missile the United States has 

developed, was retired from service in 2005.26 The Minuteman 

III, a much older delivery system, has seen dramatic reductions 

in total numbers and the number of warheads deployed on 

each missile. It is of great significance to note that today’s fleet 

of Minuteman IIIs (450) and B-52Hs (76) is far smaller than it 

was in 1990. 

According to former secretary of defense William Cohen’s 

1998 Annual Report to the President and the Congress, the 

United States deployed 1,000 ICBMs and a fleet of 324 longrange bombers near the end of the Cold War.27 If, as the earlier 

quote from Daalder and Lodal suggests, US military and political leaders are stuck in the Cold War, how do they explain the 

dramatic changes seen in the nuclear arsenal over the past 18 

years? These reductions in the strategic force clearly demonstrate that political and military leaders were aware of a 

changing strategic environment.28 With the perfect vision that 

hindsight provides, it is easy to criticize previous administrations, but to dismiss significant reforms the nuclear arsenal 

has undergone is unjustified.

It’s All about Terrorism

The second argument advanced by abolitionists suggests, “In 

today’s war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation.”29 Daalder 

and Lodal argue, “A nuclear arsenal of many thousands of 

weapons will do nothing to deter terrorists from using a nuclear 

bomb should they acquire one; indeed the more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the more likely it is that terrorists 

will get their hands on one.”30 Without mischaracterizing the 

words of prominent abolitionists, it is accurate to say they believe the United States must disarm in order to encourage the 

remaining nuclear weapons states to follow suit—as will those 

states developing nuclear weapons. With nation-states disarmed, terrorists will not be able to acquire fissile material, 

which they can use to construct a nuclear bomb for use against 

the United States. 

The logic of this idea is deeply problematic for several reasons. First, there is a lack of evidence to support the assertion 

01-Text.indd 15 10/23/09 9:30:38 AM
16

that the number of existing nuclear weapons correlates to the 

probability of terrorists acquiring a weapon or fissile material. 

A well secured stockpile of 10,000 warheads is far less a proliferation risk than one unsecured warhead. Focusing on the 

size of the nuclear stockpile is an obfuscation that does not 

directly address real security risks. 

Figure 6. A Barksdale AFB, LA, weapons storage area. (USAF photo)

Second, the history of attempted arms control does not support the notion that the United States would be safer with fewer 

nuclear weapons. To the contrary, American disarmament is 

likely to be viewed by adversaries and terror networks as weakness and an opportunity to accomplish previous objectives absent American interference. The failure of the Washington Naval Treaty (1922) disarmament efforts after World War I played 

an important role in the remilitarization of the Axis powers in the 

1930s and left the United States less prepared for World War 

II.31 Then, as now, utopian views of a world without war left the 

United States without a credible military deterrent in the Pacific and, in part, led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Following the Cold War, many nonproliferation experts were 

shocked to learn that during the Cold War the Soviet Union, a 

01-Text.indd 16 10/23/09 9:30:38 AM
17

signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention, maintained an 

advanced biological weapons capability in violation of its treaty 

obligations.32 Had the Soviets launched a biological attack 

against the United States, it is doubtful the nation could have 

effectively stopped or mitigated the effects since the United 

States did comply with its treaty obligations. 

The wave of localized conflicts that followed the end of the 

Cold War may be indicative of a world free of nuclear weapons 

and the positive element of restraint they engender.33 A survey of 

the historical record does not readily reveal an example of a great 

power willingly relinquishing an advanced military capability. 

Much less is there an example of a great power relinquishing 

an advanced military capability to promote peace and actually 

accomplishing that objective. Thus, if abolitionists win the current debate and the United States ultimately denuclearizes, it 

will be doing so contrary to the weight of considerable historical 

evidence which suggests that doing so will not create a more 

peaceful world. 

In the ongoing struggle against international terror networks, it is important for the United States to maintain a superior capability in as many levels of conflict as possible. By 

doing so, nonstate actors are pushed lower and lower on what 

may be thought of as a “conflict pyramid,” in which nuclear 

weapons serve as the capstone of conflict and small scale violence as the base. The lower down the pyramid the United 

States can force its adversaries, state or nonstate, the probability is lower that the nation will face an existential threat. Moving toward nuclear disarmament does not force terror networks 

further down the pyramid. Instead, it opens an opportunity for 

them to leapfrog to the top. 

Abolitionists assume that terrorists desire nuclear weapons 

and, should they acquire them, will rush to use them in an attack.34 Such an assumption may not be correct.35 Adversaries 

of the United States do not choose terrorism from a full range 

of military options. Instead, American dominance in all other 

domains creates a set of circumstances in which terrorism becomes the only viable option for an adversary. As Mao Tse-tung 

describes in his manual for conducting guerrilla warfare, terrorism is not an end in itself but a tactic of the weak. Victory in 

a conventional conflict is the ultimate military objective of a 

01-Text.indd 17 10/23/09 9:30:38 AM
18

weaker adversary, including terrorists.36 It is, however, not an 

option. Suggesting that terrorists are, by definition, irrational 

demonstrates a shallow understanding of the principles, objectives, and tactics of terror networks.37

Figure 7. Conflict pyramid. (Created by author)

If terrorists were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would be 

more useful as a tool for blackmail or propaganda than as a 

weapon of mass destruction in a single terror attack. Terrorists 

seek to change the status quo by targeting noncombatants 

who can then shift the policies of their government. Al-Qaeda 

threatening to use a nuclear weapon is far more powerful than 

actually using it. For example, Americans may pressure their 

government to change its policy if threatened. However, Cerberus, 

guardian to the gates of Hades, could not stop an American 

invasion of the underworld once a nuclear weapon was used 

against the United States.

/VDMFBS

8FBQPOT

.BKPS$PNCBU

0QFSBUJPOT

-FTTFS$PNCBU

0QFSBUJPOT

*OTVSHFODZ

5FSSPSJTN

/VDMFBS

8FBQPOT

.BKPS$PNCBU

0QFSBUJPOT

-FTTFS$PNCBU

0QFSBUJPOT

*OTVSHFODZ

5FSSPSJTN

01-Text.indd 18 10/23/09 9:30:39 AM
19

Third, abolitionists contend that American conventional capabilities are a substitute for nuclear weapons and are better 

suited for fighting terrorism. The Bush administration’s “new 

triad” was built, in part, on the belief that precision-guided 

munitions (PGM) can hold the same targets at risk that once 

required nuclear weapons.38 While this is technically correct, 

nuclear weapons are valuable because of the psychological effect they generate, which is not replicated by PGMs. If, however, this line of reasoning is carried to its logical conclusion, it 

would require the United States to move toward the elimination 

of advanced conventional capabilities for reasons similar to 

those offered as a rationale for eliminating nuclear weapons. 

In fact, there is little reason and a conspicuous lack of historical evidence to suggest the world will be safer without nuclear 

weapons. It is only because America’s adversaries are well aware 

of their inability to match American conventional capabilities 

that nuclear weapons are an attractive option. Fear of American conventional forces is a driving force behind nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran, not the fear of America’s 

nuclear arsenal.39 Suggesting that an American move toward 

nuclear disarmament will lead to adversaries disarming ignores 

recent history. A move by the United States to disarm may, in 

fact, have the undesired effect of spurring nuclear development 

by US adversaries since the bar for reaching parity will be lower. 

Thus, it is problematic when Daalder and Lodal claim, “Today, 

the gravest threat comes from the possibility of terrorists bent 

on delivering a devastating blow against the United States acquiring the capacity to do so with nuclear weapons.”40 They are 

wrong in suggesting that a nuclear attack by terrorists is the 

gravest threat this country faces. The Russian and Chinese 

nuclear arsenals remain a far greater potential threat. 

While it is true that a future terrorist attack on the United 

States is a greater probability, such an attack is not an existential threat. The same cannot be said of a large scale nuclear 

attack on the United States by a nuclear peer. 

Conventional and nuclear weapons are different—very different. 

If this was not the case, why was 9 August 1945 the last time 

a nuclear weapon was used in war? This rare usage cannot be 

claimed by any conventional weapon. As Ellen Collier of the 

Congressional Research Service illustrated, the Cold War was 

01-Text.indd 19 10/23/09 9:30:39 AM
20

rife with conventional conflicts in which the United States was 

constantly engaged.41 The same is true of the post–Cold War 

period. If there is a lesson to be learned from the Cold War, it is 

the periodic failure of conventional deterrence. 

The level of destruction accompanying a nuclear detonation 

generates a level of awe and fear that cannot be replicated by 

any other weapon. This may be the result of watching grainy 

footage from nuclear tests or the striking images of Hiroshima 

and Nagasaki. Or, it may be a just fear of the radiological aftereffects that can follow a nuclear explosion. Whatever the case 

may be, nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect that cannot be 

re-created with conventional capabilities. Absent nuclear weapons and a credible strategy for their use, the United States will 

lose much of its ability to serve as a force of stability in an unstable international system. 

Moving to One Thousand

While abolitionists desire the complete elimination of nuclear 

weapons, they are more modest in their immediate objectives. 

Some reports offer 500 or 1,000 as the right number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. However, it is not 

clear why these are the appropriate numbers, other than to 

say, “This would be more than enough to convince anyone that 

the United States possesses the capacity to respond to any use 

of nuclear weapons with devastating effect.”42 Currently, the 

United States is moving to the 1,700–2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons established in the 2002 

Moscow Treaty, taken from a Pentagon study on post–Cold 

War requirements for an effective deterrent.43

Choosing an arbitrary number (500, 1,000, or 1,500) is not 

an optimal approach to sizing the nuclear arsenal. Instead, the 

size, delivery systems, and manner of deployment should be 

based on potential threats to national security. As the threat 

posed by nuclear adversaries increases, it may be prudent to 

expand the nuclear arsenal. If the international environment 

stabilizes and the number and level of threats decline, the arsenal can shrink. As history demonstrates, it is far more difficult to expand the nuclear arsenal than it is to reduce it. Thus, 

01-Text.indd 20 10/23/09 9:30:39 AM
21

a floor may be appropriate for the number of warheads and 

delivery vehicles. 

Perhaps more importantly, the United States must always pay 

careful attention to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, 

which encompasses more than a simple numeric calculation. 

Even with 500, 1,000, or 1,500 warheads, as the abolitionists 

suggest, the United States may not be perceived as a nation willing to use its nuclear weapons, particularly for nonvital national 

interests. There is no one-to-one ratio between warheads and 

credibility with an increase in warheads leading to a corresponding increase in credibility. It is, however, difficult to develop a 

more effective way of undermining American credibility than to

• Arbitrarily reduce the size of the nuclear arsenal,

• Reduce the triad to a monad, and 

• Stop investing in the modernization of warheads and delivery 

systems.

This sends a signal to allies and adversaries alike—US nuclear deterrence is not credible. In the aftermath of nuclear 

arms reductions, America’s adversaries are likely to start or 

continue their current nuclear weapons development, much 

like North Korea and Iran, as a counter to American conventional capabilities. 

Allies protected by America’s extended deterrence may view 

a diminished arsenal as a sign that the United States cannot 

and will not fulfill its obligations. A new era of proliferation 

among advanced industrialized nations may be the result. Britain 

and France have long maintained a hedge against the failure of 

extended deterrence and, as of late, are undertaking nuclear 

modernization programs.44 Japan may be the first US ally to 

develop its own nuclear weapons capability as American 

numbers and credibility decline.45 Rather than encouraging 

disarmament, the United States may inaugurate a new era of 

nuclear proliferation if it continues to disarm. 

Perhaps it is time to develop a process by which the nation 

determines the appropriate number of deployed and reserve 

warheads. In order to arrive at a better approximation, it may 

be appropriate to answer seven questions.

01-Text.indd 21 10/23/09 9:30:39 AM
22

• What are the threats/scenarios facing the United States 

and allies reliant on extended deterrence?

• What are the objectives America’s adversaries are seeking 

to achieve?

• Will nuclear weapons contribute to deterrence? How?

• Is a countervalue or counterforce strategy more appropriate? 

• How survivable are US nuclear forces?

• What are the targets and by what delivery platform are 

they best held at risk?

• What are the consequences of being wrong?

While there are certainly more variables to consider, answering these questions begins to provide some structure for determining the appropriate size and method of delivery for the 

nuclear arsenal.

Figure 8. Highly enriched uranium and plutonium—the essential ingredients of 

nuclear weapons—exist in dozens of countries. (Reprinted from Harvard University’s 

Project on Managing the Atom, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Department of Energy.)

01-Text.indd 22 10/23/09 9:30:40 AM
23

Somewhat surprisingly, “The Logic of Zero” says nothing of 

a current or future nuclear threat posed by potential adversaries. Gestures of peace from the United States rarely solicit 

the desired response. This is particularly true of the relationship between the United States and Russia, dating back to 

Joseph Stalin’s betrayal of Franklin D. Roosevelt in Poland and 

Eastern Europe after World War II.46 This was not the last time 

an agreement was violated. As the Arms Control Association 

has noted, the Soviet Union and, now, Russia have a history of 

violating the Biological Weapons Convention, making it difficult 

to place much faith in a future agreement on nuclear disarmament.47 American distrust of Russia is well founded and illustrated in the 1992 Bush administration decision to maintain a 

large nuclear stockpile as a hedge against a return to authoritarianism.48 Recent developments in Russian politics give reason for concern and may signal the rise of illiberal democracy 

and the end of the Russian bear’s hibernation.49 

In addition, Russia believes its nuclear arsenal is vital to its 

national security for three reasons. First, nuclear weapons are 

prestigious to possess. It should not be forgotten that the Soviet 

Union was once the largest empire on the earth, which most 

Russians remember. Second, Russian nuclear weapons deter 

the United States from interfering in Russian affairs, such as 

the recent conflict with Georgia. Third, the Russian army cannot stop or deter a feared “Chinese expansion” into eastern 

Siberia without nuclear weapons.50 Suggesting that Russia will 

follow the United States in disarming is to suggest that Pres. 

Dmitry Medvedev and the Right Honorable Vladimir Putin, 

prime minister of Russia, will alter their recent behavior. This 

is unlikely.

It may also be useful to note that Russia maintains a tactical 

nuclear arsenal of more than 3,000 warheads which can be 

used to threaten Europe or China.51 Neither START nor SORT 

limits Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical, not strategic, 

nuclear weapons will play a greater role as a guarantor of Russian security as Russia looks closer to home for future threats. 

To view President Medvedev’s willingness to negotiate down the 

number of strategic nuclear weapons leads to a false sense of 

accomplishment since Russia will maintain the tactical nuclear 

weapons it is increasingly valuing. 

01-Text.indd 23 10/23/09 9:30:40 AM
24

Figure 10. Nuclear blast. (DOD photo by LCpl D. N. Crosser)

Figure 9. Vladimir Putin, Russian prime minister. (DOD photo by Cherie A. Thurlby)

01-Text.indd 24 10/23/09 9:30:41 AM
25

Accidental Detonation, Miscalculation, and Nuclear 

Proliferation

The next line of abolitionist argumentation focuses on the 

potential for accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to a 

nuclear holocaust, and proliferation. While it is true these risks 

do exist, in the 60-year history of nuclear weapons, there has 

never been an accidental detonation much less a nuclear 

holocaust. 

Suggesting these events are inevitable is ahistorical. Current nuclear controls separate arming codes and weapons 

handlers/launch officers until a presidential decision is made, 

requiring multiple levels of verification before a weapon can be 

armed and released. If the United States was to pursue the 

RRW, accidental detonation would be even less likely. This is 

also true of current modernization efforts taking place in 

Russia and China.52

Additionally, American and Russian ICBMs are no longer 

targeted at each another. Programming target sets requires 

time,53 and ICBMs no longer sit on “launch on warning” status.54 The notion that ICBMs sit on a “hair trigger” alert is not 

correct and never was. Thus, from a technical perspective, the 

probability of rapid, cataclysmic miscalculation leading to a 

nuclear holocaust is highly improbable. 

With more than 60 years of nuclear weapons experience, 

there is also a low probability of political miscalculation. Neither 

the president of the United States nor his counterpart in Moscow 

has ever “miscalculated” and launched a nuclear weapon. 

Rather than expecting miscalculation, a better approach may 

be to assist other nuclear powers in developing the sound 

practices that have led to six decades of American and Russian restraint. 

Finally, it is not in the interests of any state, including Iran, 

to transfer nuclear material and know-how to violent Islamic 

fundamentalists. To the contrary, it is in Iran’s interest to ensure that groups, such as Hezbollah, have a limited capability 

for waging war. Much as Saddam Hussein55 was careful to limit 

his assistance to terrorist groups because he feared they could 

turn against him, Iran has limited its assistance to Hezbollah.56

As the Nuclear Threat Initiative suggests in its recent work, the 

01-Text.indd 25 10/23/09 9:30:41 AM
26

potential for proliferation, particularly in Russia, is on the decline as it improves controls over key items and personnel.57 As 

the United States continues to improve its nuclear forensics 

capability—ensuring the world knows of its capacity to track 

material—adversaries, state and nonstate, will face an increasing level of risk should they desire to launch a covert nuclear 

attack against the United States. 

Figure 11. A Minuteman III missile. (USAF photo by TSgt Bob Wickley)

01-Text.indd 26 10/23/09 9:30:41 AM
27

Among nuclear powers, Pakistan presents the greatest proliferation risk. This risk was mitigated by former president Pervez Musharraf who successfully established positive control 

over Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile.58 As a result of the discovery 

of Abdul Qadeer Khan’s illicit trafficking network, security 

measures were substantially improved.59 Counter to what some 

may think, a nuclear Iran would likely pose less of a proliferation risk than Pakistan. With a stable central government and 

a long history of working with terrorist organizations, the Iranian political elite are experienced with internal security. While 

they may be professed enemies of the United States, the Iranian regime does not seek its own destruction. 

The difficulty in demonstrating the positive outcome of nuclear weapons is, by definition, based on the fact that they are 

designed and utilized to deter an adversary. Developing a chain 

of causality for successful deterrence is next to impossible to 

build. Therefore, the potential negative implications of nuclear 

weapons remain the focus, rather than their history of preventing conflict. Although it is impossible to demonstrate beyond a 

reasonable doubt, it is logical to suggest that the relationship 

between two enduring rivals was changed for the better with 

their acquisition of nuclear weapons. 

India’s response to the 26–29 November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack is a good example of the moderating effect nuclear 

weapons have on the behavior of nuclear-armed adversaries. 

Prior to developing nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan fought 

one another in the First Kashmir War (1947), Second Kashmir 

War (1965), and the Indo-Pakistani War (1971), along with numerous terrorist attacks and artillery exchanges over the decades.60 Lashkar-e-Taiba’s attack left 172 innocent civilians 

dead and placed the Indian government under tremendous 

pressure to respond with overwhelming force, yet the Right 

Honorable Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India, showed 

great restraint that can only be attributed to the fear of a conventional conflict escalating to full-scale nuclear war. While 

India would likely win a conventional conflict with Pakistan, 

neither country is willing to take such a risk.61 These two rivals are not the only examples of the moderating influence of 

nuclear weapons. 

01-Text.indd 27 10/23/09 9:30:42 AM
28

The Cold War provides the single best example of successful 

nuclear deterrence, although this proposition is admittedly 

difficult to verify. It is, however, clear that an estimated eight 

million deaths resulted from World War I and another 55–70 

million deaths from World War II.62 After the United States 

dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saving 

the lives of an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 American troops, 

the world has not seen another major war. 

Luck

Finally, abolitionists account for the lack of a nuclear holocaust by pointing out that “responsible nuclear stewardship, a 

relatively effective nonproliferation regime, and a good deal of 

luck have helped account for this achievement. But the world 

cannot continue to count on luck.”63 As with the previous 

Figure 12. Percentage of world population killed in war. (Reprinted from a briefing by retired admiral Richard Meis.)

01-Text.indd 28 10/23/09 9:30:42 AM
29

points, evidence to substantiate America’s reliance on luck is 

lacking. If past successes are the result of luck, how much 

more will the United States rely on luck once it disarms? Should 

the United States disarm, it will no longer be able to lay claim 

to Flavius Vegetius’ dictum, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you 

wish for peace, prepare for war).

Moving beyond Criticism of Nuclear Abolition

If the modernizers are to successfully persuade the president, a skeptical Congress, and the American people that a 

safe, modern, and reliable nuclear arsenal is needed, they must 

begin by directly addressing the arguments of nuclear abolitionists. Relying on unengaging technical reports to make the 

case for the nuclear arsenal is not a strategy for success. Instead, four mutually reinforcing approaches may offer a viable 

opportunity to preserve the nuclear arsenal while also accomplishing legitimate nonproliferation objects.

First, the United States remains a representative republic 

where the American people have the single most important 

voice in determining public policy. Modernizers would be wise 

to engage Americans in an effort to inform them about deterrence and nuclear weapons policy. The importance of winning 

the support of the American people should never be underestimated. One effective way to accomplish this objective is 

for senior leaders and scholars in the modernization camp to 

support journalists who seek to better understand nuclear 

weapons operations and policy, as well as publish editorials 

in major newspapers, leading Web sites, and appear on television regularly to discuss the issue. Taking complex issues 

and turning them into brief and informative columns can be 

effective. Where abolitionists appeal to emotion, modernizers 

must appeal to reason. It is with the financial resources of the 

citizenry that modernizers are constitutionally tasked to preserve the nation’s security.

Second, Congress is responsive to the demands of constituents. 

If modernizers effectively persuade the American people, individual members of the House and Senate will respond by supporting DOD efforts to build and maintain a safe, secure, and 

modern nuclear arsenal. Passive effort is, however, not enough. 

01-Text.indd 29 10/23/09 9:30:42 AM
30

An active effort should be undertaken to educate the military 

legislative assistants of each member of Congress. Rather than 

focusing on program objective memorandum issues, a broader 

understanding of deterrence and nuclear weapons should be 

the focus of educational efforts. The reluctance of Congress to 

support the RRW and other modernization efforts is a failure to 

effectively make a compelling case for modernization.64 Success will depend on persuading congressional leaders with 

strong arguments that overcome the emotional and speculative 

arguments of abolitionists.

Third, modernizers must work to persuade the president of 

the nuclear arsenal’s continuing importance to national security. As with every new administration, the realities of office 

overcome the rhetoric of the campaign. President Obama can 

be convinced that a safe, secure, and modern nuclear arsenal 

is the best way to protect the American people and promote 

peace and stability internationally. As with the American 

people and Congress, success will be determined by the 

strength of the argument presented to the president. Convincing President Obama is made much easier if the American 

people and Congress are already supportive of the policies 

advocated by modernizers.

Finally, every effort should be made to find potential common ground with abolitionists. While it is highly unlikely they 

will be persuaded of the utility of the nuclear arsenal, there are 

areas where potential collaboration is possible. As in the past, 

the United States and advocates of modernization can support 

international efforts to assist in nonproliferation efforts such 

as maintaining an effective command-and-control system in all 

nuclear weapons states, improving fissile material and nuclear 

stockpile security, and similar measures. 

Pursuing a course of action that is grounded in a wellthought-out approach to US national security and supported 

by both theory and practice should prove successful, but it 

will require modernizers to vigorously defend their efforts. The 

alternative, however, is to allow the utopian dreams of nuclear 

abolitionists to put the security of the American people at risk. 

That is unacceptable.

01-Text.indd 30 10/23/09 9:30:43 AM
31

Notes

1. Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama in Prague” (address, 

Czech Republic, Prague, 5 April 2009).

2. Barack Obama, “The Agenda: Foreign Policy,” WhiteHouse.gov, 24 January 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/.

3. Gen Norton Schwartz, “Policy and Purpose: The Economy of Deterrence”; 

and Gen Kevin Chilton, “Waging Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century,” 

Strategic Studies Quarterly 3, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 11–31.

4. Brit Hume, “Eroding US Nuclear Deterrent?” FoxNews.com, 17 December 

2008; Melanie Kilpatrick, “Sounding the Nuclear Alarm,” Wall Street Journal, 21

November 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731227702749413.html; 

Michael Donley, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Enterprise: A Critical Air Force Mission” (address, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 

12 November 2008); Robert Gates, “Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in the 21st 

Century” (address, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, 

DC, 28 October 2008); and Michael Mullen, “It’s Time for a New Deterrence Model,” 

Joint Forces Quarterly 51 (4th Quarter 2008): 2–3.

5. James R. Schlesinger, Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on 

DOD Nuclear Weapons Management (Washington, DC: Secretary of Defense 

Task Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons Management, September 2008); Defense 

Science Board, Defense Imperatives for the New Administration (Washington, 

DC: Defense Science Board, November 2008); Robert Gates, National Defense 

Strategy (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, June 2008); and DOD, Report on ICBM Industrial Base Capabilities to Maintain, Modernize, and Sustain 

Minuteman III through 2030 and Provide a Replacement Land Based Strategic 

Deterrent System after 2030 (Washington, DC: United States Air Force, 2008).

6. Jeff Zeleny, “Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,” New York 

Times, 2 October 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/

02obama.html.

7. Jonathan Medalia, The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background and Current Development (Washington, DC: Congressional Research 

Service [CRS], 2008). 

8. Gen Kevin Chilton, “Remarks to the Strategic Weapons in the 21st 

Century Conference” (address, Washington, DC: Ronald Reagan International 

Trade Center, 31 January 2008).

9. Defense Science Board, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force 

on Nuclear Deterrence Skills (Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2008).

10. Chilton, “Remarks to the Strategic Weapons in the 21st Century 

Conference.”

11. Tim Cavanaugh, “The ICBM Turns 50,” Los Angeles Times, 23 February 

2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-icbm23feb23,0,5106236

,print.story.

12. The B-52 is, however, capable of carrying the air launched cruise missile, 

which can penetrate defended airspace.

01-Text.indd 31 10/23/09 9:30:43 AM
32

13. Russell Wicke, “Gen. Moseley: New Long-Range Bomber on Horizon for 

2018,” Air Combat Command Public Affairs, 26 July 2006, http://www.af.mil/

news/story.asp?id123024081.

14. Josh Rogin, “Obama Seeks to Delay Tanker, Cancel Bomber,” CQ Today, 9 March 2009, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news000003070256; and Christopher Drew and Elisabeth Bumiller, “Military Budget Reflects a Shift in US Strategy,” New York Times, 7 April 2009, http://www 

.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07defense.html.

15. Dan Neil, “Lockheed Blows Hot Air under Raptor’s Wings,” Los Angeles 

Times, 10 March 2009, http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/

la-fi-cotown-neil10-2009mar10,0,3735693.story.

16. GlobalSecurity.org, “SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine,” GlobalSecurity 

.org, 28 January 2009, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/ssbn-x 

.htm.

17. House, Statement of General Kevin P. Chilton, Commander, United States 

Strategic Command, before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee—House Committee 

on Armed Services—On the United States Strategic Command, 111th Cong., 2nd 

sess., 17 March 2009. 

18. Sidney Drell and James Goodby, What Are Nuclear Weapons Good For? 

(Washington, DC: Arms Control Association, October 2007); Nuclear Weapons 

in 21st Century US National Security (Washington, DC: American Association of 

Physical Scientists, December 2008); George Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. 

Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2007, A15; and “World Leaders Try to Ban Nuclear Weapons,” 

International Herald Tribune, 8 December 2008, http://www.globalzero.org/

international-herald-tribune-world-dignitaries-launch-anti-nuclear-plan.

19. Shultz et al., “World Free of Nuclear Weapons.”

20. Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal, “The Logic of Zero,” Foreign Affairs, November/

December 2008, 1.

21. Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century US National Security, 1.

22. Pavel Povig, Fred Wehling, and Jing-Dong Yaun, “Nuclear Weapons in a 

Changing Threat Environment,” in The United States, Russia, and China: Confronting Global Terrorism and Global Challenges in the 21st Century, ed. Paul 

Bolt, Su Changhe, and Sharyl Cross (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008), 33–50.

23. Keith B. Payne, The Great American Gamble (Washington, DC: National 

Institute Press, 2008), Chapter 3.

24. For a detailed discussion of the moral considerations of nuclear targeting, 

see, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Jr., and Germain Grisez, Nuclear Deterrence, 

Morality and Realism (London: Oxford University Press, 1988).

25. Thomas C. Taylor, An Introduction to Austrian Economics (Washington, 

DC: Cato Institute Press, 1980), Chapter 4.

26. Mark Berkhow and Nikolai Bogdanovic, US Strategic Defense Missile 

Systems 1950–2004 (New York, NY: Osprey, 2005), 53–58.

27. William Cohen, Annual Report to the President and the Congress (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1998), Chapter 5.

28. Povig, Wehling, and Yaun, “Nuclear Weapons in a Changing Threat 

Environment,” 42–44. 

01-Text.indd 32 10/23/09 9:30:43 AM
33

29. Shultz, et al., “World Free of Nuclear Weapons.”

30. Daalder and Lodal, “The Logic of Zero,” 2.

31. Emily Goldman, Sunken Treaties: Naval Arms Control between the Wars

(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), Chapter 5.

32. Jenni Rissanen, “The Biological Weapons Convention,” Nuclear Threat 

Initiative, March 2003, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_28a.html.

33. Anthony Cordesman, Lessons of Post–Cold War Conflict: Middle Eastern 

Lessons and Perspectives (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International 

Studies, 27 May 2004).

34. In a December 1998 interview with al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden was 

asked, “Can this be taken as confirmation that you are seeking to acquire this 

[nuclear] weapon?” He responded, “We say this is not an accusation. There is 

a duty on Muslims to acquire them, and America knows today that Muslims 

are in possession of such a weapon, by the grace of God almighty.” Documents 

and video were later captured in Afghanistan demonstrating that al-Qaeda was 

experimenting with chemical weapons, but it is difficult to say that al-Qaeda 

has sought a nuclear capability. See Bruce Lawrence, Messages to the World: 

The Statements of Osama bin Laden (New York, NY: Verso, 2005), 72. 

35. Gavin Cameron, Nuclear Terrorism: A Threat Assessment for the 21st 

Century (New York, NY: Palgrave, 1999), Chapters 2–3; and Rohan Gunaratna, 

Inside al Qaeda (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002), 75–85.

36. Mao Tse-tung, On Guerrilla Warfare (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2009).

37. Remy Mauduit (former National Liberation Front commander, Algerian 

Civil War), interview by author, 12 April 2009. 

38. James Russell and James Wirtz, “A Quiet Revolution: The New Nuclear 

Triad,” Strategic Insights 1, no. 3 (May 2002).

39. Emma Chanlett-Avery and Sharon Squassoni, North Korea’s Nuclear Test: 

Motivations, Implications, and U.S. Options (Washington, DC: CRS, 24 October 

2006), 5–12.

40. Daalder and Lodal, “Logic of Zero,” 1.

41. Ellen Collier, Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798–1993

(Washington, DC: CRS, 7 October 1993).

42. Daalder and Lodal, “Logic of Zero,” 1.

43. STRATFOR, “US, Russia: The Future of START,” Stratfor.com, 8 November 

2008, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081106_u_s_russia_future_start.

44. Steven Erlanger, “Sarkozy Defends France’s Nuclear Arsenal,” International 

Herald Tribune, 21 March 2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/21/

europe/france.php; and Gavin Ireland, Beyond Artful: Government and Industry 

Roles in Britain’s Future Submarine Design, Build and Support (London: Royal 

United Services Institute, 2007).

45. Elizabeth Bakanic, “The End of Japan’s Nuclear Taboo,” Bulletin of the 

Atomic Scientists, 9 June 2008, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-end-of-japans-nuclear-taboo.

46. A. Kemp-Welch, Poland under Communism (New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press, 2008), 17–49.

01-Text.indd 33 10/23/09 9:30:43 AM
34

47. Arms Control Association, “The Biological Weapons Convention at a 

Glance,” Arms Control Today, October 2006, http://www.armscontrol.org/

factsheets/bwcataglance.

48. Patrick E. Tyler, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop 

a One-Superpower World,” New York Times, 8 March 1992, http://work.colum 

.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm.

49. Steven Groves, Advancing Freedom in Russia (Washington, DC: Heritage 

Foundation, 28 November 2007).

50. STRATFOR, “China’s Creeping Expansion Poses Threat to Russia’s Far 

East,” Stratfor.com, 28 February 2001, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/

chinas_creeping_expansion_poses_threat_russias_far_east.

51. Hans Kristensen, “Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons,” Federation of 

American Scientists, 25 March 2009, http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/03/

russia-2.php.

52. Pavel Felgenhauer, “The Financial Crisis May Curtail Kremlin Plans for 

Modernizing Armed Forces,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 5, no. 194 (9 October 2008); 

and Joseph Cirincione, “China’s Nuclear Modernization,” Carnegie Proliferation Brief 2, no. 8 (2008).

53. Willam J. Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, “Moscow Declaration,” Federation 

of American Scientists, 14 January 1994, http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/

detarget/docs/940114-321186.htm.

54. Wade Boese, “Nuclear Weapons Alert Status Debated,” Arms Control Today, December 2007, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_12/NuclearAlert.

55. Council on Foreign Relations, “Terrorism Havens: Iraq,” Backgrounder, 

December 2005, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/.

56. Robert Grace and Andrew Mandlebaum, “Understanding the IranHezbollah Connection,” United States Institute for Peace, September 2006, 

http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah 

.html; C. I. Bosley, “Iran Allegedly Skirts Hezbollah Arms Ban,” Arms Control Today, September 2007, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_09/

IranSkirts; and Jerrold D. Green, Frederic Wehrey, and Charles Wolf, Jr., 

Understanding Iran (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Publications, 2009).

57. Matthew Bunn, Securing the Bomb 2008 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University, 18 November 2008).

58. Associated Press, “Musharraf Reinforces Government Control of Pakistani 

Nuclear Program,” International Herald Tribune, 14 December 2007, http://www 

.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/14/asia/AS-GEN-Pakistan-Nuclear.php.

59. Paul Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin, Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation 

and Security Issues (Washington, DC: CRS, 20 June 2008).

60. S. Paul Kapur has recently argued that nuclear weapons have not 

served to restrain the latent conflict between India and Pakistan. He correctly 

highlights the Kargil conflict (1999) as a post–nuclearization conflict, but it is 

not clear that nuclear weapons did not play a role in ensuring that this conflict 

did not expand. Admittedly, the role nuclear weapons play in shaping conflict 

is difficult to measure, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that they 

generate restraint. See S. Paul Kapur, “Ten Years of Instability in a Nuclear 

South Asia,” International Security 33, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 71–94.

01-Text.indd 34 10/23/09 9:30:43 AM
35

61. Mubashir Zaidi and Laura King, “Mumbai Attacks Could Chill IndiaPakistan Ties,” Los Angeles Times, 28 November 2008, http://www.latimes 

.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistanblame29-2008nov29,0,5153422 

.story?track=rss.

62. Colin Nicholson, The Longman Companion to the First World War (New 

York, NY: Longman, 2001), 248; and I. Dear and M. Foot, eds., The Oxford 

Companion to World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 

63. Daalder and Lodal, “Logic of Zero.” 

64. Ike Skelton and Ellen Tauscher, “Letter: Administration Nuclear Weapons Policy Statement,” House Armed Service Committee, 26 July 2007, http://

armedservices.house.gov/list/press/armedsvc_dem/skeltonpr072607.shtml.

01-Text.indd 35 10/23/09 9:30:44 AM
01-Text.indd 36 10/23/09 9:30:44 AM
37

Appendix

Complete List of All 

US Nuclear Warheads

Designation Deployment Status

Mk-I

Used in combat in 1945, never stockpiled; only five bomb assemblies completed, all retired by Nov 1950

Mk-III

Used in combat in 1945; mass production 4/47–4/49, 120 produced; all retired 

late 1950

Mk-4

Entered service 3/49;

produced 3/49–5/51; 550 produced (all 

models); retired 7/52–5/53

T-1 / TX-1 Entered service, withdrawn, late 1940s

Mk-5

Entered operational stockpile 5/52; last 

retired 1/63; 140 bombs (all models) produced

W-5

Start of manufacture 4/54 (Regulus), 

7/54 (Matador); retired 7/61–1/63;

35 (Regulus), 65 (Matador) produced

Mk-6

Manufactured from 7/51 to early 1955; 

1,100 bombs (all models) produced; last 

retired 1962

Mk-7 Manufactured 7/52–2/63; in service July 

1952–67; 1,700–1,800 produced

W-7

W-7 warhead manufacture begun 12/53; 

BOAR: stockpiled 1956–63, 225 produced; Corporal: stockpiled 1955–65, 

300 produced; Honest John: stockpiled 

1954–60, 300 produced; ADM: stockpiled 

1955–63, 300 produced; Betty: stockpiled 

6/55–1960, 225 produced

Mk-8 Manufactured 11/51–5/53; in service 

1/52–6/57; 40 produced (all models)

02-Appendix.indd 37 9/8/09 9:40:48 AM
38

Designation Deployment Status

W-9 Manufactured 4/52–11/53;

retired 5/57; 80 produced

Mk-9/T-4 Stockpiled 1957; retired 1963

Mk-11 Manufactured 1/56–1957;

in service 1/56–1960; 40 produced

Mk-12 Manufactured 12/54–2/57;

retired 7/58 –7/62; 250 produced

TX/Mk-14 Stockpiled 2/54–10/54; five produced

Mk-15

Manufactured 4/55–2/57;

retired 8/61–4/65; 1,200 produced (all 

models)

TX-16 Stockpiled 1/54–4/54; five produced

EC-17 Stockpiled 4/54–10/54; five produced

Mk-17 Manufactured 7/54–11/55;

retired 11/56–8/57; 200 produced

Mk-18

Manufactured 3/53–2/55;

retired 1/56–3/56;

90 produced (all models)

W-19 Production began 7/55; retired 1963;

80 produced

Mk-21

Manufactured 12/55–7/56;

retired 6/57–1/57;

275 produced (all models)

W-23 Production began 10/56; retired 10/62; 

50 produced

EC-24 Stockpiled 4/54–10/54; 10 produced

Mk-24 Manufactured 7/54–1/55;

retired 9/56–10/56; 105 produced

W-25

Manufactured 5/57–5/60; Mod 0 retired 

8/61–1965, all retired by 12/84;

3,150 produced (all models)

02-Appendix.indd 38 9/8/09 9:40:48 AM
39

Designation Deployment Status

Mk-27

Manufactured 11/58–6/59;

retired 11/62–7/65;

700 produced (all models) 

W-27 Manufactured 9/58–6/59;

retired 8/62–7/65; 20 produced

Mk-28

Manufactured 1/58–3/58, 8/58–5/66; 

retirement of early models began 1961, 

last one retired 9/91; 4,500 produced (all 

models)

W-28

Manufactured 8/58–5/66, entered service (Hound Dog) 1959 and (Mace) 1960; 

Hound Dog retired 1/64–1976, Mace retired 1970; production: 900 (Hound Dog), 

100 (Mace)

W-30

TADM: stockpiled 1961–1966, 300 produced; Talos: manufactured 2/59–1/65, 

retired 1/62–3/79; 300 produced

W-31

Honest John: manufactured 10/59–12/61, 

retired 7/67–1987, 1,650 produced; Nike 

Hercules: manufactured 10/58–12/61, 

retired 7/67–9/89, 2,550 produced; 

ADM: stockpiled 9/60–1965, 300 produced

W-33 Manufactured 1/57–1/65; retired 9/92; 

2,000 produced

W-34

ASW: Manufactured 8/58–12/62;

retired 7/64–1971 (Lulu), 7/64–1976 (Astor); 

2,000 Lulu, 600 Astor produced;

Hotpoint: manufactured 6/58–9/62;

retired by 1965; 600 produced

Mk-36

Manufactured 4/56–6/58;

retired 8/61–1/62; 940 produced (all 

models)

W-38

Manufactured 5/61–1/63;

retired 1/65–5/65;

production: 110 (Atlas), 70 (Titan)

02-Appendix.indd 39 9/8/09 9:40:48 AM
40

Designation Deployment Status

Mk-39

Manufactured 2/57–3/59;

retired 1/62–1/66; 700 produced (all 

models)

W-39

Redstone: stockpiled 7/58–1963;

60 produced; Snark: manufactured 

4/58–7/58, retired 8/62–9/65;

30 produced

W-40

Bomarc: manufactured 9/59–5/62,

retired by 11/72; 350 produced;

Lacrosse: manufactured 9/59–5/62,

retired 10/63–1964; 400 produced

Mk-41 Manufactured 9/60–6/62;

retired 11/63–7/76; 500 produced

Mk-43

Manufactured 4/61–10/65; retirement 

(early models) began 12/72, last retired 

4/91; 1,000 produced (all models)

W-44 Manufactured 5/61–3/68;

retired 6/74–9/89; 575 produced

W-45

Terrier: manufactured 4/62–6/66,

retired 7/67–9/88; 750 produced;

MADM: manufactured 1/62–6/66,

retired 7/67–1984; 350 produced;

Bullpup: manufactured 1/62–1963,

retired 7/67–1978; 100 produced;

Little John: manufactured 9/61–6/66, 

retired 7/67–1970; 500 produced

W-47

EC-47 manufactured 4/60–6/60,

retired 6/60; 300 produced; W-47

manufactured 6/60–7/64,

retired 7/61–11/74; 1,060 produced

(Y1 and Y2)—only 300 in service at a time

W-48

Manufactured 10/63–3/68; retired

(135 Mod 0s) 1/65–1969, all 925 Mod 1s 

retired 1992; 1,060 produced (all models)

02-Appendix.indd 40 9/8/09 9:40:49 AM
41

Designation Deployment Status

W-49 Manufactured 9/58–1964; Thor retired 

11/62–8/63 (a few to 4/75)

W-50 Manufactured 3/63–12/65;

retired 4/73–4/91; 280 produced

W-51 Became XW-54 Jan 1959

W-52 Manufactured 5/62–4/66;

retired 3/74–8/78; 300 produced

Mk-53

Manufactured 8/62–6/65; retirement 

(early models) began 7/67, last 50 retired 

from active service (but retained in permanent stockpile) early 1997; 350 produced, 

50 still in stockpile

W-54

Manufactured 4/61–2/65;

retired 7/67–4/72; 1,000–2,000

produced

Mk-54 Manufactured 4/61–2/65;

retired 7/67–1971; 400 produced

Mk-54 SADM Manufactured 8/64–6/66;

retired 1967–1989; 300 produced

W-55 Manufactured 1/64–3/68, 3/70–4/74; 

retired 6/83–9/90; 285 produced

W-56

Manufactured 3/63–5/69; retired 9/66 

(early models), Mod-4 retired 1991–1993; 

1,000 produced (all models), 455 Mod-4s 

produced 

Mk-57

Manufactured 1/63–5/67; retirement 

(early models) started 6/75, last retired 

6/93; 3,100 produced

W-58 Manufactured 3/64–6/67;

retired 9/68–4/82; 1,400 produced

W-59 Manufactured 6/62–7/63;

retired 12/64–6/69; 150 produced

02-Appendix.indd 41 9/8/09 9:40:49 AM
42

Designation Deployment Status

Mk/B61

Manufactured 10/66–early 90s; early 

models retired 70s–80s; 3,150 produced, 

1,350 in service

W-62

Manufactured 3/70–6/76; early models 

retired starting 4/80; 1,725 produced, 

610 in active service 

W-66

Manufactured 6/74–3/75; retired from 

service 8/75, retired from stockpile 1985; 

70 produced

W-68 Manufactured 6/70–6/75;

retired 9/77–1991; 5,250 produced

W-69 Manufactured 10/71–8/76;

retired 10/91–9/94; 1,500 produced

W-70

Manufactured 6/73–7/77 (Models 0-2), 

8/81–2/83 (Mod 3); retired 7/79–9/92; 

Models 0-2: 900 produced, Mod 3: 380 

built

W-71 Manufactured 7/74–7/75; retired 1975, 

retired from stockpile 9/92; 30 produced

W-72 Manufactured 8/70–4/72;

retired 7/79–9/79; 300 produced

W-76 Manufactured 6/78–7/87; active service; 

approx. 3,000 produced

W-78 Manufactured 8/79–10/82; active service; 1,083 produced, 920 in service

W-79

Manufactured 7/81–8/86; ER version

retirement started mid-80s, all retired 

9/92; 550 (325 ER, 225 fission) produced

W-80-0 Manufactured 12/83–9/90;

active service; 367 produced

W-80-1 Manufactured 1/81–9/90; active service; 

1,750 produced, 1,400 in service 

W-82 W-82-0 canceled in October 1983; 

W-82-1 canceled in September 1990

02-Appendix.indd 42 9/8/09 9:40:49 AM
43

Designation Deployment Status

B-83 Manufactured 6/83–1991;

active service; 650 produced

W-84 Manufactured 9/83–1/88;

inactive stockpile; 300–350 produced

W-85 Manufactured 2/83–7/86; 

retired 1988–3/91; 120 produced

W-87 Manufactured 7/86–12/88;

active service; 525 produced

W-88 Manufactured 9/88–11/89;

active service; 400 produced

Adapted from Nuclear Weapons of the United States by James N. Gibson, 1996.

02-Appendix.indd 43 9/8/09 9:40:49 AM
02-Appendix.indd 44 9/8/09 9:40:49 AM
Research Feedback

Air University is working hard to keep its research focused on 

interests important to the Air Force and to the nation. After you 

have read the research paper, please give us your frank opinion 

on the contents. All comments, large and small, complimentary or 

caustic, will be appreciated.

AFRI/DE

Dean, Air Force Research Institute

155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6026

Title of Paper: Challenging Nuclear Abolition

Author: Adam Lowther

Please use the scale below to answer these important questions:

1. Fail 2. Poor 3. Fair 4. Good 5. Excellent

1. Is the subject matter relevant to the Air Force?

2. How would you rate the readability of this paper?

3. How useful is this research to you and your organization?

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Or note comments:

Thank you for your assistance.

Cut along dotted line

03-Feedback.indd 1 9/4/09 11:28:31 AM
Place

Stamp

Here

AFRI/DE

Dean, Air Force Research Institute

155 N. Twining St., Bldg 693

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6026

FOLD HERE

03-Feedback.indd 2 9/4/09 11:28:32 AM
Challenging Nuclear Abolition

Commander, Air University

Lt Gen Allen G. Peck

Director, Air Force Research Institute

Gen John Shaud, USAF, Retired, PhD

Air University Press Team

Chief Editor

Belinda L. Bazinet

Copy Editor

Sandi Davis

Cover Art and Book Design

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and

Prepress Production

Nedra O. Looney

Print Preparation and

Distribution

Diane Clark

04-Backinside.indd 1 9/14/09 10:44:01 AM