United States National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) recently revealed the latest number of United States nuclear bombs, which is 3,748 as of September 2023 (there are still 10 months left, and what operations have been carried out in these 10 months are still under United States secret).
This is the first time since 2021 that its nuclear weapons stockpile has been declassified, and the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons has shown that United States has reached a new level of nuclear weapons transparency, while United States advertises that it dismantled 69 nuclear bombs last year as a sign of its intention to continue to reduce nuclear weapons. However, only 69 nuclear bombs have been decommissioned, which is also the lowest number in United States since 1994.
United States has reduced the number of nuclear weapons, but it has increased the efficiency of nuclear weapons
However, reports from the United States also point out that decommissioned nuclear bombs are nuclear bombs that are difficult to operate and deploy. The United States National Nuclear Security Administration defines the stockpiles of nuclear bombs they hold, active and inactive strategic nuclear bombs. Active service refers to a nuclear bomb that can be quickly deployed through rapid operation, such as installing the necessary components; Inactive means a nuclear bomb that requires more complex operations to be deployed, including the installation of tritium cylinders and some other components with a shorter lifespan.
Some nuclear bombs, such as hydrogen fusion bombs, require the provision of tritium cylinder parts, which are relatively more difficult to preserve because tritium itself is a radioactive element that decays on its own. The United States Nuclear Security Administration also compared the existing 3,748 nuclear bombs with the highest level during the Cold War, and statistics show that the most retired tactical nuclear bombs have decreased by more than 90 percent since 1991. At first glance, this number is still impressive. But there is a doorway in it.
The yield and purpose of tactical nuclear bombs are different, and tactical nuclear bombs are mainly used for direct military targets on the battlefield, such as enemy troops, tanks, military bases, etc. Whereas, strategic nuclear bombs are mainly used to destroy the enemy's key strategic targets, such as cities, industrial centers, important military facilities, etc. Strategic nuclear bombs are also more difficult to defend against, and they can directly subdue the enemy from the roots.
In general, although the number of nuclear bombs has been reduced United States, the operational level of nuclear bombs has been further improved, and the deployment of nuclear bombs in United States has become more efficient, and the focus has been on retaining strategic deterrence nuclear bombs, sacrificing more less powerful tactical nuclear bombs. On the one hand, it is true that some agreements have been proposed to limit nuclear weapons, but United States nuclear weapons have always had absolute superiority in the past and still are, and the cost of reducing some nuclear weapons is completely different from that of some countries that have just possessed nuclear weapons.United States
The United States and other nuclear powers have signed several international treaties, such as the New START treaty, which aims to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. Given the high cost of maintaining and updating large numbers of nuclear weapons, reducing the number of nuclear weapons can save significant resources while reducing the risk of accidents and misuse. While reducing the number of nuclear bombs, the United States has invested in modernizing its nuclear weapons systems to make the remaining nuclear weapons more reliable and accurate, and to make its nuclear weapons delivery systems more efficient and flexible through improved technology, nuclear submarines and strategic bombers.
At present, the United States still maintains a "nuclear triad" (ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers) to ensure the diversity and survivability of its nuclear deterrent forces. Rapid response to potential threats on a global scale is ensured through military bases and deployments around the globe, such as the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons and related systems by allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Compared with tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons have a stronger deterrent effect on potential adversaries. Therefore, United States prefers to retain more powerful strategic nuclear weapons while reducing the number of tactical nuclear weapons.
China's plan, propose: not to be the first to use nuclear bombs against each other
Less than 24 hours after the United States announced the number of nuclear bombs, we issued an initiative: nuclear states promised each other not to be the first to use nuclear bombs.
We have made a solemn commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons since our first nuclear test in 1964, and we have always maintained this policy not only as a moral commitment, but also as a strategic confidence, demonstrating that our nuclear weapons are exclusively for defensive purposes and will not be used to provoke or wage war. However, in recent years, local conflicts have occurred frequently around the world, regional tensions have escalated, and many regions are at risk of falling back into chaos. Against this background, we reiterate our initiative of mutual no-first-use of nuclear bombs.
In modern warfare, local contradictions can quickly escalate into all-out wars and even trigger nuclear confrontations. Once nuclear weapons are used, their destructive power and long-term impact will be immeasurable. Advocating a commitment by all countries not to be the first to use nuclear weapons can effectively confine the conflict to conventional weapons and prevent the conflict from escalating into nuclear war.
Our initiative is also an important impetus to the international arms control process. The international community has made some progress towards nuclear disarmament over the past few decades, but nuclear weapons remain a major threat to global security. Through this initiative, we hope to redirect the international community's attention to the issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and to promote more active measures to reduce nuclear risks. Reflect our image and responsibility as a responsible major country. Not only did it pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, but it hoped that through this initiative, it would encourage other nuclear States to do the same.
While we advocate a mutual commitment to not be the first to use nuclear weapons, this does not mean that we will relax our vigilance and defences against nuclear weapons, and if any country violates that commitment, our nuclear weapons are not decorations. In response to nuclear threats and nuclear strikes, we have maintained sufficient nuclear deterrence to ensure that the all-round security of the country can be effectively protected under any circumstances. With this initiative, we have once again clarified its attitude towards nuclear weapons:
Defensive use: China's nuclear weapons policy has always been defensive, not to wage war or threaten other countries, but primarily to ensure its own security and strategic stability.
Opposition to Nuclear Non-Proliferation: We have always supported the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, actively participated in and promoted the international nuclear disarmament process, and hoped to jointly address the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism through strengthening international cooperation.
In fact, in February this year, we were going to invite nuclear powers, including United States, to negotiate a "no-first-use" treaty, and at that time our number of nuclear bombs was about less than 500, although foreign media reported that the number has increased in the past two years, and may reach 1,000 by 2030. But we still have one-tenth the number of United States, and United States has not committed to "no first use" of nuclear bombs. However, because the United States sent weapons to the Taiwan Strait, Japan, and South Korea, affecting regional security, we recently canceled nuclear negotiations with the United States.
In the final analysis, United States says and does differently. On the one hand, it says that it wants to hold arms control talks with us in order to maintain security and stability in the surrounding area, but on the other hand, United States continues to send weapons to Japan, South Korea, and the Taiwan Strait, which is another move to increase tension in the region. Under such circumstances, how can we agree to hold so-called arms control talks with United States, the United States military strength itself has a great advantage, and in this case, arms control actually weakens our strength, and we must know that we are the side of catching up, and the slightest stagnation in military development may cause the previous achievements to be lost.
We also made a conspiracy to show our attitude on the nuclear issue, and although we have it, we will not be the first to use it. Moreover, we are still increasing the number of nuclear weapons, but it is a normal development, in order to avoid United States continuing to interfere in our internal affairs, we do not use first, and we advocate that everyone do not use first. Our maintenance of our normal armament development is bad news for the United States. Because, United States's military spending is high, and the cost of military technology is much higher, we only need normal development, and United States can hardly afford it.
He always pushes for nuclear disarmament for others, but their own nuclear weapons are much more efficient and can actually play a greater role than they would have had when there were more nuclear bombs. Unless everyone sits down and can discuss the complete abolition of nuclear bombs, can we agree, will United States dare to reunify? They probably will never agree.