| United States | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Nuclear program start date | 21 October 1939 |
| First nuclear weapon test | 16 July 1945 |
| First thermonuclear weapon test | 1 November 1952 |
| Last nuclear test | 23 September 1992[1] |
| Largest yield test | 15Mt (63PJ) (1 March 1954) |
| Total tests | 1,054 detonations |
| Peak stockpile | 31,255 warheads (1967)[2] |
| Current stockpile | |
| Maximum missile range | ICBM: 15,000 km (9,321 mi) SLBM: 12,000 km (7,456 mi) |
| Nuclear triad | Yes |
| NPT party | Yes (1968) |
| Nuclear weapons |
|---|
 |
| Background |
| Nuclear-armed states |
|
Under theManhattan Project, theUnited States was the first country to manufacturenuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them incombat, with thebombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki inWorld War II againstJapan. In total it conducted 1,054nuclear tests, and tested manylong-rangenuclear weapons delivery systems.[a]
The United States currently deploys 1,770 warheads, mostly underStrategic Command,[b] to itsnuclear triad:Ohio-class submarines withTrident IIsubmarine-launched ballistic missiles, silo-basedMinuteman IIIintercontinental ballistic missiles, andB-2 Spirit andB-52 Stratofortress bombers armed withB61 andB83 bombs andAGM-86B cruise missiles. The U.S. maintains a limitedanti-ballistic missile capability via theGround-Based Interceptor andAegis systems. The U.S. plans to modernize its triad with theColumbia-class submarine,Sentinel ICBM, andB-21 Raider, from 2029.
The U.S. currentlystations nuclear weapons in the form of B61 bombs in six EuropeanNATO countries:Belgium,Germany,Italy, theNetherlands,Turkey, andUnited Kingdom; it extends anuclear umbrella to South Korea, Japan, and Australia.
Throughout theCold War, the U.S. and USSR competed in thenuclear arms race. From 1951, the U.S. became the first country to developthermonuclear weapons. From 1954, the U.S. stationed nuclear weapons in at least 17 other countries, in NATO against theWarsaw Pact, andSouth Korea,Japan,Taiwan, and thePhilippines againstChina. During the 1950s,Strategic Air Command operated hundreds ofstrategic bombers. By the 1960s, ICBMs were deployed in silos, such as theAtlas andTitan, and aboard submarines asPolaris. The 1962Cuban Missile Crisis, regarded as anexceptionally close call with anuclear exchange andWorld War III. The nuclear arsenal continued to grow, including to potential space-based systems with the 1980sStrategic Defense Initiative, but was curtailed as theCold War ended, partly by treaties including asSTART I. Its successor,New START, will expire in 2026.
Between 1940 and 1996, thefederal government spent at leastUS$11.7 trillion in present-day terms[6] on nuclear weapons,delivery systems,command and control, maintenance,waste management and adminstration.[7] The U.S. has produced more than 70,000 nuclear warheads, more than all other nuclear weapon states combined.[8] Design takes place atLos Alamos,Livermore, andSandia laboratories, while tests were conducted atNevada Test Site andPacific Proving Grounds. Until the 1963Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the vast majority of tests wereatmospheric. Subsequentunderground testing limitednuclear fallout.[9] A unilateral testing moratorium in 1992[10] was followed by signature on the 1996Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship shifted focus from continual weapon redesigns to limiting aging, viasupercomputer simulation and physics experiments such asinertial confinement fusion.[11]
Production and testing sitesradioactively contaminated civilian communities:Marshall Islanders were compensated at least US$759 million fortesting exposure,[12][13] and U.S. citizens have been compensated over US$2.5 billion.[14]
As of 2025[update], the U.S. andRussia possess a comparable number of warheads; together more than 90% of the world's stockpile.[15][16] The United States holds 1,770 deployed, 1,930 in reserve, and 1,477 retired and awaiting dismantlement, in total 5,177.[17] The projected costs for maintaining U.S. nuclear forces are $60 billion per year during the 2021–2030 period.[18]
The United States first began developing nuclear weapons duringWorld War II under the order ofPresidentFranklin Roosevelt in 1939, motivated by the fear that they were engaged in a race withNazi Germany to developsuch a weapon. After a slow start under the direction of theNational Bureau of Standards, at the urging of British scientists and American administrators, the program was put under theOffice of Scientific Research and Development, and in 1942 it was officially transferred under the auspices of theUnited States Army and became known as theManhattan Project, an American, British and Canadian joint venture. Under the direction ofGeneralLeslie Groves, over thirty different sites were constructed for the research, production, and testing of components related to bomb-making. These included theLos Alamos National Laboratory atLos Alamos, New Mexico, under the direction of physicistRobert Oppenheimer, theHanfordplutonium production facility inWashington, and theY-12 National Security Complex inTennessee.
By investing heavily in breeding plutonium in earlynuclear reactors and in the electromagnetic and gaseous diffusion enrichment processes for the production ofuranium-235, the United States was able to develop three usable weapons by mid-1945. TheTrinity test was a plutoniumimplosion-design weapon tested on 16 July 1945, with around a 20kiloton yield.[19]
Faced with a plannedinvasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin on 1 November 1945 and withJapan not surrendering, PresidentHarry S. Truman ordered the atomic raids on Japan. On 6 August 1945, the U.S. detonated a uranium-gun design bomb,Little Boy, over the Japanese city ofHiroshima with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT, killing approximately 70,000 people, among them 20,000 Japanesecombatants and 20,000 Koreanforced laborers, and destroying nearly 50,000 buildings (including the2nd General Army andFifth Divisionheadquarters). Three days later, on 9 August, the U.S. attackedNagasaki using a plutonium implosion-design bomb,Fat Man, with the explosion equivalent to about 20 kilotons of TNT, destroying 60% of the city and killing approximately 35,000 people, among them 23,200–28,200 Japanese munitions workers, 2,000 Korean forced laborers, and 150 Japanese combatants.[20]
On 1 January 1947, theAtomic Energy Act of 1946 (known as the McMahon Act) took effect, and the Manhattan Project was officially turned over to theUnited States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).[21]
On 15 August 1947, the Manhattan Project was abolished.[22]
The American atomic stockpile was small and grew slowly in the immediate aftermath of World War II, and the size of that stockpile was a closely guarded secret.[23] However, there were forces that pushed the United States towards greatly increasing the size of the stockpile. Some of these were international in origin and focused on the increasing tensions of theCold War, including theloss of China, the Soviet Unionbecoming an atomic power, and the onset of theKorean War.[24] And some of the forces were domestic – both theTruman administration and theEisenhower administration wanted to rein in military spending and avoid budget deficits and inflation.[25] It was the perception that nuclear weapons gave more "bang for the buck" and thus were the most cost-efficient way to respond to the security threat theSoviet Union represented.[26]
As a result, beginning in 1950 the AEC embarked on a massive expansion of its production facilities, an effort that would eventually be one of the largest U.S. government construction projects ever to take place outside of wartime.[27] And this production would soon include the far more powerfulhydrogen bomb, which the United States had decided to move forward with after an intense debate during 1949–50.[28] as well as much smaller tactical atomic weapons for battlefield use.[29]
By 1990, the United States had produced more than 70,000 nuclear warheads, in over 65 different varieties, ranging in yield from around .01 kilotons (such as the man-portableDavy Crockett shell) to the 25 megatonB41 bomb.[12] Between 1940 and 1996, the U.S. spent at least $11.7 trillion in present-day terms[6] on nuclear weapons development. Over half was spent on building delivery mechanisms for the weapon. $732 billion in present-day terms was spent onnuclear waste management and environmental remediation.[7]
Richland, Washington was the first city established to support plutonium production at the nearbyHanford nuclear site, to power the American nuclear weapons arsenals. It producedplutonium for use incold waratomic bombs.[30]
Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR threatened with all-out nuclear attack in case of war, regardless of whether it was a conventional or a nuclear clash.[31] U.S. nuclear doctrine called formutually assured destruction (MAD), which entailed a massive nuclear attack against strategic targets and major populations centers of the Soviet Union and its allies. The term "mutual assured destruction" was coined in 1962 by American strategist Donald Brennan.[32] MAD was implemented by deploying nuclear weapons simultaneously on three different types of weapons platforms.[33][34][35]
After the 1989 end of theCold War and the 1991dissolution of theSoviet Union, the U.S. nuclear program was heavily curtailed; halting its program of nuclear testing, ceasing its production of new nuclear weapons, and reducing its stockpile by half by the mid-1990s under PresidentBill Clinton. Many former nuclear facilities were closed, and their sites became targets of extensive environmental remediation. Efforts were redirected from weapons production tostockpile stewardship; attempting to predict the behavior of aging weapons without using full-scale nuclear testing. Increased funding was directed to anti-nuclear proliferation programs, such as helping the states of the former Soviet Union to eliminate their former nuclear sites and to assist Russia in their efforts to inventory and secure their inherited nuclear stockpile. By February 2006, over $1.2 billion had been paid under theRadiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 to U.S. citizens exposed to nuclear hazards as a result of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and by 1998 at least $759 million had been paid to the Marshall Islanders in compensation for their exposure to U.S. nuclear testing. Over $15 million was paid to theJapanese government following the exposure of its citizens and food supply tonuclear fallout from the 1954"Bravo" test.[12][13] In 1998, the country spent an estimated $35.1 billion on its nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs.[12]
In the 2013 bookPlutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters (Oxford),Kate Brown explores the health of affected citizens in the United States, and the "slow-motion disasters" that still threaten the environments where the plants are located. According to Brown, the plants at Hanford, over a period of four decades, released millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the surrounding environment.[30] Brown says that most of thisradioactive contamination over the years at Hanford were part of normal operations, but unforeseen accidents did occur and plant management kept this secret, as the pollution continued unabated. Even today, as pollution threats to health and the environment persist, the government keeps knowledge about the associated risks from the public.[30]
During the presidency ofGeorge W. Bush, and especially after the 11 Septemberterroristattacks of 2001, rumors circulated in major news sources that the U.S. was considering designing new nuclear weapons ("bunker-busting nukes") and resuming nuclear testing for reasons of stockpile stewardship. Republicans argued that small nuclear weapons appear more likely to be used than large nuclear weapons, and thus small nuclear weapons pose a more credible threat that has more of a deterrent effect against hostile behavior. Democrats counterargued that allowing the weapons could trigger an arms race.[36] In 2003, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the 1993Spratt-Furse ban on the development of small nuclear weapons. This change was part of the 2004 fiscal year defense authorization. The Bush administration wanted the repeal so that they could develop weapons to address the threat from North Korea. "Low-yield weapons" (those with one-third the force of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945) were permitted to be developed.[37] The Bush administration was unsuccessful in its goal to develop a guided low-yield nuclear weapon, however, in 2010 PresidentBarack Obama began funding and development for what would become the B61-12, a smart guided low-yield nuclear bomb developed off of the B61 “dumb bomb”.[38]
Statements by the U.S. government in 2004 indicated that they planned to decrease the arsenal to around 5,500 total warheads by 2012.[39] Much of that reduction was already accomplished by January 2008.[40]
According to the Pentagon's June 2019Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,[41] "Integration of nuclear weapons employment with conventional and special operations forces is essential to the success of any mission or operation."[42]
In 2024 it was estimated that the United States possessed 1,770 deployed nuclear warheads, 1,938 in reserve, and 1,336 retired and awaiting dismantlement (a total of 5,044). 1,370 strategic warheads were deployed onballistic missiles, 300 atstrategic bomber bases in the United States, and 100tactical bombs at air bases in Europe.[43]
_002.jpg)
Between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992, the United States maintained a program of vigorousnuclear testing, with the exception of a moratorium between November 1958 and September 1961. By official count, a total of 1,054 nuclear tests and two nuclear attacks were conducted, with over 100 of them taking place at sites in thePacific Ocean, over 900 of them at theNevada Test Site, and ten on miscellaneous sites in the United States (Alaska,Colorado,Mississippi, andNew Mexico).[5] Until November 1962, the vast majority of the U.S. tests were atmospheric (that is, above-ground); after the acceptance of the Partial Test Ban Treaty all testing was relegated underground, in order to prevent the dispersion ofnuclear fallout.[44] In 1992 a new testing moratorium was initiated, which has been maintained through 2024.[45]
The U.S. program of atmospheric nuclear testing exposed a number of the population to the hazards of fallout. Estimating exact numbers, and the exact consequences, of people exposed has been medically very difficult, with the exception of the high exposures of Marshall Islanders and Japanese fishers in the case of theCastle Bravo incident in 1954. A number of groups of U.S. citizens—especially farmers and inhabitants of cities downwind of the Nevada Test Site and U.S. military workers at various tests—have sued for compensation and recognition of their exposure, many successfully. The passage of theRadiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 allowed for a systematic filing of compensation claims in relation to testing as well as those employed at nuclear weapons facilities. By June 2009 over $1.4 billion total has been given in compensation, with over $660 million going to "downwinders".[13]
A few notable U.S. nuclear tests include:
A summary table of each of the American operational series may be found atUnited States' nuclear test series.
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.jpg)
The original Little Boy and Fat Man weapons, developed by the United States during theManhattan Project, were relatively large (Fat Man had a diameter of 5 feet (1.5 m)) and heavy (around 5 tons each) and required specially modified bomber planes[47] to be adapted for their bombing missions against Japan. Each modified bomber could only carry one such weapon and only within a limited range. After these initial weapons were developed, a considerable amount of money and research was conducted towards the goal of standardizing nuclear warheads so that they did not require highly specialized experts to assemble them before use, as in the case with theidiosyncratic wartime devices, and miniaturization of the warheads for use in more variable delivery systems.
Through the aid of brainpower acquired throughOperation Paperclip at the tail end of the European theater ofWorld War II, the United States was able to embark on an ambitious program inrocketry. One of the first products of this was the development of rockets capable of holding nuclear warheads. TheMGR-1 Honest John was the first such weapon, developed in 1953 as a surface-to-surface missile with a 15-mile (24 km) maximum range. Because of their limited range, their potential use was heavily constrained (they could not, for example, threatenMoscow with an immediate strike).
Development of long-range bombers, such as theB-29 Superfortress during World War II, was continued during theCold War period. In 1946, theConvair B-36 Peacemaker became the first purpose-built nuclear bomber; it served with the USAF until 1959. TheBoeing B-52 Stratofortress was able by the mid-1950s to carry a wide arsenal of nuclear bombs, each with different capabilities and potential use situations. Starting in 1946, the U.S. based its initial deterrence force on theStrategic Air Command, which, by the late 1950s, maintained a number of nuclear-armed bombers in the sky at all times, prepared to receive orders to attack the USSR whenever needed. This system was, however, tremendously expensive, both in terms of natural and human resources, and raised the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.
During the 1950s and 1960s, elaborate computerized early warning systems such asDefense Support Program were developed to detect incoming Soviet attacks and to coordinate response strategies. During this same period,intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems were developed that could deliver a nuclear payload across vast distances, allowing the U.S. to house nuclear forces capable of hitting the Soviet Union in theAmerican Midwest. Shorter-range weapons, including small tactical weapons, were fielded in Europe as well, includingnuclear artillery and man-portableSpecial Atomic Demolition Munition. The development of submarine-launched ballistic missile systems allowed for hiddennuclear submarines to covertly launch missiles at distant targets as well, making it virtually impossible for the Soviet Union to successfully launch afirst strike attack against the United States without receiving a deadly response.
Improvements in warhead miniaturization in the 1970s and 1980s allowed for the development of MIRVs—missiles which could carry multiple warheads, each of which could be separately targeted. The question of whether these missiles should be based on constantly rotating train tracks (to avoid being easily targeted by opposing Soviet missiles) or based in heavily fortified silos (to possibly withstand a Soviet attack) was a major political controversy in the 1980s (eventually the silo deployment method was chosen).MIRVed systems enabled the U.S. to render Soviet missile defenses economically unfeasible, as each offensive missile would require between three and ten defensive missiles to counter.
Additional developments in weapons delivery includedcruise missile systems, which allowed a plane to fire a long-distance, low-flying nuclear-armed missile towards a target from a relatively comfortable distance.
The current delivery systems of the U.S. make virtually any part of the Earth's surface within the reach of its nuclear arsenal. Though its land-based missile systems have a maximum range of 10,000 kilometres (6,200 mi) (less than worldwide), its submarine-based forces extend its reach from a coastline 12,000 kilometres (7,500 mi) inland. Additionally,in-flight refueling of long-range bombers and the use ofaircraft carriers extends the possible range virtually indefinitely.
Command and control procedures in case ofnuclear war were given by theSingle Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) until 2003, when this was superseded by Operations Plan 8044.
SinceWorld War II, the President of the United States has had sole authority to launch U.S. nuclear weapons, whether as afirst strike ornuclear retaliation. This arrangement was seen as necessary during theCold War to present a crediblenuclear deterrent; if an attack was detected, the United States would have only minutes to launch a counterstrike before its nuclear capability was severely damaged, or national leaders killed. If the President has been killed, command authority follows thepresidential line of succession. Changes to this policy have been proposed, but currently the only way to countermand such an order before the strike was launched would be for the Vice President and the majority of the Cabinet to relieve the President under Section 4 of theTwenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[48][49]
Regardless of whether the United States is actually under attack by a nuclear-capable adversary, the President alone has the authority to order nuclear strikes. The President and theSecretary of Defense form theNational Command Authority, but the Secretary of Defense has no authority to refuse or disobey such an order.[50] The President's decision must be transmitted to theNational Military Command Center, which will then issue the coded orders to nuclear-capable forces.[51]
The President can give a nuclear launch order using theirnuclear briefcase (nicknamed thenuclear football), or can usecommand centers such as theWhite House Situation Room. The command would be carried out by a Nuclear and Missile Operations Officer (a member of amissile combat crew, also called a "missileer") at amissile launch control center. Atwo-man rule applies to the launch of missiles, meaning that two officers must turn keys simultaneously (far enough apart that this cannot be done by one person).[citation needed]
WhenPresident Reagan was shot in 1981, there was confusion about where the "nuclear football" was, and who was in charge.[52]
In 1975, a launch crew member,Harold Hering, was dismissed from the Air Force for asking how he could know whether the order to launch his missiles came from a sane president.[49] In response to this situation,Ron Rosenbaum wrote that no command and control system is foolproof, and that the sanity of senior nuclear decision makers would always be a weak point in any conceivable command and control protocol.[49]
Starting withPresident Eisenhower, authority to launch a full-scale nuclear attack has been delegated to theater commanders and other specific commanders if they believe it is warranted by circumstances, and are out of communication with the president or the president had been incapacitated.[53] For example, during theCuban Missile Crisis, on 24 October 1962, General Thomas Power, commander of theStrategic Air Command (SAC), took the country toDEFCON 2, the very precipice of full-scale nuclear war, launching the SAC bombers of the US with nuclear weapons ready to strike.[54] Moreover, some of these commanders subdelegated to lower commanders the authority to launch nuclear weapons under similar circumstance. In fact, the nuclear weapons were not placed under locks (i.e.,permissive action links) until decades later, and so pilots or individual submarine commanders had the power to launch nuclear weapons entirely on their own, without higher authority.[53]
The United States nuclear program since its inception has experienced accidents of varying forms, ranging from single-casualty research experiments (such as that ofLouis Slotin during theManhattan Project), to thenuclear fallout dispersion of the Castle Bravo shot in 1954, to accidents such as crashes of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons, the dropping of nuclear weapons from aircraft, losses of nuclear submarines, and explosions of nuclear-armed missiles (broken arrows). How close any of these accidents came to being major nuclear disasters is a matter of technical and scholarly debate and interpretation.
Weapons accidentally dropped by the United States include incidents off the coast ofBritish Columbia (1950) (see1950 British Columbia B-36 crash), nearAtlantic City, New Jersey (1957);Savannah, Georgia (1958) (seeTybee Bomb);Goldsboro, North Carolina (1961) (see1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash); off the coast ofOkinawa (1965); in the sea nearPalomares, Spain (1966, see1966 Palomares B-52 crash); and nearThule Air Base,Greenland (1968) (see1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash). In some of these cases (such as the 1966 Palomares case), the explosive system of the fission weapon discharged, but did not trigger anuclear chain reaction (safety features prevent this from easily happening), but did disperse hazardous nuclear materials across wide areas, necessitating expensive cleanup endeavors. Several US nuclear weapons, partial weapons, or weapons components are thought[12] to be lost and unrecovered, primarily in aircraft accidents. The1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion inDamascus, Arkansas, threw a warhead from its silo but did not release any radiation.[55]
The nuclear testing program resulted in a number of cases of fallout dispersion onto populated areas. The most significant of these was theCastle Bravo test, which spread radioactive ash over an area of over 100 square miles (260 km2), including a number of populated islands.[56] The populations of the islands were evacuated but not before suffering radiation burns.[56] They would later sufferlong-term effects, such asbirth defects and increased cancer risk. There are ongoing concerns around deterioration of the nuclear waste site onRunit Island and a potentialradioactive spill.[57] There were also instances during the nuclear testing program in which soldiers were exposed to overly high levels of radiation, which grew into a major scandal in the 1970s and 1980s, as many soldiers later suffered from what were claimed to be diseases caused by their exposures.[58]
Many of the former nuclear facilities produced significant environmental damages during their years of activity, and since the 1990s have beenSuperfund sites of cleanup and environmental remediation.Hanford is currently the mostcontaminated nuclear site in the United States[59] and is the focus of the nation's largestenvironmental cleanup.[60] Radioactive materials are known to be leaking from Hanford into the environment.[61] TheRadiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 allows for U.S. citizens exposed to radiation or other health risks through the U.S. nuclear program to file for compensation and damages.
In 1972, three hijackerstook control of a domestic passenger flight along the east coast of the U.S. and threatened to crash the plane into a U.S.nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The plane got as close as 8,000 feet above the site before the hijackers' demands were met.[62][63]
Various acts ofcivil disobedience since 1980 by the peace groupPlowshares have shown how nuclear weapons facilities can be penetrated, and the group's actions represent extraordinary breaches of security atnuclear weapons plants in the United States. TheNational Nuclear Security Administration has acknowledged the seriousness of the 2012 Plowshares action.Non-proliferation policy experts have questioned "the use of private contractors to provide security at facilities that manufacture and store the government's most dangerous military material".[64]Nuclear weapons materials on theblack market are a global concern,[65][66] and there is concern about the possible detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon by amilitant group in a major city, with significant loss of life and property.[67][68]
Stuxnet is acomputer worm discovered in June 2010 that is believed to have been created by the United States and Israel to attackIran's nuclear fuel enrichment facilities.[69]
The initial U.S. nuclear program was run by theNational Bureau of Standards starting in 1939 under the edict ofPresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt. Its primary purpose was to delegate research and dispense funds. In 1940 theNational Defense Research Committee (NDRC) was established, coordinating work under the Committee on Uranium among its other wartime efforts. In June 1941, theOffice of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) was established, with the NDRC as one of its subordinate agencies, which enlarged and renamed the Uranium Committee as theSection on Uranium. In 1941, NDRC research was placed under direct control ofVannevar Bush as the OSRD S-1 Section, which attempted to increase the pace of weapons research. In June 1942, theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers took over the project to develop atomic weapons, while the OSRD retained responsibility for scientific research.[70]
This was the beginning of theManhattan Project, run as the Manhattan Engineering District (MED), an agency under military control that was in charge of developing the first atomic weapons. AfterWorld War II, the MED maintained control over the U.S. arsenal and production facilities and coordinated theOperation Crossroads tests. In 1946 after a long and protracted debate, theAtomic Energy Act of 1946 was passed, creating theAtomic Energy Commission (AEC) as a civilian agency that would be in charge of the production of nuclear weapons and research facilities, funded through Congress, with oversight provided by theJoint Committee on Atomic Energy. The AEC was given vast powers of control over secrecy, research, and money, and could seize lands with suspected uranium deposits. Along with its duties towards the production and regulation of nuclear weapons, it was also in charge of stimulating development and regulating civilian nuclear power. The full transference of activities was finalized in January 1947.[71]
In 1975, following the "energy crisis" of the early 1970s and public and congressional discontent with the AEC (in part because of the impossibility to be both a producer and a regulator), it was disassembled into component parts as the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which assumed most of the AEC's former production, coordination, and research roles, and theNuclear Regulatory Commission, which assumed its civilian regulation activities.[72]
ERDA was short-lived, however, and in 1977 the U.S. nuclear weapons activities were reorganized under theDepartment of Energy,[73] which maintains such responsibilities through the semi-autonomousNational Nuclear Security Administration. Some functions were taken over or shared by theDepartment of Homeland Security in 2002. The already-built weapons themselves are in the control of theStrategic Command, which is part of theDepartment of Defense.
In general, these agencies served to coordinate research and build sites. They generally operated their sites through contractors, however, both private and public (for example,Union Carbide, a private company, ranOak Ridge National Laboratory for many decades; theUniversity of California, a public educational institution, has run the Los Alamos andLawrence Livermore laboratories since their inception, and will jointly manage Los Alamos with the private companyBechtel as of its next contract). Funding was received both through these agencies directly, but also from additional outside agencies, such as the Department of Defense. Each branch of the military also maintained its own nuclear-related research agencies (generally related to delivery systems).
This table is not comprehensive, as numerous facilities throughout the United States have contributed to its nuclear weapons program. It includes the major sites related to the U.S. weapons program (past and present), their basic site functions, and their current status of activity. Not listed are the many bases and facilities at which nuclear weapons have been deployed. In addition to deploying weapons on its own soil, during theCold War, the United States also stationed nuclear weapons in 27 foreign countries and territories, includingOkinawa (which wasUS-controlled until 1971), Japan (during the occupation immediately following World War II),Greenland, Germany,Taiwan, andFrench Morocco thenindependent Morocco.[74]
| Site name | Location | Function | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Los Alamos National Laboratory | Los Alamos, New Mexico | Research and design, pit production, stockpile stewardship | Active |
| Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | Livermore, California | Research and design, stockpile stewardship, certification | Active |
| Sandia National Laboratories | Albuquerque, New Mexico | Research and design, stockpile stewardship, validation, certification | Active |
| Hanford Site | Richland, Washington | Nuclear material production (plutonium) | Not active, inremediation |
| Savannah River Site | NearAiken, South Carolina | Nuclear material production (plutonium, tritium) | Active (limited operation), in remediation |
| Paducah Plant | Paducah, Kentucky | Nuclear material production (uranium-235) | Active (commercial use) |
| Oak Ridge National Laboratory | Oak Ridge, Tennessee | Nuclear material production (uranium-235, fusion fuel), research | Active to some extent |
| Y-12 National Security Complex | Oak Ridge, Tennessee | Component fabrication,stockpile stewardship,uranium storage | Active |
| Rocky Flats Plant | NearDenver, Colorado | Components fabrication | Not active, in remediation |
| Kansas City Plant | Kansas City, Missouri | Component production | Active |
| Fernald Site | NearCincinnati, Ohio | Feed material fabrication (uranium-238) | Not active, in remediation |
| Mound Plant | Miamisburg, Ohio | Research, component production,tritium purification | Not active, in remediation |
| Pinellas Plant | Largo, Florida | Manufacture of electrical components | Active, but not for weapons production |
| Pantex | Amarillo, Texas | Weapons assembly, disassembly, pit storage | Active, especially disassembly |
| Nevada Test Site | Mercury, Nevada | Nuclear testing,nuclear waste disposal | Active; two sites forSBSS, waste disposal |
| Pacific Proving Grounds | Marshall Islands | Nuclear testing | Not active, last test in 1962 |
| Waste Isolation Pilot Plant | East ofCarlsbad, New Mexico | Nuclear waste disposal | Active |
 | |||
Early on in the development of its nuclear weapons, the United States relied in part on information-sharing with both the United Kingdom and Canada, as codified in theQuebec Agreement of 1943. These three parties agreed not to share nuclear weapons information with other countries without the consent of the others, an early attempt atnonproliferation. After the development of the first nuclear weapons duringWorld War II, though, there was much debate within the political circles and public sphere of the United States about whether or not the country should attempt to maintain amonopoly onnuclear technology, or whether it should undertake a program of information sharing with other nations (especially its former ally and likely competitor, theSoviet Union), or submit control of its weapons to some sort of international organization (such as theUnited Nations) who would use them to attempt to maintainworld peace. Though fear of anuclear arms race spurred many politicians and scientists to advocate some degree of international control or sharing of nuclear weapons and information, many politicians and members of the military believed that it was better in the short term to maintain high standards of nuclearsecrecy and to forestall a Soviet bomb as long as possible (and they did not believe the USSR would actually submit to international controls in good faith).
Since this path was chosen, the United States was, in its early days, essentially an advocate for the prevention ofnuclear proliferation, though primarily for the reason of self-preservation. A few years after the USSR detonated its first weapon in 1949, though, the U.S. under PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower sought to encourage a program of sharing nuclear information related to civiliannuclear power andnuclear physics in general. TheAtoms for Peace program, begun in 1953, was also in part political: the U.S. was better poised to commit various scarce resources, such asenriched uranium, towards this peaceful effort, and to request a similar contribution from the Soviet Union, who had far fewer resources along these lines; thus the program had a strategic justification as well, as was later revealed by internal memos. This overall goal of promoting civilian use of nuclear energy in other countries, while also preventing weapons dissemination, has been labeled by many critics as contradictory and having led to lax standards for a number of decades which allowed a number of other nations, such as China and India, to profit fromdual-use technology (purchased from nations other than the U.S.).
TheCooperative Threat Reduction program of theDefense Threat Reduction Agency was established after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 to aid former Soviet bloc countries in the inventory and destruction of their sites for developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and their methods of delivering them (ICBM silos, long-range bombers, etc.). Over $4.4 billion has been spent on this endeavor to prevent purposeful or accidental proliferation of weapons from the former Soviet arsenal.[75]
After India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, PresidentBill Clinton imposedeconomic sanctions on the countries. In 1999, however, the sanctions against India were lifted; those against Pakistan were kept in place as a result of the military government that had taken over. Shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001, PresidentGeorge W. Bush lifted the sanctions against Pakistan as well, in order to get the Pakistani government's help as a conduit for US and NATO forces foroperations in Afghanistan.[76]
The U.S. government has been vocal against the proliferation of such weapons in the countries ofIran andNorth Korea. The2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was carried out under the pretext of disarming Iraq from possessingweapons of mass destruction; however, no such weapons were discovered.[77][78]
In September 2018, then South Korean presidentMoon Jae-in travelled toPyongyang, North Korea to attend theSeptember 2018 inter-Korean summit along with North Korean supreme leader,Kim Jong Un. Ajoint declaration consisting of conditions on nuclear non-proliferation was signed. TheDPRK agreed to dismantle itsnuclear complex in the presence of international experts if the U.S. takes correlative action.[79]
The United States is one of the five nuclear weapons states with a declared nuclear arsenal under theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of which it was an original drafter and signatory on 1 July 1968 (ratified 5 March 1970). All signatories of the NPT agreed to refrain from aiding in nuclear weapons proliferation to other states.
Further under Article VI of the NPT, all signatories, including the US, agreed to negotiate in good faith to stop the nuclear arms race and to negotiate for complete elimination of nuclear weapons. "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."[80] TheInternational Court of Justice (ICJ), the preeminent judicial tribunal of international law, in itsadvisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued 8 July 1996, unanimously interprets the text of Article VI as implying that:
There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.[81]
TheInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 proposed a comprehensive ban on fissile material that would greatly limit the production of weapons of mass destruction. 147 countries voted for this proposal, but the United States voted against.[citation needed][dubious –discuss] The US government has also resisted theTreaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a binding agreement for negotiations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, supported by more than 120 nations.[82]
In 1958, the United States Air Force had considered a plan to drop nuclear bombs on China during a confrontation overTaiwan but it was overruled, previously secret documents showed after they were declassified due to theFreedom of Information Act in April 2008. The plan included an initial plan to drop 10–15 kiloton bombs on airfields in Amoy (now calledXiamen) in the event of a Chinese blockade against Taiwan's Offshore Islands.[83][84]
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) began on 31 July 2001. The program provides compensation and health benefits to Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers (employees, former employees, contractors and subcontractors) as well as compensation to certain survivors if the worker is already deceased.[85] By 14 August 2010, the program had already identified 45,799 civilians who lost their health (including 18,942 who developed cancer) due to exposure to radiation and toxic substances while producing nuclear weapons for the United States.[86]
The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers by the signatories of theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and one of thefour countries wielding a nuclear triad. As of 2017, the US has an estimated 4,018 nuclear weapons in either deployment or storage.[90] This figure compares to a peak of 31,225 total warheads in 1967 and 22,217 in 1989 and does not include "several thousand" warheads that have been retired and scheduled for dismantlement. ThePantex Plant nearAmarillo, Texas, is the only location in the United States where weapons from the aging nuclear arsenal can be refurbished or dismantled.[9]
In 2009 and 2010, theObama administration declared policies that would invalidate the Bush-era policy for use of nuclear weapons and its motions to develop new ones. First, in a prominent2009 speech, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama outlined a goal of "a world without nuclear weapons".[91] To that goal, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama and Russian PresidentDmitry Medvedev signed anew START treaty on 8 April 2010, to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.[92][93] That same week Obama also revised U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons in aNuclear Posture Review required of all presidents, declaring for the first time that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear,NPT-compliant states. The policy also renounces development of any new nuclear weapons.[94] However, within the same Nuclear Posture Review of April 2010, there was a stated need to develop new “low yield” nuclear weapons. This resulted in the development of the B61 Mod 12.[95] Despite President Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world and reversal of former President Bush's nuclear policies, his presidency cut fewer warheads from the stockpile than any previous post-Cold War presidency.[96]
Following a renewal of tension after theRusso-Ukrainian War started in 2014, the Obama administration announced plans to continue torenovate the US nuclear weapons facilities and platforms with a budgeted spend of about a trillion dollars over 30 years.[97] Under these new plans, the US government would fund research and development of new nuclear cruise missiles.[98][99] TheTrump andBiden administrations continued with these plans.[100]
As of 2021, American nuclear forces on land consist of 400Minuteman IIIICBMs spread among 450operational launchers, staffed byAir Force Global Strike Command.Those in the seas consist of 14 nuclear-capableOhio-class Trident submarines, nine in thePacific and five in theAtlantic. Nuclear capabilities in the air are provided by 60 nuclear-capableheavy bombers, 20B-2 bombers and 40B-52s.[101]
TheAir Force has modernized its Minuteman III missiles to last through 2030, and aGround Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) is set to begin replacing them in 2029.[102] TheNavy has undertaken efforts to extend the operational lives of its missiles in warheads past 2020; it is also producing newColumbia-class submarines to replace theOhio fleet beginning 2031.[103] The Air Force is also retiring thenuclear cruise missiles of its B-52s, leaving only half nuclear-capable. It intends to procure a newlong-range bomber, theB-21, anda new long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile in the 2020s.[101][104]
In the early 1980s, the revival of thenuclear arms race triggered largeprotests aboutnuclear weapons.[105] On 12 June 1982, one million people demonstrated in New York City'sCentral Park against nuclear weapons and for an end to thecold wararms race. It was the largest anti-nuclearprotest and the largest political demonstration in American history.[106][107] International Day of Nuclear Disarmament protests were held on 20 June 1983 at 50 sites across the United States.[108][109] There were manyNevada Desert Experience protests and peace camps at theNevada Test Site during the 1980s and 1990s.[110][111]
There have also been protests by anti-nuclear groups at theY-12 Nuclear Weapons Plant,[112] theIdaho National Laboratory,[113] Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository proposal,[114] theHanford Site, theNevada Test Site,[115] Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,[116] and transportation of nuclear waste from the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[117]
On 1 May 2005, 40,000 anti-nuclear/anti-war protesters marched past the United Nations in New York, 60 years after theatomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[118][119] This was the largest anti-nuclear rally in the U.S. for several decades.[105] In May 2010, some 25,000 people, including members of peace organizations and 1945 atomic bomb survivors, marched from downtown New York to the United Nations headquarters, calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons.[120]
Some scientists and engineers have opposed nuclear weapons, includingPaul M. Doty,Hermann Joseph Muller,Linus Pauling,Eugene Rabinowitch,M. V. Ramana andFrank N. von Hippel. In recent years, many elder statesmen have also advocated nuclear disarmament.Sam Nunn,William Perry,Henry Kissinger, andGeorge Shultz—have called upon governments to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and in various op-ed columns have proposed an ambitious program of urgent steps to that end. The four have created the Nuclear Security Project to advance this agenda. Organizations such asGlobal Zero, an international non-partisan group of 300 world leaders dedicated to achieving nuclear disarmament, have also been established.
New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms, 14 June 2023[121]
| Data category | United States of America |
|---|---|
| Deployed: ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers | 665 |
| Nuclear warheads on deployed: ICBMs, SLBMs, and those counted for heavy bombers | 1,389 |
| Deployed and non-deployed: Launchers of: ICBMs, SLBMs Heavy bombers | 800 |
| Total | 2,854 |
Notes:
Nuclear Notebook from theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 3 May 2024[124]
| Category | Quantity |
|---|---|
| Deployed | 1,770 |
| Reserve | 1,938 |
| Subtotal | 3,708 (stockpile) |
| Retired | 1,336 |
| Grand total | 5,044 (inventory) |
Notes: While the New START counting rules attribute a warhead to each deployed bomber, American bombers normally do not carry nuclear weapons. Their number therefore is not added to the warhead count. The Nuclear Notebook also counts as deployed all weapons that can be quickly loaded onto an aircraft, as well as nonstrategic nuclear weapons at European air bases.
Nuclear technology portal{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)[The B-1] complies with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations, which specifies the once-nuclear bomber remains disarmed of nukes. ... it will never be a nuclear-capable bomber again
Sources
| |||||||||||||
| Leadership |
| ||||||||||||
| Components |
| ||||||||||||
| Structure | |||||||||||||
| Operations andhistory |
| ||||||||||||
| Personnel |
| ||||||||||||
| Equipment |
| ||||||||||||
