NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread has originally started on NS Draftroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1119), the design and technology discussion forum. Some comments are there.



Many nations, sometimes older and more often new, have difficulties correctly estimating the cost of a nuclear program and its affordability for them.
Here are some quotes with official figures for the US nuclear program, with my commentary onhow to apply them to yours.


Since the birth of the atomic weapons program in 1940, a total of $5.5 trillion was spent through 1996, the Washington think tank reports. That is 29 percent of all U.S. military spending and almost 11 percent of all government spending through the 52 years. Total spending with dismantling counts as $5.8 trillion.
- These are, of course, non-adjusted dollars, but the 29% figure works out fine. So both building and maintaining the arsenal of US scale, growing to 30,000 warheads/17 gigatons once, and falling to 10,000, with mean of 16,000 warheads, took about 29% of US budget. Since the budget was mostly constant in spending power, for current dollars, it's $166B/yr, complete with delivery systems, production and maintenance, up to dismantling. Pure maintenance is lower today, but only a fraction is left and new aren't being procured.
Out of GDP of $13 trillion, the budget is $3T, so the nuclear weapon production would be 2.5% of US GDP.

[ Note that GDP is not money, it includes intermediate services and equipment. If you buy $1000 of metal, cut it in shape and resell for $2000, and the buyer welds it into $3000 box, the GDP contribution is $5000 despite only $2000 worth of work done. So you can't just spend GDP like money even with 100% tax. The figure is for reference. ]



Making the warheads was relatively inexpensive. Firing, storing and handling them was extremely costly. The 70,000 warheads cost $409.4 billion, only about 7 percent of the total. But thousands of aircraft, submarines, ships, missiles, and a large network of factories, bases and personnel cost $3.241 trillion.
- So average $6 million per warhead procurement. That's a fraction of total cost. Let's keep this figure in mind for the future.
Not all of these are strategic, many are tactical.


Submarines took: $320.5 billion for the ballistic-missile submarine program, plus $97 billion for the missiles; $46 billion for the submarine share of naval nuclear propulsion research, development, testing, production, and operations; and $220 billion for attack submarine construction, weapons, and related systems.
...US maintaining 18 medium boomers, used to have 40 small instead. It's for quite hefty cost of 375 billion alone, or 470 with missiles (w/o warheads), so keep that in mind when deciding on platform. That's also why your very best warheads will go to the subs. These subs for US carry up to approx. 3200 small warheads, totaling around $160M/warhead, twice the average cost. Submarines are the most expensive way to base the missiles, costlier than even bomber (except for stealth one), but the most reliable as well.

To protect them, there's $220 billion for a hundred of attack boats, but note that figure is from another source describing procurement (maintenance is separate), and not included in the $5.8T US nuclear program cost.


Some 6,135 strategic ballistic missiles were purchased at a cost of $266 billion, as well as 4,680 strategic bombers since World War II at a cost of $227 billion. - $44M per missile average, $48M per bomber.

Totaling, we got ~$1000B in equipment procurement and $4800B in other costs, like maintenance, R&D, et cetera. The former figure doesn't include bases, equipment only. These will likely add another $1000B.
If, as common for NS, you want to throw together a force in five years (don't hope for less even with foreign help) and forget until needed, then just keep in mind that US-sized program will cost you $2000B one-time investment and $100B from your military budget permanently dedicated to it. Or $500B for five years with $100B in the future.

Considering that US has done quite a bit of waste, the program, if not dismantling anything and cutting off unnecessary projects, would perhaps afford an arsenal of 25,000 warheads, about evenly split between strategic and tactical. Primarily the costs depend on delivery systems.
This variant will include, very roughly, about 5000 warheads on SLBM (20-25 of them), 5000 on ICBM (most MIRV), 5000 bombs complete with bombers, plus 10,000 tactical warheads. All with bases and support, long-term maintenance and resupply of the aging warheads and delivery systems.


Average cost of weapons with delivery systems (complete nuclear force) is therefore $80M per warhead for procurement and $4M/year maintenance and replacement. Note these numbers will only scale well upwards, not downwards.


P.S.
Here's some other information to consider.
Thirteen major U.S. facilities - including Washington state's Bangor submarine base - handle and maintain nuclear weapons, and cover an area larger than Delaware, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia combined.
By one measure, an estimated 700,000 to 800,000 people worldwide have died or will die prematurely from a fatal cancer attributable to fallout from U.S. atmospheric testing.
In the U.S. today, vast areas of land remain severely contaminated. Where cleanup can be accomplished at all, it would require hundreds of billions of dollars and extend to 2070 and beyond. Map of contamination of US by Iodine-135 from nuclear testing at Nevada (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/US_fallout_exposure.png) - for just the primary one of the contaminating isotopes and just one of the test sites. Most of US shouldn't worry about X-ray scans in comparison, as one delivers just 0.02 rad.
There's no lower threshold for risks increases, though. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima, fetal exposure of over 12 rads was associated with severe mental retardation, with general severity and frequency proportional to the dose, starting from just 1 rad. There are significant areas in US which reach over 10 rads.
Not all costs are monetary. If you aren't prepared to take these costs, don't start the program on your own. Find an ally who will share his program with you.

But don't rush to the other extreme either, buying from random "nooks for noobs" storefronts. These things aren't done that way. Only 25% of total cost is the procurement of all systems, and 75% is their support and maintenance. "Nook shop" won't do it for you. If you don't have your own full-scale program, you need a long-term ally who will assist you, be it on political or commercial basis. These things can't be just bought like crayons.

Excellent and informative thread. Let's hope it reaches some of the people who need to see it, eh?

Well, there's a lot of people I think these data could help. This thread would perhaps be worth a link from a sticky, if any of the mods feels like it.


BTW, some of the sources I've quoted, though these are just summarizing and you won't find extra info there:
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/980701-USnukes.htm
http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/timeline/cost/index.html

Umm..

I used a maintenace cost of $10M/Silo Launched, $15M/Submarine Launched.

With my number of nukes (not very large number), its only $2.9 billion yearly maintenace, not much, also assuming that i am going to

when you think about, you don't really need large number of nukes if you want to be realistic.

This is why my arsenal focuses mostly on biological weapons. The cost of maintaining them is much cheaper, they can be a lot more deadly and easy to use, and the after-effects are nowhere near as severe or lasting. There will just be a lot of dead bodies to clean up.

The cost is mostly in the delivery systems. The nukes itself were just 7% of the expense for US. Though bio-weapons may need smaller amount.


As for cost, this is what US pays per warhead, not per missile. Of course, MIRV are cheaper per warhead (but more expensive per missile), so $10M/yr is perhaps a good shot for 10x200kt MIRV missile.

As for SLBM, they're actually costlier to maintain. The issue is that submarines cost a lot more and age faster than silos. Keeping SLBM is over three times the cost of keeping normal ICBM. If surface ones can do for relatively small cost on MIRV, the submarine program in its 35 years of being significant has quite clearly eaten $160M per warhead, or, taking into account growth, $6-8M/warhead/year, despite using MIRV. Per missile it's $50-70 million/year. More than the missile costs, but note that subs are 80% of the cost.

Not that I'm a big fan of bumping, but this would better be read by more people. Discussion is also welcome.

Bump for more reading by WMD fans.

OOC:

Thank you, Vault 10, this is quite useful to me. I'm considering a WMD program for my nation once it's got a little more size on it, you see, and in all honesty, this helps me a lot.

OOC: Very useful, and knowledgeable for these NS folks. I'll go ahead and temporarily sticky it until we can figure out exactly what we're going to do with our current sticky threads.

just from gazing over the info in this thread, ide bet money that bio/chemical weapons programs are at least half as cheaper than trying to get a nuke program up and running, much less maintained. :headbang: :gundge:

like the guy says; biochem warfare leaves nothing but bodies, so feel free to bust a supervirus bomb over your enemies, sit back for afew months or years, and after that, swab everything down with rubbing alcohol and then move right in. :D

*yay* 'nother sticky. And a damn sight sensible too.

I guess, I should start using Biological and Chemical weapons, like Vetalia said, they are more effective then nuclear weapons and cheaper.....

The primary downside of biological weapons, of course, is that the disease will spread beyond the targeted areas unless you are very careful. So, it's best to make sure your own citizens, armed forces, and the agents themselves are all prepared to limit this risk unless you want to inadvertently RP an NS version of The Stand.

Good thing I can afford it.

I prefer to use conventional weapons like napalm, FAE and HE, but on occasion I use chemical weapons like white phosphorus.

But I still do have a stockpile of nuclear arms...

just from gazing over the info in this thread, ide bet money that bio/chemical weapons programs are at least half as cheaper than trying to get a nuke program up and running, much less maintained. :headbang: :gundge:

like the guy says; biochem warfare leaves nothing but bodies, so feel free to bust a supervirus bomb over your enemies, sit back for afew months or years, and after that, swab everything down with rubbing alcohol and then move right in. :D

Not really. Like the OP said, the real cost comes down to delivery systems and maintenance, and the R&D cost would still be pricey... viruses don't come cheap, either. And then there are the human rights concerns, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Yes, that's an important aspect that needs to be taken in to account; a young nation that pursues NBC weapons may risk sanctions or other punitive actions because of their decision. Mind you, given the size of the NS world and the existence of nations like mine, who will trade with anyone with a pulse (and even those without, if they've got the cash), this is much less effective than IRL, but it is still a concern.

I can use biological weapons because my country is so goddamn rich and economically powerful that most others can't do a thing, and those that can are no more innocent than I am (with a few exceptions). However, a small state likely can't and is best trying to find an ally that will shield their program and allow it to develop rather than risk going it on their own.

Nuclear weapons are really expensive. They harm the national budget and at the same time, the personal health of the citizens of a country. As of now, ny country is imposing pro-environmental laws and anti-nukes program.

i would like evryone to know that i have a new weapon that is more effective than nukes and about a fraction of the cost for the amount of destruction

telegram me for more info

I can use biological weapons because my country is so goddamn rich and economically powerful that most others can't do a thing, and those that can are no more innocent than I am (with a few exceptions).
Quite a few exceptions in fact. That most nations don't care is another thing.


just from gazing over the info in this thread, ide bet money that bio/chemical weapons programs are at least half as cheaper than trying to get a nuke program up and running, much less maintained.
Well, they are cheaper. However, delivery is still an issue. Infectious bioweapons are real cheap: you don't need to deliver much. But they lack reliability and can hit you back. Most bioweapons still in storage by US and Russia are non-infections: just like chemical, but harder to detect and with more delayed action.
In terms of "piss off", however, bioweapons are perhaps the worst. Nukes are worse than chem, better than bio.

Bumping for a look by the newcomers.

so if one of my allies who has a pop in the billions gives me 14 trillion a NS year i could have a nuclear program yes???

Only deviate from this rule would be ex-soviet type nations whom nuclear weapons were left over when the soviet union dissolved and the countries declared independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers#Former_Soviet_countries).

Karshkovia (http://myweb.cableone.net/bschott/) is one such country (http://myweb.cableone.net/bschott/military.htm).

The smallest nations with nuclear programs are Britain and France, and even they collaborated a lot. All others with nukes got them free.

Your ally would have to provide you not with money, but with nukes. And missiles. And control satellites. And launch detection radars. And spare parts. And specialists to maintain all this. Basically, it would be his military bases in your territory, under your formal control if he desires.

Practically, as far as NS goes, sub-100 million nations with nukes just get ignored; while at over 500 million a nation with strong economy and high military spending is considered within the right to have them w/o prior RP. Over a billion, most are assumed nuclear.
So 100-500 million is the time to RP getting nuclear armament.

To Karshkovia: technically there wasn't exactly a Soviet Union in NS, or it was but very long ago. You could address some of the major soviet nations, though, such as The World Soviet Party, with a request for help in the program.
Still, first-month nations aren't normally accepted as nuclear. 1-2 months and 100-200 posts is sort of maturity period before you're taken seriously. Well, nobody wants to take major civilian losses from a nation which might be a puppet, hence the delay.

Isnt it possible for a below 100 million nation to have nukes if they have a strong enough economy(like Taiwan or Japan(which dont have nukes but certainly the ability to manufacture and deliver them))?

Or if they recieve a ton of outside assistance(RL examples: Isreal, possibly North Korea)?

I have a question related to the nuclear program. How much would it cost, should it be feasible and useful to have some of them, to develop an effective EMP Bombs and ICBMs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emp_bomb) research program?

And no, I'm not wanting something like "OMG Put nation back to Dark Ages" unrealistic wash. It's primarily for firing against industrial targets to halt the industrial capabilities of a nation during a war.

Practically, as far as NS goes, sub-100 million nations with nukes just get ignored; while at over 500 million a nation with strong economy and high military spending is considered within the right to have them w/o prior RP. Over a billion, most are assumed nuclear.
So 100-500 million is the time to RP getting nuclear armament.

So in short, it makes no difference how mature the player is, how well they rp, or how well their background works.

Also if it takes 2 months of posting and +200 posts before anyone will truely RP with you, then I can see why it's hard to get new players in NS and most of the new nations are just puppets. I've made quite a few good, long rp posts that have been ignored and I was getting to the point of quiting. It's upsetting and frustrating to put time and effort into a storyline and reach out to others only to be ignored because they want you to make junk posts for a couple months to get your post count up.

That's fine though. The ones that haven't ignored me then I will rp with later and the ones that are, well then when I do have +1500 posts and have been here a while, they will just get reminded that if I wasn't good enough to RP with when I started and had 20-30 quality RP posts, then there is no reason I should be good enough at +1500.

Thanks for opening my eyes on this. Storyline, effort, quality, belivability or RP style have no meaning to some....only the post count.

-snip-

Um, not really, no. Maybe people were uninterested in your posts simply because they may have not liked the plotline. I saw the one where you sunk that freighter and I was like "Wow, that's good writing." And I thought you may have been a puppet nation. But I didn't want to get involved because my nation wouldn't have a freighter full of drugs. Also, getting involved in other people's RP is always good as well a creating your own. I have had a few threads myself that simply flopped. It happens. Let me know if you want to do an RP thouge, I'd be happy to do one.

Also, sign up here (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx), a lot of veteran players are on there that you can organize RPs with.

Sounds great! Actually, I am a new player here (but have been RP writing since the 1980s when we were sending the stories back and forth via postal mail) so I was wondering why it was so hard to get involved. Yeah, pretty much all my RP is open because I like to have that kind of interaction. I'll look that thread up and sign my name up for any rp. Thanks.

Sounds great! Actually, I am a new player here (but have been RP writing since the 1980s when we were sending the stories back and forth via postal mail) so I was wondering why it was so hard to get involved. Yeah, pretty much all my RP is open because I like to have that kind of interaction. I'll look that thread up and sign my name up for any rp. Thanks.

Or do what I tend to do when a RP thread doesn't work. When I start a RP thread and it flops because nobody became interested to join I simply turn it into a story written by myself and link it to my signature. The linking to signature part I also tend to do with my RP threads that worked.

Isnt it possible for a below 100 million nation to have nukes if they have a strong enough economy(like Taiwan or Japan(which dont have nukes but certainly the ability to manufacture and deliver them))?
Or if they recieve a ton of outside assistance(RL examples: Isreal, possibly North Korea)?
IRL, of course yes. And in NS, too, a small nation can have nukes if RPing a small nation is a conscious decision - seen that.
But most times in NS sub-100 million nations aren't yet even a month old.


Also if it takes 2 months of posting and +200 posts before anyone will truely RP with you, then I can see why it's hard to get new players in NS and most of the new nations are just puppets.
No, not at all. I've seen people RP a lot with new nations. I've myself done that. It's just that most RPs even by old players don't take off.

But it does take building up a reputation before people will accept taking a nuclear attack.
Realistically, IRL, a 50 million nation with nukes can heavily spoil the life of a 5-billion one.
Practically, in NS, a 50-million nation is one a couple weeks old, and nobody wants to have his nation in the ruins.
It's just one thing which people really really don't like, being nuked. "I've built up my nation for years, in thousands of posts, and now some newcomer ruins everything so I have to start from ashes?"
Nukes are pretty much a taboo in NS. So it takes a major nation to nuke and destroy another major nation.



Thanks for opening my eyes on this. Storyline, effort, quality, belivability or RP style have no meaning to some....only the post count.
People RP with newcomers just fine. Character RP, diplomacy (and small nations are actually taken seriously), all things.

Well, almost all. One thing you don't have as a newcomer is the ability to ruin any other player with a single phrase.

Would someone be willing to add in a post on nuclear hedging. I.e. not having a nuclear arsenal but droping heavy hints to your neighbours that you could develop one very quickly.

Would someone be willing to add in a post on nuclear hedging. I.e. not having a nuclear arsenal but droping heavy hints to your neighbours that you could develop one very quickly.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean - any precedents?

Doesn't seem like something going to work.

Am I exaggerating to claim 100+ MaIRVs (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=2772) on active reserve? How much would I actually need to serve as a proper deterrent to any ruthless warmonger, from 300 millions to 12+ billions of inhabitants, that could for some reason just try to invade the Confederacy? Or in other worlds, how many 2 Megaton nukes would I need to send another Gens Romae type back to the stone age or to the muzzle of my IGNORE cannon?

Why? If you mean 100, it's actually a pretty small amount, somewhere halfway between the entire world minus US/Russia and US alone.

As for what would be a good deterrent, I think the key here is ABM penetration. People overestimate the effectiveness of their ABM, and claim like 99% interception rates. It can be hard to argue as the defender is one to count the interception rate, but what can help is, first, using measures to argue a lower rate, second, using oversaturation.


There are extremes; say, a nation consisting of a single megacity would be disabled for a year or more by just a single successful hit, while a mountainous nation consisting of small villages hidden in the valleys could take a hundred thousand warheads and still stand. But generally, seeing as 100 warheads are considered by all world powers (not superpowers) sufficient for all purposes, any reasonably normal NS nation would be realistically crippled beyond being able to wage offensive wars after 1,000 hits or so (100kT each).

How many are needed to score that, depends on the defenses, ABM penetration equipment, and the inclination to argue, but generally US or USSR amount, i.e. 20,000-40,000 would be enough to screw the entire Earth, and any NS nation as well.

What about tactical nuclear artillery shells? My nation operates a couple traincannons for defense on our railway network.

Arn't train moutned artillery a little restricted in where they can fire?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg

Of course, it's still a suicidal piece of artillery.

I remember the nuclear rifle! Silly US Military R&D!

Arn't train moutned artillery a little restricted in where they can fire?

All of our nation's railways are double tracked, and all tunnels are big enough for out traincannons. They can pivot 360 degrees and are held in place by legs (those little things cranes put out to steady themselves). At the sacrifice of having a smaller gun (Which is actually useful, since having a smaller gun means faster, easier reloading).