New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

A Need for New Warheads?

The U.S. government's proposal to build the first new nuclear warhead in two decades raises a host of questions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At this very moment, hundreds of U.S. nuclear warheads and bombs are poised to strike targets in Russia and elsewhere. Despite the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991—and thus the end of the cold war policy of mutually assured destruction—the U.S. maintains a stockpile of roughly 10,000 nuclear weapons. Russia, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan and the U.K. are now all U.S. allies or, at worst, nonbelligerent competitors. All but Russia possess only limited nuclear arsenals. North Korea and Iran, whose relations with the U.S. are more strained, do not yet have the capability to inflict massive nuclear harm on this nation. Indeed, the most pressing nuclear hazard appears to be a “dirty bomb”—a conventional bomb packed with radioactive material—or a small nuclear explosive. A massive nuclear arsenal may provide little deterrent against the use of such weapons by terrorists or nonstate entities.

As part of its obligations under the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, the U.S. plans to reduce its total number of active nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads and bombs. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, worried that aging warheads may not operate optimally after years of storage, want to replace some of them. First on the list is the W76, which makes up a third of the available warheads; the oldest W76s will reach the end of their 30-year life span in 2008. An individual W76 nuclear explosive generates 100 kilotons of force when detonated, equal to 100,000 tons of TNT; it is designed to obliterate “soft targets,” such as ports, garrisons and factories.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe