A new report says that although the total number of nukes has dropped considerably across the world since the Cold War ended, there are still plenty to obliterate Earth. During Nuclear Ban Week in New York City, one way activists got their message out on March 5 was in Central Park, above. ICAN/X
The total number of nuclear weapons around the world has decreased considerably in comparison with the global arsenals after the end of the Cold War. But scientists say there are still enough nukes to cause devastating destruction to the planet if they are used.
The 2024 Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, released on March 4, revealed that there are 12,331 nuclear warheads globally. One warhead is an equivalent of 146,605 atomic bombs that the United States dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. If one Little Boy, the nickname for the bomb, destroyed about fivesquare miles of Hiroshima, one warhead can destroy 733,025 square miles of the world area, more than the size of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.
The monitor is published by Norwegian People’s Aid with the Federation of American Scientists. It gives the annual update on the number of nuclear warheads worldwide and the size of the nuclear arsenals of each of the nine nuclear-armed states. It also monitors compliance with the provisions of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and the growing strength of the treaty.
“It took just one to destroy the city,” said Hans Kristensen, a director at the Federation of American Scientists. “We are getting into a phase now where countries, politicians, military planners, are beginning to argue that you need more. So we have to be careful here.”
Kristensen was speaking at a press briefing during the third meeting of the states parties to the TPNW, held March 3-10 at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.
Russia and the US have the largest stockpiles of nuclear warheads in the world, with 4,299 and 3,700 missiles ready for use, respectively. This is the aggregate number of nuclear warheads already mounted on ballistic missiles or co-located with their respective launch platforms and those in reserves.
The monitor said that although the overall number of nuclear weapons globally has been reduced, the available stockpile of nuclear warheads has been steadily rising since 2017. There are now 9,604 ready-to-use warheads in the world. The total increase in the last eight years is 332.
As of January, China’s total warheads has increased to 600, followed by France with 290; Britain with 225; India, 180; Pakistan, 170; Israel, 90; and North Korea, 50.
“The era of nuclear reductions is now over,” Kristensen said. The uptick is related to the increase of land-based intercontinental launcher silos for nuclear weapon systems by China, India, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia. China had at least 350 silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, under construction in 2024, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. An ICBM enables a country to launch nuclear warheads or conventional weapons exceeding a 3,418-mile range.
For context, Russia has an ICBM with a range of approximately 6,835 to 7,456 kilometers (roughly, 4,247 to 4,633 miles), which could reach as far as South Africa, Australia and Argentina. China, on the other hand, can launch a nuclear warhead or other bombs able to reach Japan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and numerous other countries within its 3,418 mile radius — and more.
Meanwhile, the recent political tensions between the US and Ukraine are sowing doubts about Washington being a reliable ally to Europe under the administration of President Donald Trump. On March, 3, he temporarily suspended all US military aid to Ukraine, after a media blow-up in the White House between him and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as well as Vice President JD Vance. Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO, many European countries consider Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 a serious potential threat to regional security.
Trump has openly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance as a member if other allies do not meet their defense spending obligations. Under the collective defense article, if an ally is attacked, each and every other member of NATO will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the ally assaulted.
Trump’s rhetoric on the matter began during his first presidency, and he has since intensified his demand in the first months of his current term. His stance, reiterated amid recent talks of Ukraine agreeing to a possible peace deal with Russia, has sent shockwaves across European capitals, raising concerns about whether the US remains a reliable security partner.
Grethe Lauglo Ostern, the editor of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, said at the press briefing on March 4 that the notion of nuclear deterrence used by the US has been only a promise, and the same goes with France and Britain, the two European nuclear powers. If that is the case, the deterrence rationale does not solve the security problem in the region posed by Russia’s war in Ukraine. (In the latest news, Italy has proposed that Article 5 protection be granted to Ukraine without it becoming a NATO member.)
Susi Snyder, the program coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said in an interview that Europe should engage in diplomacy instead of discussing the possibility of using French and British nuclear weapons to replace the US nuclear umbrella. Historically, France has maintained an independent nuclear deterrent and resisted integrating its arsenal into NATO’s umbrella.
Similarly, in Britain, a debate is emerging over whether to expand its nuclear abilities. The country relies solely on its Trident submarine-based nuclear deterrent, having phased out air-delivered and tactical nuclear weapons in past decades.
Nuclear weapons programs require significant time and resources, however. Kristensen said that even if European countries decide to enhance their nuclear abilities, developing weapons and delivery systems could take a decade or more. The debate itself signals a major shift away from the global movement for disarmament and nonproliferation.
Ostern, on her part, said the lack of discussion about the grave consequences of nuclear escalation — both in human loss and environmental devastation — is even more troubling. Europe risks undermining the TPNW and increasing the likelihood of nuclear confrontation with its renewed push for nuclear deterrence. The region, she said, should focus on smarter defense with weapons that are not capable of mass destruction and that can be used in accordance with the laws of war.
“The European leaders talking about the need for France and Britain to use nuclear weapons in Europe on their behalf . . . are failing their citizens because the true security interest of Europeans lies in nuclear disarmament,” Snyder said.
This article was made possible through a grant from the Lex International Fund.
Damilola Banjo
Damilola Banjo is an award-winning staff reporter for PassBlue who has covered a wide range of topics, from Africa-centered stories to gender equality to UN peacekeeping and US-UN relations. She also oversees video production for PassBlue. She was a Dag Hammarskjold fellow in 2023 and a Pulitzer Center postgraduate fellow in 2021. She was named the 2020 Nigeria Investigative Journalist of the Year by the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism and was part of the BBC Africa team that produced the Emmy nominated documentary, “Sex for Grades.” In addition, she worked for WFAE, an NPR affiliate in Charlotte, N.C. Banjo has a master’s of science degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a B.A. in communications and language arts from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria.