There are about 2,500 nuclear weapons stored 20 miles from Seattle.
This is only about a quarter of the US arsenal. Pray tell, what the fuck do we have all these for? Is 1000 not enough? 100?
There are about 2,500 nuclear weapons stored 20 miles from Seattle.
This is only about a quarter of the US arsenal. Pray tell, what the fuck do we have all these for? Is 1000 not enough? 100?
In case some failed, some got sabotaged, some got shot down by a hypothetical anti-missile system, etc.
To do our part in the the MAD game, we have to be able to assure destruction.
Yeah, but whose?Originally Posted by Nick Walter
I am going to start a conspiracy theory that nuclear weapons don't really work, they were just fabricated as a lie by, oh, I don't know, the Jews and the Illuminati to prevent extensive global armed conflict. I hope there isn't already a theory about that.
Everyone's.
We have 10,000 nukes, 5,000 active. Russia has 16,000 nukes, 5,000 active. THe next power we could even conceivably have a conflict with, China, has 130; they apparently aren't even kept fueled up and would take weeks of preperation to launch, at least.
Unless we're still expecting a war with Russia, it's absurd to have more than what, 1,000 total?
You need to have them ready all the time so that no one can complain and try to stop you from putting nukes back into service. You need to be able to kill every living thing on the entire planet without any chance of anyone surviving because if you tempt people with the chance that their gambit may work and they will convince themselves that they will survive and then it's not so much of a deterrent.
This is why China is against our proposed nuclear weapon defense system. If we think we can block all the incoming nukes, or even a good chunk of them, we will be more likely to behave in a way that would lead to a nuclear showdown.
None of the words in the anagram MAD are more important than any other.
Short answer, it's for your own good.
Also, not all of those weapons may be your stereotypical city-destroying ICBMs. The linked article mentions nuclear depth charges, for instance.
One of the great bits of Leon: the Professional, is the extent to which Gary Oldman chews scenery. In one specific bit, he not only chews the scenery, he dislocates his entire jaw, snake-like, and consumes the entire shot whole:
"Bring me everybody."
"Uh...what do you mean by everybody?"
(jaw dislocates) "EVERYBODY!!!"
That delivery is how to read Flowers' correct answer above.
Oh I quite agree, but it's not like we are producing 1000's of new ones a year. This stuff all dates back to the cold war. Perhaps its more cost effective to just store these things rather than decommission them?
The day after we decommission the last nuke aliens will invade...
Don't say I didn't warn you...
The short answer is that's still a hell of a lot, but that's only like a third of the warhead count at the peak of inventory. The number has always been overkill, and will continue to be so, but it is continuing to trend downwards and that's not a situation that's going to reverse.
As has been mentioned there is the strategic portion of the arsenal, and then the 'tactical'. From there you have the warheads that are actually still 'in-use', or capable of being deployed on operation platforms, then you have the depreciated warheads which are awaiting formal decommissioning and disassembly. That's not a process done by a couple guys in a garage with some screwdrivers.
It'll get down to 1000-2000, but not for another 20 years or so.
Let's build a few Orions with the excess and get some use out of them.
McCullough- You're just throwing big numbers around and acting like Lou Dobbs. What is the problem with having that many nukes? What is the "correct" amount of nukes?
Zero.
In case the whales get uppity?
Why do we still have 850 warheads that fit missiles we don't use anymore, though?
I don't think you can just put them on the curb in a can and get weekly trash-warhead pickup service.
Though if you could, that would be awesome.
I bet quite a few folks would be willing to pick them up.
I'd love it if we could negotiate the Strategic Arms Elimination Talks in my lifetime but it probably won't happen, despite the spectre of a strategic nuclear war moving from horror to absurdity. Are we going to nuke Russia now because their gas prices are too high?
What is holding that back? Do we need a visionary leader, arms contractors out of the way...?
I often agree with you, Lum, but not today. Nuclear deterence has obviously worked so far (no real war between major powers since their advent), and with increasing numbers of nations going nuclear, having a creditable arsenal remains important. If "everyone" disarmed, sure, that would nice--right up until the moment when someone revealed a hidden stash or built some new ones. Besides, having some major nukes to plant on comets/asteroids might come in very handy one of these days.
Maybe two presidents whose names aren't Bush and Putin, for one.
I don't know why you're freaking out about this. This is hardly "news".... and as others have cited, we've been trimming the number of warheads down considerably over the past 15 years. It's not something that you can do overnight.
Recognition of enlightened self interest and the ability for everyone to move back from the brink at the same time (including China, India and Pakistan). It's been done before. Kazakhstan and the Ukraine both unilaterally surrendered the nuclear weapons on their territory when the USSR collapsed.
Deterrence worked between the West and the USSR. Would it work between Israel and Iran? Or Japan and North Korea? Or Pakistan and India? In a multipolar world deterrence begins to break down. And a nuclear war between Pakistan and India could bring about a global nuclear winter. Which would suck, although it'd be awfully ironic.
As for the mad dictator having a nuke in the poke... a rogue tactical nuke is a far cry from a MIRV'd ICBM in the level of destruction caused. A Hiroshima-level blast somewhere would be tragic, but survivable. A strategic nuclear exchange would end civilization.
More A than B, since doing it faster involves throwing more money at the problem.
"One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:"
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
(c)1965 Tom Lehrer
You gotta love how a guy can write political satire 42 years ago, and it's as relevant today as it was then.
I don't get why this is news.
I wonder if the decommissioned Vietnam-era nukes felt stabbed in the back?
I think that it's funny that any people think that the numbers of nuclear weapons published for any country are the actual numbers.
'Cause, you know, that's what governments do right? Tell the truth and all that stuff...
Cite?And a nuclear war between Pakistan and India could bring about a global nuclear winter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote