Our nuclear bomb arsenal: how much do we have...

[bigred]

...and how much is enough?

Check this site

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/postcard/


Anyone have any reliable links/info regarding its accuracy? I honestly couldn't say offhand (this is one area of the military I never got into....).

PS didn't put this in the Politics forum because I'm hoping against hope to avoid yet another idiotic conservatives vs liberals ping-pong match. I don't care about the politics for the purposes of this thread, just wondering what we have vs what we "need" (presuming we need them, again that's another thread) ie the logistical/"technical" aspects of it. Thx

 

[Just thinking]

Gee ... I like the way he describes the likelyhood of weapons that fail, miss their target or get destroyed in deployment at some stage. I also like the alternate of the numbers he proposes as to just what are the needed number of weapons we do need. And, of course, the number of weapons that can be aimed at us, and his disturbed reaction to their numbers.

Hmmmm ... I too would like to avoid the politics here --- but unfortunately the commentator has beat us all to the punch.

 

[Hellbound]

Well, need is a hazy term. How many you need really depends on what types you have and what you want to do with them.

There's a few things I find wrong with the statement immediately, that really make the question unanswerable.

"10,000 nuclear bombs" is meaningless. Nuclear bombs are not one thing, but a large variety. We have nuclear weapons from the tactical to the strategic level. There are nukes that can be artillery launched, for example, with yeilds in fractional or single-digit kilotons that are made for battlefield use. There are operational nukes, slightly larger and typically used for a cruise missle or bomber. Then there's the strategic nukes, which are the huge multi-megaton warheads on ICBMs.

So, the first question is what they include in this "10,000" figure.

Second, I'm not sure of the costs associate with the upkeep, but that $14 billion figure seems a bit high. Especially when on considers that removing the nuclear arsenal would mean that the difference would be made up in other conventional arms. That money would still be in the defense budget, it wouldn't go to feed starving children, etc.

Third, there's the contingency issue. If it turns out we do need nukes, there won't be time to make them. They are high-precision devices, not something that can be constructed relatively quickly and easily. If we think there's ever a time we'll need them, it's best to have them on hand already. I suspect it's much less expensive to maintain the bombs than to maintain the factories and production facilities in a state of rapid readiness. With stockpiles, you can "mothball" the factories for long-term storage, reducing maintenance, and spend less money to amintain the weapons themselves. Of course, not to mention that if we needed them they'd not only have to be manufactured, but transported to whatever launch site/device/vehicle they were destined for, that launch site/device/vehicle would need to be readied/maintained, etc.

So, I don't reall yknow the accuracy of their figures, but considering the lack of detail, I'm suspecting it's either inaccurate or highly spun.

ETA: I didn't listen to the commentator, I really can't stand anyone who spouts off their political philosophy as if God himself appeared in a puff of inconsistency and handed it down on golden waffle tablets (with maple syrup).

 

[Cuddles]

I can't remember the exact numbers of weapons, but different countries had different attitudes on what was/is required. Most countries, like Britain and France, have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the military of any country that target them. The USA and USSR took the view that any attack on them would be part of an all-out war, and so built enough weapons to destroy every country in the world and not just the one that attacked. I'm not sure about the USA, but during some parts of the cold war, the USSR actually had all major population centres targeted.

 

[Just thinking]

Anyway, the video is aimed mainly on emotion -- not at all unlike many woo-woo promoters. It also doesn't address an alternate method that would adequately replace the intended function of such weapons.

 

[Just thinking]

Well, need is a hazy term. How many you need really depends on what types you have and what you want to do with them.

Unfortunately that can change in almost the blink of an eye, given world politics these days. So who knows for sure? Personally, I'd rather have too many than too few.

 

[Hellbound]

Unfortunately that can change in almost the blink of an eye, given world politics these days. So who knows for sure? Personally, I'd rather have too many than too few.

Exactly, a point I got into later in my post. This is especially true considering the difficulty in manufacturing and transporting them, as well as maintaing the infrastructure to do that (manufacture and transport) quickly if a need arises.

 

[Aepervius]

One Word

Unfortunately that can change in almost the blink of an eye, given world politics these days. So who knows for sure? Personally, I'd rather have too many than too few.

Proliferation. One can't justify blocking developpement of nuclear weapon in other nation for any reason, when at the same time one maintain an active enormous arsenal, and one even let one friendly country develop it without too much protest, and the same one invad country at what seems for many in the world "flimsy reason". This would only be a show of hypocrisy "don't do what I do, do what I say you should do". Country with huge nuclear arsenal *are* the main reason many other country want to developp nuclear weapon.

Anyway this thread should be in the politic forum, as this is not a matter of scepticism but a matter of political opinion.

 

[bigred]

Hmmmm ... I too would like to avoid the politics here --- but unfortunately the commentator has beat us all to the punch.

I agree and beg pardon for including it - did so as it was the thing that brought the question to mind. I love his smug little smirk too

 

[geni]

US current has around 10,000 weapons total. By 2012 the total should be down to around 6000 with no more than 2200 deployed.

 

[Hellbound]

US current has around 10,000 weapons total. By 2012 the total should be down to around 6000 with no more than 2200 deployed.

Is that all nuclear weapons, all strategic weapons, or all weapons above a certain size? Does it include tactical nukes?

 

[geni]

Unfortunately that can change in almost the blink of an eye, given world politics these days. So who knows for sure? Personally, I'd rather have too many than too few.

The US could reduce it's arsenal by about 2000 weapons (freefall designs dropped from bombers) without any real effect on combat ability.

 

[geni]

Is that all nuclear weapons, all strategic weapons, or all weapons above a certain size? Does it include tactical nukes?

Every weapon but tactical nukes only number around 500. Normaly by the time the political enviroment lets you use them you might as well go striaght to strategic.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf06norris

 

[Just thinking]

Proliferation. One can't justify blocking developpement of nuclear weapon in other nation for any reason, when at the same time one maintain an active enormous arsenal, and one even let one friendly country develop it without too much protest, and the same one invad country at what seems for many in the world "flimsy reason".

The US has not without provocation made clear intentions that any one nation or its people do not have the right to exist. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of all nations. Perhaps to you this "flimsy reason" makes no difference, but not to everyone, thank goodness.

 

[bigred]

US current has around 10,000 weapons total. By 2012 the total should be down to around 6000 with no more than 2200 deployed.

Source?

 

[geni]

Source?

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_n...ofn=jf06norris

and the SORT treaty.

 

[fuelair]

Proliferation. One can't justify blocking developpement of nuclear weapon in other nation for any reason, when at the same time one maintain an active enormous arsenal, and one even let one friendly country develop it without too much protest, and the same one invad country at what seems for many in the world "flimsy reason". This would only be a show of hypocrisy "don't do what I do, do what I say you should do". Country with huge nuclear arsenal *are* the main reason many other country want to developp nuclear weapon.

Anyway this thread should be in the politic forum, as this is not a matter of scepticism but a matter of political opinion.

Sure they can - the justification is that they (we) have that arsenal. No offense but might does occasionally make right - why we ever allowed other countries to get them, I am not sure (wonderful Heinlein story from the early days states my view perfectly - unfortunately I cannot immediately remember/locate the title.).

 

[marting]

Sure they can - the justification is that they (we) have that arsenal. No offense but might does occasionally make right - why we ever allowed other countries to get them, I am not sure (wonderful Heinlein story from the early days states my view perfectly - unfortunately I cannot immediately remember/locate the title.).

Well, I think the former USSR surprised us with how little time it took after WWII for them to explode a nuke.

Interestingly, the socialist (and atheist) Bertrand Russell strongly advocated the United States issue an ultimatum that they give up their nukes or we would bomb them.

 

[Ladewig]

The US could reduce it's arsenal by about 2000 weapons (freefall designs dropped from bombers) without any real effect on combat ability.

Your post made me wonder if the generals who sit around deciding these things can do so rationally and objectively or if they say things like, "oh no, we can't reduce the number of nuclear weapons in my branch of the military because our delivery systems are so much better than those in your branch of the military."


_____________________
[off.topic] It also made me wonder what ICBMs would look like if women ran the Pentagon.[/off.topic]

 

[geni]

Your post made me wonder if the generals who sit around deciding these things can do so rationally and objectively or if they say things like, "oh no, we can't reduce the number of nuclear weapons in my branch of the military because our delivery systems are so much better than those in your branch of the military."

Well it would remove most of the airforces nuclear capability. In pratice I suspect they are just left overs rather than much in the way of a diliberate policy.