Factual presentation of how many Hiroshima-sized nukes the US has

[Verite]

You sure you dont work Micky D's?? Cause you listen and read like someone that works there.

What part of a 30-50% reduction of a 5200 active missle base dont you understand??

FOREVER?? Seems the only thing you learned from that video was how to be a total drama queen.

 

[Mr.Rogers]

How do I know it wasnt factual? Easy, because it had people like you running around like a chicken with their head cut off passing misinformation as facts in forums about how we had 17 billion wasted in 150,000 bombs. Thats the whole point of posting dramatic misdirection.

Do you think the guy would have made his overdramatic point if he came out and said the truth and dumped 5200 BBs to represent actual nukes instead of dumping 30000 BB's and making up some bullshit math/old bomb technology crap up? He sure goinked you for a ride but it didnt fool me.

you act like he was misleading us in the video to think that we have 150,00 bombs. that's not what he said. he said we have enough bombs to equal the power of 150,000 hiroshima-sized bombs. we all understand that, we aren't being misled about the actual number of bombs. the point is, no matter what the actual number of bombs is, we have way way way more destructive power than we could possibly need. and it's costing us a ton of money to maintain that unnecessary destructive power. and that's a tone of money that could be put to better use


i say we just sell half of our nukes to israel and half to that country they're always warring with (i forget now, it's not afghanistan but it's something in that area) and that way we dont have to pay to maintain them, and instead of paying to dispose of them we actually make money off them. win-win

 

[Guest]

You sure you dont work Micky D's?? Cause you listen and read like someone that works there.

What part of a 30-50% reduction of a 5200 active missle base dont you understand??

FOREVER?? Seems the only thing you learned from that video was how to be a total drama queen.

And what does 30-50% reduction of missle *bases* have to do with our national stockpile? You wanna verify how much of our actual nuclear *arsenal* that will take out? Will they get rid of nukes themselves, or just the bases and then ship the nukes somewhere else?

Even if this does include bombs themselves, 30% taken from 150k leaves you with 105k hiroshima bombs. Uh....yay? No different.

 

[Verite]

Educate yourself with facts instead of drama and you might be able to debate the subject.

The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[13] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[14][15]

Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions ("SORT"), the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired or dismantlement by then.[16]

The future nuclear stockpile under SORT will be based on:

450 Minuteman III ICBM with 500 warheads. 400 with a single warhead and 50 with 2 MIRVs. There will be 200 W78 warheads and 300 W87 warheads.
12 operational Ohio class Submarines with another 2 in overhaul. Each have 24 Trident II missiles with 4 MIRV warheads of the W76 and W88 warheads, that will be a total of 1152 warheads. There will be 384 W88 and 768 W76 warheads for submarines.
94 B-52 and 21 B-2 strategic bombers with 540 warheads of the AGM-86 and B61 and B83. There will be 528 nuclear AGM-86B cruise Missiles with 300 active and 228 in reserve. Along with the 528 ALCM there will be 120 B61-7, 20 B61-11 and 100 B83 nuclear bombs for the bomber fleet.
The SORT treaty does not make the U.S. reduce its tactical nuclear arsenal so there will be 500-800 active tactical nuclear weapons. Also the weapons taken from active states do not have to be destroyed so there will be at least 2400 responsive reserve warheads.

A 2001 nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Fred T. Jane's Information Group, the program may still continue under a new name.

In 2006, the Bush administration also proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which is now in the process of design and development, to develop an entirely-new family of nuclear ICBMs. The program, intended to produce a simple, reliable, long-lasting, and low-maintenance future nuclear force for the United States, has encountered opposition due to the obligations of the United States under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the United States has signed, ratified, and is bound by, and which obligates the five nuclear weapons states who are bound by it (of which the United States is such a state) to work in good faith towards nuclear disarmament.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead is designed to replace the aging W76 warhead currently in a life-extension program. It will incorporate a well-tested and verified primary SKUA9 and a new fusion secondary. The device will be built much much more robustly than its predecessors and should require longer periods between service and replacement. It will use insensitive high explosives, which are virtually impossible to detonate without the right mechanism. The new insensitive explosives can hit a concrete wall at Mach 4 and still not detonate. The device will also use a heavy radiation case for reliability. Since this weapon will supposedly never be tested via detonation, as has every weapon presently in the US arsenal, some fear that either the weapon will not be reliable, or will require testing to confirm its reliability, breaking the moratorium that has been observed by the recognized nuclear powers (the recognized nuclear powers include the US, Russia, the UK, the PRC, and France; they do not include the generally-recognized but undeclared Israel, nor the declared but unrecognized India, Pakistan, and North Korea) and is disliked by several elements of the Bush Administration, who believe nuclear tests ought to be conducted routinely; indeed, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is seen as the first step in the implementation of the US nuclear weapons laboratories' plan, called "Complex 2030", to rebuild dismantled nuclear weapons infrastructure so as to ensure that nuclear weapon design continues to be a field of research in the US through the mid-point of the 21st century.

In 2005 the U.S. revised its declared nuclear political strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to emphasize the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons preemptively against an adversary possessing Weapons of mass destruction or overwhelming conventional forces. Whether the Single Integrated Operational Plan ("SIOP") has been revised accordingly is uncertain, but possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States

 

[Guest]

There are worse things than nukes. Spider mites come to mind.