Nuts!

Idiot, if we lower our numbers to say 4, Russia to 6, and China to 4....we are losing the ability to counter "both" threats.

Throw in Iran getting nukes along with NK's nukes.

It's clear your tiny brain doesn't understand deterrence.

Yeah, Russia and China are our friends and don't have nukes. :cuckoo:

Iran is also one of our buddies too.....eh?

Typical all or nothing response, Who is talking about getting rid of them? I am suggesting that the ready capability for total Armageddon is a useless waste of money and resources. We almost certainly have the capability to destroy the bulk of mankind several times over, we could lose much of it and still maintain an acceptable balance of terror for scared people like yourself.

Looking around I noticed that we have a treaty limit of 1550 deployed nuclear warheads. They are considering plans to cut to 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, Even at the lowest, 300 warheads that will never happen, What could anyone do with 300 nukes? Gasp! we would be practically defenseless.
 
Are you for real? Is this some college psych experiment to see how sane people react to insane people like you?

1) We don't have ICBMs in Alaska or Texas.
2) We have more than "14" ICBMs,...it's in the hundreds. :eusa_whistle:
3) We are upgrading the MMIII weapon system, but you claim as some "back-up" missile. :lol:
4) I've been in an Ohio class submarine deep in the ocean, inside an operational launch control center and inside the B-1 and B-52 bombers. You....inside a cracker jack box.
5) Quit talking, your stupidity doesn't have limits.

You thought ICBM's were REAL important until you looked it up! Talk about ignorance; Kehler knows what ICBM's are worth today. NOW, look up SLBM's. That is what the US relies on along with cruise as primary nukes. You probably didn't even realize an ICBM launched from the Texas, for example, could be intercepted by sea based cruise BEFORE it hit the former USSR. We developed better weapons because GEOGRAPHY favored the Soviets.

Another for the confounded one:

A missile launched from Alaska to China would hit China before one launched at the EXACT SAME TIME from China would hit the US.[/QUOTE]
 
How many nukes do we have?
Do we really need them all?

How many times over do we need to destroy the earth as habitable for humans
 
"Used nuclear arsenal?"

We want to have reserves if a war breaks out or enough to make other side think twice about pulling a fast one on us.

If they have 10 bombs and you lower your numbers to 2 bombs, they might get the crazy idea of taking out your 2 bombs with say 5-6 of their bombs...then they own you. :eusa_whistle:

You got a link?

Another question: What does one do with a used 'nuclear arsenal?'

You did not answer my question.
There is no answer; that problem REMAINS. Some of the material (as nuclear components are termed) is buried. Deep underground in areas where there are few earthquakes, or in lots of concrete.
***********************************************
In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."[13] Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.[13] The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."[13] The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.[13][14] DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. In just one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000-acre (150 km2) site.[13] Some of the U.S. sites were smaller in nature, however, cleanup issues were simpler to address, and DOE has successfully completed cleanup, or at least closure, of several sites.[13]
********************************
Some of this is from old nukes.
 
How many nukes do we have?
Do we really need them all?

How many times over do we need to destroy the earth as habitable for humans

I've been hearing that since the 60s. Same ole, same ole. When we're no longer the biggest kid on the block you will get the answer to your questions. Besides, this country has become too chicken shit to use nukes ever again anyway.
 
"Used nuclear arsenal?"

We want to have reserves if a war breaks out or enough to make other side think twice about pulling a fast one on us.

If they have 10 bombs and you lower your numbers to 2 bombs, they might get the crazy idea of taking out your 2 bombs with say 5-6 of their bombs...then they own you. :eusa_whistle:

You did not answer my question.
There is no answer; that problem REMAINS. Some of the material (as nuclear components are termed) is buried. Deep underground in areas where there are few earthquakes, or in lots of concrete.
***********************************************
In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."[13] Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.[13] The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."[13] The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.[13][14] DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. In just one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000-acre (150 km2) site.[13] Some of the U.S. sites were smaller in nature, however, cleanup issues were simpler to address, and DOE has successfully completed cleanup, or at least closure, of several sites.[13]
********************************
Some of this is from old nukes.

Nuclear plants and nuclear medical waste, not weapons.
 
"Used nuclear arsenal?"

We want to have reserves if a war breaks out or enough to make other side think twice about pulling a fast one on us.

If they have 10 bombs and you lower your numbers to 2 bombs, they might get the crazy idea of taking out your 2 bombs with say 5-6 of their bombs...then they own you. :eusa_whistle:

You got a link?

Another question: What does one do with a used 'nuclear arsenal?'

We have thousands of active nuclear weapons, not "10".
True, our problem was getting ours to "THEM" before theirs got to the US. SLBM's and cruise missiles helped even out the geographical disadvantage.
 
How many nukes do we have?
Do we really need them all?

How many times over do we need to destroy the earth as habitable for humans

I've been hearing that since the 60s. Same ole, same ole. When we're no longer the biggest kid on the block you will get the answer to your questions. Besides, this country has become too chicken shit to use nukes ever again anyway.

We are rapidly losing the global economic war.

Actually global economics and enhanced communications have made for a smaller interlinked world. Which makes for less of a nuke threat.
We would not want to nuke our factories in China now would we?

Of course we will Always have some rogue elements in all societies that could obtain and use nukes. The more that are laying around the greater the chance of that.
 
Oh come on peachy thinks we've hidden nuclear bombs underneath her trailer park...all 14 of those ICBMs.

But....she didn't answer your question.

You did not answer my question.
There is no answer; that problem REMAINS. Some of the material (as nuclear components are termed) is buried. Deep underground in areas where there are few earthquakes, or in lots of concrete.
***********************************************
In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."[13] Despite copious quantities of waste, the DOE has stated a goal of cleaning all presently contaminated sites successfully by 2025.[13] The Fernald, Ohio site for example had "31 million pounds of uranium product", "2.5 billion pounds of waste", "2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris", and a "223 acre portion of the underlying Great Miami Aquifer had uranium levels above drinking standards."[13] The United States has at least 108 sites designated as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres.[13][14] DOE wishes to clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some may never be completely remediated. In just one of these 108 larger designations, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, there were for example at least "167 known contaminant release sites" in one of the three subdivisions of the 37,000-acre (150 km2) site.[13] Some of the U.S. sites were smaller in nature, however, cleanup issues were simpler to address, and DOE has successfully completed cleanup, or at least closure, of several sites.[13]
********************************
Some of this is from old nukes.

Nuclear plants and nuclear medical waste, not weapons.
 
But....we only have "14" ICBMs according to you, so that is close to my example of 10.:eusa_pray::lol:

Now....the trick question is how many "nukes" are on each ICBM.....

"Used nuclear arsenal?"

We want to have reserves if a war breaks out or enough to make other side think twice about pulling a fast one on us.

If they have 10 bombs and you lower your numbers to 2 bombs, they might get the crazy idea of taking out your 2 bombs with say 5-6 of their bombs...then they own you. :eusa_whistle:

We have thousands of active nuclear weapons, not "10".
True, our problem was getting ours to "THEM" before theirs got to the US. SLBM's and cruise missiles helped even out the geographical disadvantage.
 
Yeah, we should get rid of nukes and not threaten China with them because they have our debt. :cuckoo:

Instead we should just surrender to them...right?

How many nukes do we have?
Do we really need them all?

How many times over do we need to destroy the earth as habitable for humans

I've been hearing that since the 60s. Same ole, same ole. When we're no longer the biggest kid on the block you will get the answer to your questions. Besides, this country has become too chicken shit to use nukes ever again anyway.

We are rapidly losing the global economic war.

Actually global economics and enhanced communications have made for a smaller interlinked world. Which makes for less of a nuke threat.
We would not want to nuke our factories in China now would we?

Of course we will Always have some rogue elements in all societies that could obtain and use nukes. The more that are laying around the greater the chance of that.
 
Idiot, china isn't part of START.

China doesn't mind if Obamination lowers our nukes with "promises" from Russia doing the same or slightly less like they typically do.:eusa_whistle:

Uh, the word is leaking out that Obamination floated the idea which would be a surrender order if followed by the Pentagon.

I'm sure Gen Kehler kindly said...."This would endanger our nation if executed." Under his breath he said "Nuts."
A dew facts which belie the rightwing claims:
******************************************
The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.
Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security."
You are hilarious! The START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) has nothing to do with the rotation of the earth favoring a missile launched from the WESTERN USA hitting China before one launched from China hit the USA. It is the rotation of the earth which influences strike.
 
Since peachy thinks we only have 14 ICBMs and they are used as "back-ups," we need to notify the 90 launch control officers and +200 security forces and maintenance personnel currently in the missile complexes that they can go home tonight...
 

Forum List

Back
Top