What's the point in more nukes?

[Mr. Midst]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

 

[martybegan]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

Nuclear weapons are more dangerous the less the sides in a conflict have. With less of them, someone may decide they can do a first strike, and ride out any retaliation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why more? Because the defense lobby has deep pockets, pockets filled with politicians.

 

[Godboy]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

It's old technology. My guess is they are referring mostly to the actual delivery system, though miniaturizing the bomb component itself is useful for a number of reasons. A nuke isnt very effective if it can be easily shot down (a technology that wasn't around in the past, but is readily available today), therefore making the missiles faster and more stealthy is important.

 

[Moonglow]

What we need is a better bomb that will kill more people, to show how much we love Christ...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

No, we've got pretty much all the nukes we really need. I mean, being able to destroy the entire planet over 50 times seems like a bit of overkill.

Ever consider the reason that he wants us to have the biggest nuke stockpile is because he has a small something else and is trying to overcompensate?

 

[whitehall]

I don't recall Trump saying that "our top goal is to build more nuclear bombs". Can you link the reference?

 

[MisterBeale]

What we need is a better bomb that will kill more people, to show how much we love Christ...

 

[Onyx]

There isn't any benefit, at least not for the greater good.

The nuclear problem is already out of control. It will be near impossible to contain if nuclear nations enter another arms race. And if Donald Trump really wanted good relationships with Russia, this is not the way to do it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

I believe he said nukes were a problem in the world, which I would agree, too bad they exist. But then he followed up with something that also makes sense. Because there are nukes out there we should have more and the best delivery systems possible. I also agree with that.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There isn't any benefit, at least not for the greater good.

The nuclear problem is already out of control. It will be near impossible to contain if nuclear nations enter another arms race. And if Donald Trump really wanted good relationships with Russia, this is not the way to do it.

The benefit is we win. The greater good means jack shit if you can't enforce it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

They old ones get older just sitting there.

They need to be replaced periodically with newer ones.

And the navigation technology needs to get upgraded too.

 

[Onyx]

The benefit is we win. The greater good means jack shit if you can't enforce it.

There is no winning a nuclear war, dipshit. It's mutually assured destruction.

A nuclear war between the US and Russia would lead to the extermination of all life on earth.

 

[Spare_change]

More Nukes?

The same reason you buy two boxes of ammunition.

 

[Spare_change]

The benefit is we win. The greater good means jack shit if you can't enforce it.

There is no winning a nuclear war, dipshit. It's mutually assured destruction.

A nuclear war between the US and Russia would lead to the extermination of all life on earth.

A simplistic statement not borne out by facts.

 

[Onyx]

A simplistic statement not borne out by facts.

Are you saying that nuclear winter would not be a fact? Are you saying that several strategic nuclear weapons wouldn't make an entire country uninhabitable?

Oh wait, I forgot you crazy self-destructive morons were living in an alternative reality...

 

[Spare_change]

Why more? Because the defense lobby has deep pockets, pockets filled with politicians.

Gee, golly!!

Once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Atomic warheads are produced by government laboratories. The warhead is a relatively simple construction, not requiring a significant amount of unique expertise (you can build one in your basement --- PLEASE!!)

Upgrades to the delivery systems (submarines, missiles, etc.) are usually done under government contract.

 

[Onyx]

Required Reading

Nuclear holocaust - Wikipedia
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia
Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

That I need to even explain the concept of Nuclear Armageddon worries me.

 

[Reasonable]

Recently, Trump has made clear that one of his top goals is to build more nuclear bombs and be at the "top of the pack" in nuclear arms.

But what's the point? We already have 4000+, enough to wipe out the entire planet numerous times. What point would there be in adding another thousand?

I don't know if there's any bonus to having more nukes. It seems like a waste of time and a possible start to another arms race.

There isn't any point. It's the same syndrome as many gun owners..
Small dicks.

 

[Onyx]

Upgrades to the delivery systems (submarines, missiles, etc.) are usually done under government contract.

And who fulfills the government contract, dumbass? Defense companies.

My god you are such a goddamn retard!