What's the point in more nukes?

[Spare_change]

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...

Your statement was "There is no winning a nuclear war, dipshit. It's mutually assured destruction", and it is factually false. You have generalized nuclear weapons as all being some behemoth creating havoc over significant distances. Frankly, you have a first grader's understanding of the capabilities of our nuclear arsenal.

The reality is much different - most of our nuclear arsenal is contained in "tactical nuclear weapons" - simply, smaller nuclear weapons that would, in all likelihood, only affect the immediate battle area. We have weapons that confine the effect to an area - oh, say - the size of a tank squadron. A one kiloton nuclear bomb will have a maximum radiation range (not physical damage range --- that's limited to about 300 yards) of about 4.65 miles. A one kiloton nuclear bomb, in its most common configuration, is a missle about 30 inches in length - hardly the gut buster you seem to reference.

Now, as for the childish name calling - was that REALLY necessary? Did it make you feel more grown up, make your dick harder? Why don't you just lose the confrontational tone and discuss the issue?

 

[Spare_change]

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!

Ok --- very slowly, I will say this.

Increasing the nuclear arsenal does not automatically mean that we will build more submarines or missiles - and, in fact, probably won't, since most of the expansion is the replacement of current inventory. So, increasing the nuclear arsenal may not involve defense companies at all. Only if there is an upgrade to the delivery system (and that is very unlikely, since nuclear bomb construction is a mature process) would a defense company get involved.

Ergo, your accusation that the only reason to make more nuclear weapons is to line the pockets of defense companies is wrong, indefensible, and incredibly naive.

 

[owebo]

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.

What would it hurt?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

The point is to have so many there is no doubt in anyones mind if they force our hand they will be wiped out. Not just mostly, not damn near but absolutely fricking extinct. That's how we win without using them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

The point is to have so many there is no doubt in anyones mind if they force our hand they will be wiped out. Not just mostly, not damn near but absolutely fricking extinct. That's how we win without using them.

We already have enough to do that. Why do we need more? Ever heard of overkill?

And..............if we were to nuke another nation into oblivion, you should realize that the Earth is a closed ecosystem, and if there are enough weapons used, the radioactivity could possibly get into the jet stream and affect the whole planet.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

The point is to have so many there is no doubt in anyones mind if they force our hand they will be wiped out. Not just mostly, not damn near but absolutely fricking extinct. That's how we win without using them.

We already have enough to do that. Why do we need more? Ever heard of overkill?

And..............if we were to nuke another nation into oblivion, you should realize that the Earth is a closed ecosystem, and if there are enough weapons used, the radioactivity could possibly get into the jet stream and affect the whole planet.

Maybe we don't need more but we certainly don't want to be left holding 50 year old weapons with 50 year old technology behind them. Update. Make our system the best and most lethal it can be. That is all that will guarantee nobody else will dare go up against us.

The fact we live in a intertwined eco system works in our favor. That means pretty much everyone else in the world is going to do what it takes to keep some nut bag like Kim from trying anything. China will step in and stomp that little fat pig because they can't have a nuke fest next door to them. That's thee entire point of peace through strength. You make sure you have the best military in the world and the best weapons and at least a threat of using them.