Yahoo.com: US says it has 5,113 nuclear warheads

[sacase]

The biggest problem with disclosing the exact number you just gave away free intelligence to some countries as well as confirmed their intelligence. You allowed them to vet their sources to determine if the information they were being provided was accurate. Additionally, you confirmed how many nukes that you have and allowed other countries to develope counter strategies to mitigate your arsonal. Not really a bright move by the adminstration considering Iran is not going to give up their program ever, and niether is any other country. Based on how the superpowers have handled Iran and North Korea, every country knows that nothing will ever really happen if they decide to go nuclear. This is a Obama failure in a long line of failures by previous administrations and other world governments. The benifits of becoming a nuclear country simply outweigh the drawbacks.

[Larry]

The biggest problem with disclosing the exact number you just gave away free intelligence to some countries as well as confirmed their intelligence. You allowed them to vet their sources to determine if the information they were being provided was accurate. Additionally, you confirmed how many nukes that you have and allowed other countries to develope counter strategies to mitigate your arsonal. Not really a bright move by the adminstration considering Iran is not going to give up their program ever, and niether is any other country. Based on how the superpowers have handled Iran and North Korea, every country knows that nothing will ever really happen if they decide to go nuclear. This is a Obama failure in a long line of failures by previous administrations and other world governments. The benifits of becoming a nuclear country simply outweigh the drawbacks.

1) Again, the US has told the Russians (And the Chinese?) exactly how many warheads we have, and their exact locations. (Or at least, we did, under previous treaties. I'm not certain that that's still true.)

2) Please tell me how other countries can "develope counter strategies to mitigate your arsonal" of 5,000 nuclear warheads?

What is, say, Iran, going to do to make themselves immune to 5,000 nuclear warheads?

[nonniey]

I remember reading during the cold war, I think during one of the talks btw Reagan and Gorbachev, that both countries each had enough nukes to blow up the entire world more than a 100 times. I remember turning to my dad and asking "Why do we need to blow up everything more than once? Isn't that like totaling the car more than once?"

Well, we likely have enough bullets to shoot every human and animal on the planet hundreds of times over as well, doesn't mean we'd be able to. The ability to blow up the planet even once was always a myth. That said I'm glad we have fewer than we used to (1/6th the numbers we had in the 1960s). BTW the yields are significantly smaller as well (We probably have less than 1/100th of the explosive power available than we had in the past). Aren't you all glad the nuke freeze movement failed?

[nonniey]

Think about it this way. The US has 95% of ALL nukes in the entire world.

How did you figure this? US has 5k out of 22k nukes in world = 95%??? or add in the estimated defunct nukes the US has then the US has 9K out of 22K = 95%??? I think you may need to check your basic math skills.

[TheGoodBits]

What is, say, Iran, going to do to make themselves immune to 5,000 nuclear warheads?

Shapeshift into ****roaches.

[Predicto]

The biggest problem with disclosing the exact number you just gave away free intelligence to some countries as well as confirmed their intelligence. You allowed them to vet their sources to determine if the information they were being provided was accurate. Additionally, you confirmed how many nukes that you have and allowed other countries to develope counter strategies to mitigate your arsonal. Not really a bright move by the adminstration considering Iran is not going to give up their program ever, and niether is any other country.

You understand absolutely zero about nuclear deterrence. At least read the thread first. This is not news to any other nuclear power in the world.

When you are a superpower, nuclear capability is not something you hide. It is something that you flaunt. You want them to know exactly what you have, and that they do not stand a chance to survive it, no matter what they do. There is no mitigation possible.

You don't want other countries guessing where your missiles are, and whether that peaceful satellite launch is really your silos firing a nuke at them. Guessing is the real danger. That's how we ALL die.

[nonniey]

Here's an image of the tsar bomba destruction radius overlayed on a map of Paris. It is the Soviets' 50MT nuke, biggest yet afaik.

Your talking about 1960s technology. Those big multi megaton bombs have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Their destructive power actually was inefficient (five or six 300K bombs provide better destructive power and are easier to deliver).

[Predicto]

Well, we likely have enough bullets to shoot every human and animal on the planet hundreds of times over as well, doesn't mean we'd be able to. The ability to blow up the planet even once was always a myth.

Umm, no it wasn't. Yes, the earth would still be a sphere, and would even still have life on it. Earth would not be Alderaan at the end of Star Wars.

However, all human civilization could easily have been destroyed, many times over.

[nonniey]

Umm, no it wasn't. Yes, the earth would still be a sphere, and would even still have life on it. Earth would not be Alderaan at the end of Star Wars.

However, all human civilization could easily have been destroyed, many times over.

We had the power to destroy civilizations even many civilizations but not all of them.

[sacase]

1) Again, the US has told the Russians (And the Chinese?) exactly how many warheads we have, and their exact locations. (Or at least, we did, under previous treaties. I'm not certain that that's still true.)

Even though we gave the Russians our nuclear information and they gave us the same information, that doesn't mean we shared it with the rest of the world, such as India, Pakistan, Israel, China, North Korean and Iran.

2) Please tell me how other countries can "develope counter strategies to mitigate your arsonal" of 5,000 nuclear warheads?

Easy, No matter what, a large majority of our arsonal is pointed at Russia, to counter any nuclear threat there is with them. Now when you start having other countries gain capabilities we now have to start carving out part of our arsonal to deal with those threats. When other countries can start their planning process knowing that we have to have a certain amount dedicated to deterance with Russia there lies the problem. Additionally, Russia can also start to adjust their planning process as we take in additional threats which could make a nuclear strike more favorable for them (Yes I know this is a far fetched scenario, but military planners have to take it into account, they don't have the luxury of siniging we are the world and living in utopia)

What is, say, Iran, going to do to make themselves immune to 5,000 nuclear warheads?

Iran by itself, nothing, but when other countries start chipping away at the numbers, then odds change. See the previous section.

You understand absolutely zero about nuclear deterrence. At least read the thread first. This is not news to any other nuclear power in the world.

I would wager you don't either. This is not news to Russia, you are right, but it is news to MANY other countries. Your speculating if other non-allied, non-Russian nuclear powers had this information. I would also wager that you have never even seen the CONPLAN for nuclear attack/defense.

Also you should at least read and comprehend my post first. What it also does is allows other countries to vet their sources, now other countries know if the sources they had going after our nuclear policy were giving them credible information or not and they can plan accordingly.

When you are a superpower, nuclear capability is not something you hide. It is something that you flaunt. You want them to know exactly what you have, and that they do not stand a chance to survive it, no matter what they do. There is no mitigation possible.

No you want to show them enough for them to know that you can destroy them as well, but you never want to reviel your full capabilites, you want to keep something in reserve so to speak. Do you really think Russia knows where our SSBN's are at all times? Do you think we really know where theirs are at all times? If you want them to know exactly what you have and where they are, why keep those platforms locations secret?

You don't want other countries guessing where your missiles are, and whether that peaceful satellite launch is really your silos firing a nuke at them. Guessing is the real danger. That's how we ALL die.

See my comment above, do you really think that Russian knows the exact locations of all of our nuclear weapons, do you think we know the exact location of all of their. Why do you think Russia has a fleet of rail mounted ICBMs that they move around all the time? You always want to have an ace in the hole, that is where true deterrance happens. Otherwise you can plan for things that are known, what is unknown is what you cannot plan for. Sorry your pet theory didn't work out.

[Midnight Judges]

Not sure why you guys are are assuming this number of nukes we published is the actual number. If I had to wager one way or the other, I'd bet our guys (and their guys) will always keep a few cards up their sleeves and these numbers are superficial.

[Skin'Em84]

Umm, no it wasn't. Yes, the earth would still be a sphere, and would even still have life on it. Earth would not be Alderaan at the end of Star Wars.

However, all human civilization could easily have been destroyed, many times over.

I'd live. I play Fallout 3 all the time.

[dfitzo53]

Sort of. Except I think that the ground serves as a channel, directing half of the force in a shockwave to the sides in a radius much greater than the actual explosion if it were to be detonated way up in mid air.

That picture Spec138 posted sums it up pretty well.

Nuclear bombs are designed to be detonated in midair though, right? Not so high that the ground is at the edge of Larry's sphere calculation, but above ground level.

[Larry]

You understand absolutely zero about nuclear deterrence. At least read the thread first. This is not news to any other nuclear power in the world.

When you are a superpower, nuclear capability is not something you hide. It is something that you flaunt. You want them to know exactly what you have, and that they do not stand a chance to survive it, no matter what they do. There is no mitigation possible.

You don't want other countries guessing where your missiles are, and whether that peaceful satellite launch is really your silos firing a nuke at them. Guessing is the real danger. That's how we ALL die.

Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

[/movie reference]

[Larry]

Easy, No matter what, a large majority of our arsonal is pointed at Russia, to counter any nuclear threat there is with them. Now when you start having other countries gain capabilities we now have to start carving out part of our arsonal to deal with those threats. When other countries can start their planning process knowing that we have to have a certain amount dedicated to deterance with Russia there lies the problem. Additionally, Russia can also start to adjust their planning process as we take in additional threats which could make a nuclear strike more favorable for them

:secret:They can change targets.

[sacase]

:secret:They can change targets.

Most are already assigned targets. Tactical nukes are probably the only ones without preassigned targets. You don't just walk into NORAD and change targets on a whim...hey...point that sucker there are Eye-ran.

[Larry]

Most are already assigned targets. Tactical nukes are probably the only ones without preassigned targets. You don't just walk into NORAD and change targets on a whim...hey...point that sucker there are Eye-ran.

:secret:They aren't "pointed" anywhere. They steer, after they're launched. Because their software tells them to.

You know, software? Takes how long to change?

I seem to recall that Clinton actually revealed that we don't have any missiles pointed at Russia. Or China, either.

(That's because they don't have targets hard-coded into them. If we decide to launch, then we'll tell them where to go.)

[sacase]

:secret:They aren't "pointed" anywhere. They steer, after they're launched. Because their software tells them to.

You know, software? Takes how long to change?

I seem to recall that Clinton actually revealed that we don't have any missiles pointed at Russia. Or China, either.

(That's because they don't have targets hard-coded into them. If we decide to launch, then we'll tell them where to go.)

Please provide a link. You are making a very broad assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up. Right now its a WAG.

[Larry]

Please provide a link. You are making a very broad assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up. Right now its a WAG.

As opposed to your well-supported and researched declarations of fact?

[sacase]

As opposed to your well-supported and researched declarations of fact?

Well, if you could find an article supporting you assumption then you wouldn't be complaining about my research, if you recall clinton saying this, then please produce the article. But I guess we can chalk this up to something you just made up.

[Larry]

Well, if you could find an article supporting you assumption then you wouldn't be complaining about my research, if you recall clinton saying this, then please produce the article. But I guess we can chalk this up to something you just made up.

Willing to make that a bet?

Or are you going to stick with "I don't have to support the things I make up. Whatever I say is a fact unless somebody else proves otherwise"?

[sacase]

Willing to make that a bet?

Or are you going to stick with "I don't have to support the things I make up. Whatever I say is a fact unless somebody else proves otherwise"?

I was making the arguement on why its not smart to give up your exact numbers. You were stating how US nuclear missiles worked. See the difference?

Keep frantically searching the internets for that article. I will be waiting.

[Corcaigh]

FAS has good information and talks about OPLAN 8010 describing the Pentagon's plans, at least as of early 2009.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/doctrine/targeting.pdf

"To meet the objectives set for OPLAN 8010, the Pentagon, maintains, as of early 2009, some 2,200 “operational deployed strategic warheads” as counted by the SORT Agreement and approximately 500 operational non-strategic warheads. Of the operationally deployed strategic warheads, an estimated 900 were on alert and immediately available on a day-to-day basis to “provide a spectrum of targeting options for consideration during rapidly developing, highstakes contingencies.” This alert force “serves immediate deterrence and defeat goals,” according to the government. General Kevin Chilton, head of Strategic Command, recently defended keeping current alert levels where they are. He also made the central point of this report when he said: “The alert postures that we are in today are appropriate, given our strategy and guidance and policy.” General Chilton is doing the job the guidance directs him to do.

If we want him to do something else, e.g., lower the alert levels or abandon counterforce targeting, then the president must change his guidance. Another 2,500 warheads are kept in reserve that could in a few weeks to months be uploaded onto missiles and bombers to increase the force “should unexpected developments pose a more immediate threat,” or in case of “the emergence of a new WMD-armed adversary, or severe deterioration in a U.S. near-peer relationship resulting in a return to hostile confrontation and nuclear threats.”

[Larry]

I was making the arguement on why its not smart to give up your exact numbers. You were stating how US nuclear missiles worked. See the difference?

Nope. You were telling me how Iran could become immune from US nuclear weapons by getting us to aim them somewhere else.

I pointed out that their targets aren't hard-coded into them.

Remember: The exact exchange is:

:secret:They can change targets.

Most are already assigned targets. Tactical nukes are probably the only ones without preassigned targets. You don't just walk into NORAD and change targets on a whim...hey...point that sucker there are Eye-ran.

:secret:They aren't "pointed" anywhere. They steer, after they're launched. Because their software tells them to.

You know, software? Takes how long to change?

I seem to recall that Clinton actually revealed that we don't have any missiles pointed at Russia. Or China, either.

(That's because they don't have targets hard-coded into them. If we decide to launch, then we'll tell them where to go.)

Please provide a link. You are making a very broad assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up. Right now its a WAG.

Now, do you really intend to stick with this claim that US nuclear weapons can't be re-targeted, and attempt to back it up by claiming that I'm making things up?

[sacase]

Nope. You were telling me how Iran could become immune from US nuclear weapons by getting us to aim them somewhere else.

I pointed out that their targets aren't hard-coded into them.

Remember: The exact exchange is:

Now, do you really intend to stick with this claim that US nuclear weapons can't be re-targeted, and attempt to back it up by claiming that I'm making things up?

still waiting.