5,113 Ways To Ruin A Lot Of People's Day

[MA-Caver]

US says it has 5,113 nuclear warheads

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer – Mon May 3, 5:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and "several thousand" more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.
The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
"We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons.
The U.S. has previously regarded such details as top secret.
The figure includes both "strategic," or long-range weapons, and those intended for use at shorter range.
The Pentagon said the stockpile of 5,113 as of September 2009 represents a 75 percent reduction since 1989.


more here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_nuclear_weapons

The article continues to say that the number does NOT account for those weapons that could be easily reinstated back into circulation because the warheads have not been destroyed.

Knowing that we could launch over 5 thousand nukes at anyone who pisses us off sufficiently enough is disconcerting indeed. Granted it's probably a lot better than the (estimated) 10,000+ warheads/missiles that we used to have. But still.
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki no atomic, nuclear weapon has been used against people... yet the threat terrified millions for generations after the two bombs were dropped and showed exactly what they were capable of doing. And those were just mere firecrackers by comparison to what we got out there today.

No, we won't get rid of ALL of them because the threat of someone else using them against US is all too real. It's funny how both Pakistan and India have nukes but haven't launched them against each other... no doubt that the U.S. and other nuclear bomb holders are holding the promise of dropping on both of them if they get nasty with one another... Hell I'd promise that because the ease in which a simple exchange can quickly get out of hand is ridiculous.
Same goes for Israel... they're about two slaps in the face from their enemies away from launching their own modest little pile.
With China there's probably an untold number of nukes in their own arsenal. THAT is what is really scary... IMO.

 

[Empty Hands]

My prediction for this thread: Obama has traitorously weakened our country with this shocking revelation, proving how much he hates the military and America.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

My prediction for this thread: Obama has traitorously weakened our country with this shocking revelation, proving how much he hates the military and America.

And if they can show how, what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[Empty Hands]

And if they can show how, what exactly is wrong with that?

Because this story will only be construed one way to fit a preconceived narrative. In another thread, I just saw the assertion that Obama will only rain apologies on our enemies. In response I had only to post the rather extraordinary facts that Obama has authorized the assassination of American citizens, and that many aspects of the war, particularly predator drone strikes, have been ramped up considerably since the Bush years. Yet the narrative persists, and the football game continues, with facts twisted to support one's "side."

I have no idea if this revelation will be more effective in the long run. Only time will tell. Maybe it will pressure Iran, maybe it will have no effect, maybe it will be detrimental. But there is zero evidence that Obama hates the military or wants to surrender to all and sundry. Those who think so have failed basic tests of critical thought.

 

[MA-Caver]

I don't think those who nominate particular persons to bid for the highest office in our land to be so naive enough to actually have a desire to downsize or even eliminate our military which by it's very strength and our proven resolve has protected this country's interior since the end of the Civil War.
By that I mean no country has dared to attempt an invasion of the U.S.
Japan? Sure... Pearl Harbor was a stepping stone or even a prelude to an supposed invasion. But even then they knew they would need a huge army to do so and they made the same mistake that Germany did... fight a war on two fronts (Philippines/Indo-China and the U.S. ). They knew they did not have the resources to continue.
Anyway... No president I believe would even think to leave this country so vulnerable enough that some foreign power would even (seriously) consider it. Desire it, yes, fancy it most likely even pretend a little while.

The threat of nuclear war is a real one this one I think no-one would argue the point. The original threat is no longer viable (except maybe for China being the only remaining opposing superpower to have the capability). But having a small country (not geographically of course) like Iran who would eventually have the resolve to launch their own versions of the WMD's affectionately called "nukes" is very real.
Even if the U.S. were to cut down the number to a thousand it is still more than enough to retaliate if necessary. I think that is now probably our only muscle that prevents catastrophic war against the U.S. A smart president would know this... those who put him in power would know this. Those who put him in power would not allow him such a blunder.
The President wields great power yes but is controlled by the party that put him into office. And the party is controlled by those who finance them.
They will surely guard their holdings jealously.

 

[Bruno@MT]

No, we won't get rid of ALL of them because the threat of someone else using them against US is all too real. It's funny how both Pakistan and India have nukes but haven't launched them against each other... no doubt that the U.S. and other nuclear bomb holders are holding the promise of dropping on both of them if they get nasty with one another... Hell I'd promise that because the ease in which a simple exchange can quickly get out of hand is ridiculous.
Same goes for Israel... they're about two slaps in the face from their enemies away from launching their own modest little pile.
With China there's probably an untold number of nukes in their own arsenal. THAT is what is really scary... IMO.

I think those 2 neighboring countries have people intelligent enough to know that dropping a nuke next door is not a good idea. The reason they haven't done so yet has nothing to do with the US.

And imo it is good that China has a significant nuclear stockpile. The US needs a counterbalance to keep them in check.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The article continues to say that the number does NOT account for those weapons that could be easily reinstated back into circulation because the warheads have not been destroyed.

Actually, those weapons cannot readily be reinstated.
ICBMs are very expensive, and take time to make. Those warheads are on stand-by, but if a US president would decide to recommission them, he'd have a serious lag between that decision and actually having them online. It's not like there is an ICBM factory in standby, waiting to start making them as soon as the fax rolls in. I'd wager it takes more than a year to get 5000 of those ICBMs back commissioned, and that is not even considering the logistics of the situation (protection, delivery, base support systems, etc)

Theoretically, I suppose they could be delivered by aircraft, but that is risky business. Less chance of accurate delivery, and you might lose a couple. of them. Then again, if hundreds or thousands of nukes are en route to delivery, the age of man will end and a couple of lost nukes are a minor bother.

 

[Empty Hands]

MAD is an interesting bit of human psychology. Rationally, retaliation after a launch would do no good. It wouldn't prevent damage to your own country, and would just harm more innocents. The specter of an accidental launch also looms large.

Yet, your opponents have to think that you will launch anyway, otherwise they could just destroy you. Even though they know very well that it would make no difference for you to do so.

An odd situation.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

MAD is an interesting bit of human psychology. Rationally, retaliation after a launch would do no good. It wouldn't prevent damage to your own country, and would just harm more innocents. The specter of an accidental launch also looms large.

Yet, your opponents have to think that you will launch anyway, otherwise they could just destroy you. Even though they know very well that it would make no difference for you to do so.

An odd situation.

I'm curious as to why you think its odd. It has a very sound foundation in human psychology.

One man with a gun can hold a large group hostage because even though they realize that, as a group, they could take him, no one person wants to be the one shot in the process.

 

[Big Don]

So, the Obama administration is perfectly happy telling the whole world STRATEGIC SECRETS, and yet was unwilling to let the American people know what was in the health care abomination (er, bill). Interesting. Once more President Obama shows little regard for Americans and more for others. What possible good can come from publicizing how many weapons of which type we have? How does this revelation benefit the American people?

 

[elder999]

My prediction for this thread: Obama has traitorously weakened our country with this shocking revelation, proving how much he hates the military and America.

So, the Obama administration is perfectly happy telling the whole world STRATEGIC SECRETS, and yet was unwilling to let the American people know what was in the health care abomination (er, bill). Interesting. Once more President Obama shows little regard for Americans and more for others. What possible good can come from publicizing how many weapons of which type we have? How does this revelation benefit the American people?

And there ya go.

 

[Big Don]

And there ya go.

Asking how the American people can possibly benefit is wrong?

 

[elder999]

I'm going to try treading lightly around this topic. A few quotes from the article, though:

Exposure of once-classified totals for U.S. deployed and reserve nuclear weapons is intended to nudge nations such as China, which has revealed little about its nuclear stockpile.

Estimates of the total U.S. arsenal range from slightly more than 8,000 to above 9,000, but the Pentagon will not give a precise number.
Whether to reveal the full total, including those thousands of nearly dead warheads, was debated within the Obama administration. Keeping those weapons out of the figure released Monday represented a partial concession to intelligence agency officials and others who argued national security could be harmed by laying the entire nuclear arsenal bare.


Russia and the United States have previously disclosed the size of their stockpiles of deployed strategic weapons, and France and Britain have released similar information.

Asking how the American people can possibly benefit is wrong?

It's not wrong-it's even a valid question-answered in part by the article. Indeed, if the stated goal of this administration is a world free of nuclear weapons, that is one possible (though unlikely) benefit for everyone.

An equally valid question, given that accurate estimates have been public for some time, and that other disclosures of this type have been made in the past, is how this disclosure could possibly be of harm to the American people....

Actually, those weapons cannot readily be reinstated..

Actually, they can.

I'm curious as to why you think its odd. It has a very sound foundation in human psychology.

One man with a gun can hold a large group hostage because even though they realize that, as a group, they could take him, no one person wants to be the one shot in the process.

A further step in human psychology, of course, is our tendency to seek an advantage. 50 some odd years of living under the doctrine of MAD have really only been a 50 year pursuit of OFF by all parties involved.

"OFF?" you say? "Opporunity For Firststrike."

SDI, the Stragtegic Defense Initiative, also called Star Wars, was, like our current missile defense systems, rightly perceived by Russia and the Soviet Union as a step in this direction. Using SDI example, let's say you're the last Cold War president, and you've already called the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire." Let's say that you've developed a defense against nuclear weapons-one which will possibly guarantee losses of 30% or less in a nuclear exchange, while you'll be able to completely obliterate your enemy. Might such a president go for a first strike, or, at the very least, be in a position to dictate terms at will? THis was the fear of the Soviet Union-so much so that trying to achieve their own version of SDI bankrupted them.

The Soviet Union actually sent a contingent of scientists to Los Alamos back in the late 80's. They were shown BEAR-Beam Experiment Aboard Rocket, one of the key components of SDI-and told that it had actually been put into space and succesfully discharged a particle beam at a target. Whether this was actually accomplished is the subject of some debate, but the Russians believed it, and went home to spend billions of rubles in frustration, trying to build their own version.

So, "MAD" equals, and has always equaled, the pursuit of OFF. (BEAR is now in the Smithsonian )

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm curious as to why you think its odd. It has a very sound foundation in human psychology.

One man with a gun can hold a large group hostage because even though they realize that, as a group, they could take him, no one person wants to be the one shot in the process.

Yes I understand that it jives with human psychology, it's the human psychology I'm calling odd. We aren't very rational creatures.

 

[Big Don]

Yes I understand that it jives with human psychology, it's the human psychology I'm calling odd. We aren't very rational creatures.

We aren't close to being rational creatures

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

A further step in human psychology, of course, is our tendency to seek an advantage. 50 some odd years of living under the doctrine of MAD have really only been a 50 year pursuit of OFF by all parties involved.

"OFF?" you say? "Opporunity For Firststrike."

SDI, the Stragtegic Defense Initiative, also called Star Wars, was, like our current missile defense systems, rightly perceived by Russia and the Soviet Union as a step in this direction. Using SDI example, let's say you're the last Cold War president, and you've already called the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire." Let's say that you've developed a defense against nuclear weapons-one which will possibly guarantee losses of 30% or less in a nuclear exchange, while you'll be able to completely obliterate your enemy. Might such a president go for a first strike, or, at the very least, be in a position to dictate terms at will? THis was the fear of the Soviet Union-so much so that trying to achieve their own version of SDI bankrupted them.

The Soviet Union actually sent a contingent of scientists to Los Alamos back in the late 80's. They were shown BEAR-Beam Experiment Aboard Rocket, one of the key components of SDI-and told that it had actually been put into space and succesfully discharged a particle beam at a target. Whether this was actually accomplished is the subject of some debate, but the Russians believed it, and went home to spend billions of rubles in frustration, trying to build their own version.

So, "MAD" equals, and has always equaled, the pursuit of OFF. (BEAR is now in the Smithsonian )

Knowing the business that you are in, I am hesitant to debate this issue with you, but here goes anyway.

I don't necessarily think that we were looking for an opportunity to strike first. I think that we were doing to them then what the Chinese are trying to do to us now.

We knew, based on the state of their economic condition and the nature of their government, that they would try to do whatever they could to defeat us militarily. And that included having a big enough arsenal of nuclear weapons to be able to destroy us. With SDI, then needed enough warheads to get through to do damage, and that meant more missles.

Not only that, but out of self-preservation, they wanted what we had to protect themselves, if only the Politburo members. So they again ezpend resources which they scarcely had to start their own SDI program.

With all of that, we knew that this would be economically unfeasable to them. We intentionally drove them to "bankruptcy" so that we wouldn't have to fight them, either nuclear or conventionally. And it worked.

Just my theory.

 

[elder999]

Knowing the business that you are in, I am hesitant to debate this issue with you, but here goes anyway.

I don't necessarily think that we were looking for an opportunity to strike first. I think that we were doing to them then what the Chinese are trying to do to us now.

Only partially true: all parties involved have sought the advantage of first strike capability since the "nuclear club" expanded beyond a membership of one, in 1949, with the Russian's first succesful detonation.

So basically, the last 60 odd years have been spent jockeying for advantage

With all of that, we knew that this would be economically unfeasable to them. We intentionally drove them to "bankruptcy" so that we wouldn't have to fight them, either nuclear or conventionally. And it worked.

Just my theory.

This may be the truth of the matter, but we were still trying to gain an advantage-in direct conflict with (and because of) the doctrine of "MAD."

(And I don't do that stuff at all, anymore. I did some contract work towards the end of last year, and I've been on vacation for months....going into private industry for a while, then on to school teaching/retirement....still have to be careful what I talk about, though, especially here....)

 

[CanuckMA]

Welcome back, Elder.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Actually, they can.

How?

I mean I acknowledge that the warheads will be usable. I just don't see how you get them to target without ICBMs. If the ICBMs have been decommissioned, they are probably not easily replaced.

 

[Bruno@MT]

So, the Obama administration is perfectly happy telling the whole world STRATEGIC SECRETS, and yet was unwilling to let the American people know what was in the health care abomination (er, bill).

That is not entirely true, is it?
The healthcare text was accessible for everyone to read. Sure, it was a ridiculously massive amount of text, but I was told that this is SOP for American politics on both sides of the isle.

And the exact number of nukes is not exactly a strategic secret. Whether it's 5000 or 10000 is largely irrelevant. Only if there are 5 or 10 would it matter. By disclosing the numbers (which has been done before) they can get others to do the same and do something with those numbers. Also, if they decrease from 10000 to 5000, others might decrease theirs as well. And if they don't have that many to begin with, the balance of power changes too, in favor of those who has the most left.