Babbling

[westpark]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP
&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[NaBraniel]

Real good stuff. Obama is trying hard to get me to leave the house in November.

[TheGreatUrameshi13]

My opinion has always been, yes, nuclear weapons are bad.  But we'll get rid of ours just as soon as they get rid of theirs.

Besides, there have been no huge wars since the development of them, so that's a plus.

[crapshot2]

---

TheGreatUrameshi13 wrote:

My opinion has always been, yes, nuclear weapons are bad.  But we'll get rid of ours just as soon as they get rid of theirs.

Besides, there have been no huge wars since the development of them, so that's a plus.

---

we will still be able to blow up the world several times over. we have what, 2000 nukes right now?

we will be fine, and this will save a ton of money

[scoobdog]

Yeah. I was wondering why we needed thousands of nuclear warheads. Isn't one enough to get the job done?

[Satoh]

I'm gonna start calling you dpark.

[rotanalebor]

If our preferred response to a nuke attack is to rain down armageddon upon the culprits, to nuke every major city and military installation of the offending country, then we'll need several dozen nukes, at least, to get the job done. 300 should be plenty.

Whether this would be an ethical or even intelligent response to an attack, well, that's another question.

[EvilsergE]

Instead of being big pusies, everyone should do sword fights like real men.

[Drake6-5]

Eh so we'll only be able to nuke the world 12 times over as opposed to 60, bearing in mind that's not quite accurrate as a disproportionate amount of the ones we'll be keeping will be thermo nukes thousands of times more powerful than conventional nukes and its the field tactical nukes where the you'll most of the reductions while the intercontenental ballistic variety will likely remained untouched just with reduced redunant capacity because advancing technology makes it largely unnecessary.

[scoobdog]

Quite. There just isn't a practical way to deploy hundreds of nukes at a time, let alone thousands, and, once even one nuke is deployed, armagaeddon has already started and the rest of those weapons can do nothing to protect us.

[GiantMegaDoucheX]

####...

Soon we'll only have enough nukes to destroy the world THREE times over...

[Josey]

So, according to the GOP, we need to keep our nukes because Iran might develop some that might travel as far as Israel?  Why even mention Syria?

It still remains to be seen how far these cuts go, if they go anywhere. A sizeable faction is still beating the paranoid Cold War drum.

[Pinkfrog]

Something i dont think you understand

"A sizeable faction is still beating the paranoid Cold War drum."

There are no mulligans or oops.. or sry that was an accident.. When one goes off things will happen that I prey never happen.

The thing is even if the USA reduces its nuclear arms ( you cant hug your children with nuclear arms ) it will not decrease the likely hood of a nuclear war happening will it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7QhpJ3DWDA

I would say most of us understand that if nukes are ever used again.. Its bad for everyone.

So even if we cut back our nukes to 1 per state.. That still doesnt change the dynamics of the political environemnt in the middle east and the new power struggle going on between new powers in the reigon.

The thing about nuclear war was always..

If you ever attacked us with one.. we would attack you and there could be no winner.. Ever see the movie War Games..?

TBH we only really need the Boomer subs to handle the nuke threat..

But that isnt the point when it comes to international politics..

I ask my self why do i bother replying to you every thread you make is the usa is the bad guy you support iran and other dictators because of what ever reason

The point is we could reduce the number of nukes the USA has down to 1 and it wouldnt change the dynamic

or the thread of nuclear war.

When people are not afraid of death and they have the power to bring death to millions instantly.. That should scare you just a little bit..

[Josey]

Why be afraid of countries that have no capacity to hit us with a nuclear missile?

We don't really have any reason to have so many nukes that we can destroy the world 10 times over, the Soviet Union is dead and Russia has not interest in going to war with us and vice versa. That fight is over, the days of mutually assured destruction are gone. China isn't going to go to war with us, India is not going to go to war with us, Pakistan's nukes exist to deter India from attacking them. We don't have to worry about nukes raining down from the sky anymore. 

Getting rid of our nukes is largely one of the good will gestures that are apt to be taken seriously by the world at large, and economically, they're just taking up space and eating up dollars that could be better spent elsewhere any way.

[Pinkfrog]

---

Josey wrote:

We don't really have any reason to have so many nukes that we can destroy the world 10 times over, the Soviet Union is dead and Russia has not interest in going to war with us and vice versa. That fight is over, the days of mutually assured destruction are gone. China isn't going to go to war with us, India is not going to go to war with us, Pakistan's nukes exist to deter India from attacking them. We don't have to worry about nukes raining down from the sky anymore. 

---

Your view of the world is completely off if that is what you believe lol let me give you some facts you know.. SCIENCE!!!!

The United States Plans Further Reductions in Its Nuclear Arsenal

The plan indicates that the United States currently intends to reduce its nuclear arsenal by 30 to 40 percent from today’s total of approximately 5,000 weapons. Reductions begun under the last administration will reduce the arsenal to 4,700 weapons by the end of 2012. In addition, the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released in April, indicated that additional weapons now in storage will be retired. This is consistent with the new plan, which states, “The future NNSA infrastructure will support total stockpiles up to a range of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 … warheads.” That is about twice the limit on the number of strategic weapons permitted by the New START treaty. Of course, the United States could reduce its arsenal to still lower levels through additional negotiated agreements with Russia and other nuclear weapon states.

Reductions Will Not Save Much or Reduce Size of Nuclear Complex

According to the plan, once the stockpile drops below a given level, the costs to maintain the weapons and infrastructure are “essentially independent of the size of the stockpile.” The plan suggests that even with a stockpile of some 500 warheads, the size and cost of the weapons complex would only be a little smaller than what is proposed for a stockpile of 3,000 to 3,500 weapons. The plan states that to maintain the required nuclear weapons expertise and facilities, a minimal number of nuclear weapons would have to be produced each year as part of the ongoing efforts to extend the lifetimes of existing weapons. It does not specify the number.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear
_weapons/policy_issues/stockpile-ba...

We wont save money

And it doesnt change the dynamic

What were you saying again?

[Josey]

You're not giving me science and you're giving me an article based on speculation that actually says there will be a reduced cost, albeit small, but only if current practices are maintained. But still, you're not really giving a reason why they shouldn't be reduced.

I see you've given up on the idea that we need them for protection though.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

Its about dam time, the cold war ended the year I was born, do people have any idea how much it costs to maintain nuclear weapons? Its not like we can actually use them anyway, if we do that, its the end of the world. 

They are tactically worthless and their cost is a long term strategic reliability. As long as we have the materials to make them, we can turn out enough to scare off any Russian or Chinese aggression, which isn't likely anytime soon.

[4-HBabe]

---

EvilsergE wrote:
Instead of being big pusies, everyone should do sword fights like real men.

---

Indeed.

[westpark]

---

crapshot2 wrote:

---

TheGreatUrameshi13 wrote:

My opinion has always been, yes, nuclear weapons are bad.  But we'll get rid of ours just as soon as they get rid of theirs.

Besides, there have been no huge wars since the development of them, so that's a plus.

---

we will still be able to blow up the world several times over. we have what, 2000 nukes right now?

we will be fine, and this will save a ton of money

---

I dunno the exact number we need or don't need to blow up the planet but I imagine even with a 90% cut we'll have enough to blow China & Russia skyhigh -- these things are pricey & they have to be maintained -- we need to save money & defense is a great place to cut.

[crapshot2]

if congress would get off it's lazy ass you could cut 15% of the bureaucracy from every department and have them work better without loosing any services.

but actually doing what the voters sent them to do doesn't get them the money they want

[Jingai]

Actually, Iran's current ballistic missile could hit us, from the bases they are building in Venezeula.

[Zaphod_209]

Fine.

Get rid of all of them.

Take out the radioactive material and keep a few empty shells for museums.

You can sell the rest for scrap to the Koreans to use in the KIAs.  At least then the steel will be used for something decent.

[crapshot2]

only that iran is not building the bomb because they are not building a reprocessing plant.

[Josey]

---

Jingai wrote:
Actually, Iran's current ballistic missile could hit us, from the bases they are building in Venezeula.

---

You mean the discredited report on alleged missile bases?

The U.S. State Department said Saturday that it reviews all information pertaining to Iranian military involvement in the hemisphere, but that it could not vouch for the report.

"We have no evidence to support this claim and therefore no reason to believe the assertions made in the article are credible," the department said in a statement.

In the wake of the questions raised by the report, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro described the allegations as an "extravagant lie."

"There is an international war machine against the prestige of Venezuelan democracy, against the prestige of the Bolivarian Revolution," Maduro said, referring to the country's social revolution. "There is no other way to describe this information that has spread through international media and spokespeople, ex-(Venezuelan) servicemembers."

Anyway, Venezuela doesn't have any interest in attacking us, considering we're one of their best customers.