View Poll Results: How many warheads?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0. Arms are for hugging

    13 31.71%
  • 300. We should be on par with most others

    4 9.76%
  • 500. Not the most, but it sends a clear message.

    1 2.44%
  • 1500. Is plenty

    7 17.07%
  • 5000 or more. We must maintain superiority at all levels.

    16 39.02%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81

Thread: How Many?

  1. #51
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: How Many?

    Now that the Cold War is over, we really need to look at the financial cost of these weapons. Our arsenal is aging and by some estimates will need about $1 trillion to fully upgrade everything. We simply do not need the number of weapons that we currently have. Proposals have been floated to reduce the umber of nukes we have to around 450 and focus mostly on submarine-based delivery systems. This would dramatically reduce costs and still give us enough power to devastate any enemy or combinations thereof who wants to threaten us. Nuclear weapons are not going anywhere, and they have helped prevent major global wars since their creation. I would also only support this reduction in an agreement with Russia and possibly China. Although, China only has 200 nukes and they probably do not have plans to expand their arsenal anytime soon. However, we need to rethink our nuclear strategy. As it is, our arsenal is too old, too large, and too expensive.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  2. #52
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How Many?

    As long as they exist at all, I would agree with those who have said that we should have enough for second-strike capability (i.e. Mutually Assured Destruction) and no more. Do we really need to have enough warheads to destroy the earth many times over? What possible purpose does that serve?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As long as they exist at all, I would agree with those who have said that we should have enough for second-strike capability (i.e. Mutually Assured Destruction) and no more. Do we really need to have enough warheads to destroy the earth many times over? What possible purpose does that serve?


    There is no such thing as "enough warheads to destroy the earth many times over". It would require over a quarter-million nukes to do that once, and the entire world doesn't have that many.

    (Yes, I calculated it...)

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #54
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    And just what authority is "allowing" us to have them?

    I have no idea how many would be necessary for the worst case scenario, global nuclear war, but I would think a cap on the # is irrelevant. New kinds of nukes, like bunker busters, are developed all the time.

    I'd simply like all old nukes to be decomissioned, and their fissionable material utilized. The idea of the proliferation of Cold War warheads is somewhat unsettling.

    My first inclination too. Allowed by who? Or is it "whom?"

  5. #55
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    There is no such thing as "enough warheads to destroy the earth many times over". It would require over a quarter-million nukes to do that once, and the entire world doesn't have that many.

    (Yes, I calculated it...)
    Fair enough, I don't literally mean "destroying the earth." But can't we settle for being able to extinguish most human life on the earth?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #56
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fair enough, I don't literally mean "destroying the earth." But can't we settle for being able to extinguish most human life on the earth?



    We probably couldn't manage that either. See previous posts.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #57
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    No, the problem would be if it was China or Russia imposing their will on others.

    At least, that would be a problem for everyone except China or Russia or whoever was doing the imposing.

    The world has always been like that. Assyrian Empire, Babylonian/medeo-Persian empire, Roman empire, Chinese Empire, Spanish Armada, British Empire... etc.

    We've been relatively benevolent and light-handed compared to many former empires.

    One day our time will have passed and someone else will be the dominant force around the globe... my best guess is India. We can hope they will be benevolent to their decadent predecessor, the USA.
    Oh, so you consider invading a nation on the (weak) assumption that they had nuclear weapons being benevolent. How about Vietnam? Korea? Did they ask for help? How about the total disregard for a nations borders? I am sure Pakistan is thrilled with how we went behind their backs. Afghanistan, thousands of civilians killed for the doing of some extremists. Throwing drones left and right killing innocent civilians. Having men stationed around the globe, even in sovereign nations. We have given heavy weapons to extremist groups in order to fight our battles, only to have them turn on us and result in more innocent blood shed. When you count the number of innocent civilian deaths the United States has played a role since the end of World War Two, it far surpasses the amount of lives potentially saved. I do not know who classifies invading countries and killing civilians in order to carry out the role as world police a benevolent act, but those who do, certainly are out of touch.

    I just want to give you a quick reminder how devastating the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, how devastating the use of Agent Orange was in Vietnam, how nearly 2 million civilians were killed in Korea, how the dispersion of weapons to extremists has caused American deaths in the middle east, how since 9/11 in the United States there have only been 33 deaths as a result of terrorism, while in contrast the United States has killed about 3,000 civilians in Pakistan alone with drones. That is not benevolence, that is murder, that is the use of power and force to police the globe.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  8. #58
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: How Many?

    0. As the rest of the world should have as well. No one should have nuclear warheads.


  9. #59
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    We probably couldn't manage that either. See previous posts.
    Well, the nuclear weapons themselves could wipe out most of the world's large cities. Then there are all the additional deaths from radiation, and the deaths from starvation due to the climate change that would result from nuclear winter, etc. In a full nuclear volley, maybe not every single last person would die, but most people would.

    Anything more than a couple hundred nukes is just gratuitous IMO (and even that is quite a lot). I can't envision any plausible circumstance where the benefits of unleashing thousands of nuclear weapons outweighed the costs.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #60
    Demented Lycanthropist
    wolfman24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    East Waboo USA
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How Many?

    Quote Originally Posted by iacardsfan View Post
    Oh, so you consider invading a nation on the (weak) assumption that they had nuclear weapons being benevolent. How about Vietnam? Korea? Did they ask for help? How about the total disregard for a nations borders? I am sure Pakistan is thrilled with how we went behind their backs. Afghanistan, thousands of civilians killed for the doing of some extremists. Throwing drones left and right killing innocent civilians. Having men stationed around the globe, even in sovereign nations. We have given heavy weapons to extremist groups in order to fight our battles, only to have them turn on us and result in more innocent blood shed. When you count the number of innocent civilian deaths the United States has played a role since the end of World War Two, it far surpasses the amount of lives potentially saved. I do not know who classifies invading countries and killing civilians in order to carry out the role as world police a benevolent act, but those who do, certainly are out of touch.

    I just want to give you a quick reminder how devastating the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, how devastating the use of Agent Orange was in Vietnam, how nearly 2 million civilians were killed in Korea, how the dispersion of weapons to extremists has caused American deaths in the middle east, how since 9/11 in the United States there have only been 33 deaths as a result of terrorism, while in contrast the United States has killed about 3,000 civilians in Pakistan alone with drones. That is not benevolence, that is murder, that is the use of power and force to police the globe.
    Too many people still think in conventional warfare terms and bend their arguments to achieve thier conclusions. They do not understand the power we are talking about. The Nuclear regulatory agency and the DOD have plenty of real data on the effects of nuclear weapons. And to think that we somehow have more right to have or God forbid use them just we are the USA is absurd.
    If you want to make a reasonable arguement that the bomb is not as bad as people think then show objective, unbiased and verifiable links. Start with the two agencies in this country that are primarily responsbile for launching them and maintaining security over them. Then go to websites for the organizations that would have to deal with the consequences.

    the problem is that the data that is readily available shows that the bomb is more devastating than most people think not less.
    "Those who do not learn from history and condemned to relive it".

    "There are those who will debate the necessity of wilderness, I will not, either you know it in your bones or you are very very old". Aldo Leopold - Sand County Almanac

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •