• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Many?

How many warheads?


  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
How dare you speak negatively of Ronald Reagen.


Hey, I voted for the man... after four years of Jimmy and the energy crisis and the "Misery Index", Reagan was awesome... but nobody hits a home run every time they swing. :)
 
Hey, I voted for the man... after four years of Jimmy and the energy crisis and the "Misery Index", Reagan was awesome... but nobody hits a home run every time they swing. :)

I do.

I just sometimes also hit the pitcher.


And the umpire.

And the crowd, the commentator, the hotdog guy....

But in all seriousness, yeah, no nukes is something that won't come into reality for a good 500+ years.

Still, can't hurt to dream.
 
My personal preference would be swords and bows, but no one has ever had any luck putting a Genie of Technology back into its bottle.


"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, soon end up plowing for those who did not."

I prefer crossbows
 
Despite sensationalized films like Catch22, there is no reason to believe this would be the case, even if every nuke in the world were set off at once.

It is very safe to assume that if every nuke was set off at once the world would become inhabitable.
 
It is very safe to assume that if every nuke was set off at once the world would become inhabitable.


Actually it isn't.

I've studied this subject in depth. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not nearly so powerful as many people who have not studied their effects assume.

Also, most nuclear weapons would be used to create "air bursts" to maximize the area of effect... and air bursts do not create fallout.

Radiation from a standard nuke doesn't last forever. It typically falls off by the formula 7/90%... in 7 hours it falls off 90%, in 7x7=49 hours it falls off another 90% (99% total from original value), in a couple weeks it is down to 1/1000th of its original value.

Also, the whole "nuclear winter" thing has never been more than a hypothesis that has remained controversial; many scientists and engineers consider it highly improbable. Even if "nuclear winter" occurred, it would not last forever and would not be the end of humanity, let alone life on earth.

We do not have the power to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons, nor render it uninhabitable. We MIGHT have sufficient nukes to effectively end OUR current cycle of civilization and cause a "reset" with a much-reduced population... even that is questionable however.

The idea that a nuclear war would exterminate humanity is much over hyped and almost certainly untrue.
 
I have to agree with Ronald Reagen on this one:

“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985

Nonetheless, at our current position, I'm not looking for any major reduction.

Ice T's position on Gun Control, "I'll get rid of mine when EVERYONE else does? That makes sense doesn't it?"

Such is my view on our nukes.
 
300 active nuclear weapons seems more then sufficient. Furthermore, we can always just send 50 of the largest into the atmosphere resulting in a near eternal nuclear winter to kill every living being on the planet. That's uber spite of the worst caliber.

We should just let the stockpile draw down to 300 and maintain them from there, utilizing the fuel for civilian purpose for the weapons that are decommed. Maybe we can sell fuel to Russia the same way we bought their Mox? That would be doubly ironic. Russian nuclear warheads once aimed to kill Americans are now powering their homes at the same time American nuclear warheads aimed to kill Russians now power their homes.
 
Another point: Libs always seem to be the ones who want to cut the military, but think about this. You think American Conservatives are bad, just remember the only thing between you and a burka is the strong arm of our military.

You think the Muslim Brotherhood give a damn about your right to an abortion? You think Islamic Fundamentalists are sensitive to LGBT issues? You think the Chinese give a **** about civil rights? Freedom of speech? Academic freedom?

All of those freedoms you guys love so much were born here in America, and don't you take them for granted. If we are weak, the other powers waiting in the wings are not going to be sensitive to any of those issues you guys hold dear.

How is this relevant? The biggest criticisms of a nuclear free world come from countries that are reliant upon nuclear weapons to hold the American military at bay. A world free of nuclear weapons means that there is nothing militarily that can stop NATO. A nuclear weapon free world means an even stronger Hegemony for the West.
 
Wouldn't 10 nukes be enough? If we fought someone that fired off their 10 nukes, the planet would very soon become inhabitable.
 
Actually it isn't.

I've studied this subject in depth. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not nearly so powerful as many people who have not studied their effects assume.

Also, most nuclear weapons would be used to create "air bursts" to maximize the area of effect... and air bursts do not create fallout.

Radiation from a standard nuke doesn't last forever. It typically falls off by the formula 7/90%... in 7 hours it falls off 90%, in 7x7=49 hours it falls off another 90% (99% total from original value), in a couple weeks it is down to 1/1000th of its original value.

Also, the whole "nuclear winter" thing has never been more than a hypothesis that has remained controversial; many scientists and engineers consider it highly improbable. Even if "nuclear winter" occurred, it would not last forever and would not be the end of humanity, let alone life on earth.

We do not have the power to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons, nor render it uninhabitable. We MIGHT have sufficient nukes to effectively end OUR current cycle of civilization and cause a "reset" with a much-reduced population... even that is questionable however.

The idea that a nuclear war would exterminate humanity is much over hyped and almost certainly untrue.

This goes against everything that science has been saying for the last 60 years. The half life of the materials used in nuclear weapons is not 7 hours, it more like 20 years if that short a period of time. It is the effect of radioactive materials in the fallout and not the fallout itself which is the issue. Once this material comes in contact with living material in the doses it would in a full scale nuclear war everything dies. EVERYTHING. This is not theory this is fact. Our early tests on nuclear explosions proved this. the only animal that is relatively resistant to "fallout" is the cochroach but even when subjected to ultra high levels of radiation it died. the other factor to consider is Strontium 90 which is lethal to all life forms. This would cover the ground and be carried in the wind currents and if memoryh serves is the main component of concern in Nuclear Winter.

Nuclear winter is based on models that show the effect of radiation in massive quantities in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.

Your assertion that there are not enough nukes to blow up the world is niave. The issue is not BLOWING up the earth which is what conventional weapons do. The issue is creating a nuclear disaster that becomes and ELE. We are talking about one "bomb' which carries multiple nuclear warheads of 20mg ton or larger. If I remember correctly the Hiroshima Bomb was 2mgton.

All militaries capable of ICBM delivery systems or stategic targeting are not going to hit just any old place they going to put it in the pickle barrel. Strategically placed weapons (I hate the word bomb when talking nukes) would render over 90 per cent of the world unfit for live let alone human habitation. And if you think your home made bomb shelter is going to save you. Go luck with that.

From what I understand, 1 20mgton weapon will incinerate everything within a 10-20 sq mile radius and affect everything within at least a 100 mile radius BEFORE the radiation effectively (in bulk) enters the atmosphere. Once this happens the effects become exponential. Multiply this effect by 1000 and then measure in wind patterns and drift and you start to see the picture.

Even the survivalist maps of the 60-80's showed that over 85% of the US would be unfit for human life and primarily any life. This was based on a limited exchange
 
This goes against everything that science has been saying for the last 60 years. The half life of the materials used in nuclear weapons is not 7 hours, it more like 20 years if that short a period of time. It is the effect of radioactive materials in the fallout and not the fallout itself which is the issue. Once this material comes in contact with living material in the doses it would in a full scale nuclear war everything dies. EVERYTHING. This is not theory this is fact. Our early tests on nuclear explosions proved this. the only animal that is relatively resistant to "fallout" is the cochroach but even when subjected to ultra high levels of radiation it died. the other factor to consider is Strontium 90 which is lethal to all life forms. This would cover the ground and be carried in the wind currents and if memoryh serves is the main component of concern in Nuclear Winter.

Nuclear winter is based on models that show the effect of radiation in massive quantities in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.

Your assertion that there are not enough nukes to blow up the world is niave. The issue is not BLOWING up the earth which is what conventional weapons do. The issue is creating a nuclear disaster that becomes and ELE. We are talking about one "bomb' which carries multiple nuclear warheads of 20mg ton or larger. If I remember correctly the Hiroshima Bomb was 2mgton.

All militaries capable of ICBM delivery systems or stategic targeting are not going to hit just any old place they going to put it in the pickle barrel. Strategically placed weapons (I hate the word bomb when talking nukes) would render over 90 per cent of the world unfit for live let alone human habitation. And if you think your home made bomb shelter is going to save you. Go luck with that.

From what I understand, 1 20mgton weapon will incinerate everything within a 10-20 sq mile radius and affect everything within at least a 100 mile radius BEFORE the radiation effectively (in bulk) enters the atmosphere. Once this happens the effects become exponential. Multiply this effect by 1000 and then measure in wind patterns and drift and you start to see the picture.

Even the survivalist maps of the 60-80's showed that over 85% of the US would be unfit for human life and primarily any life. This was based on a limited exchange



Wrong on so many counts I hardly know where to begin.

For starters, the Hiroshima bomb was not 2 megatons... we didn't even have megaton-range weapons then. IIRC Hiroshima was about a 20 kiloton... several orders of magnitude less than your estimate.

Second, fallout does not consist of "the materials used in nuclear weapons", at least not in bulk. It consists of particles picked up from the ground in the fireball of a surface blast and irradiated into a temporary state of radiactivity... not the components of the bomb itself, which are very limited in mass. As I mentioned, most nuclear attacks on anything other than hardened military bunkers would be "air bursts", WHICH DON'T PRODUCE FALLOUT.

MOST fallout consists of particles that decay according to the 7/90 rule... the ones producing the most rads. There are some other particles in SMALL AMOUNTS that would stick around, which I address below.


Third, you blithely talk about 20 megaton weapons as if they were the norm... they are not. Most strategic nukes are in the 200-300 kiloton range... again, several orders of magnitude lesser in power than what you're talking about. Also, a lot of the nukes referred to in scarism literature are actually tactical nukes... typically 50kt or less.

Next, yes Strontium 90 would be a long-term problem, but it isn't as you protrayed it "lethal to all lifeforms". The primary concern about Strontium 90 would be small amounts settling into bones and resulting in bone cancer over a long period of time... not instant lethality.

Then, there's the "85% of the USA would be rendered unfit for human life" maps.... again, wrong. What that actually was, was that in a full-on global nuclear war with EVERYTHING being shot off, there was a good chance that 85% of the USA would experience SOME level of fallout. Not necessarily lethal to humans, not necessarily lethal to lesser lifeforms... in particular, people who could take shelter in a basement with some extra improvised shielding could survive in most areas other than a few immediately downwind of the missle silos and bunkers in the midwest.

Your misinformation is typical of people who have a small amount of mostly-misunderstood knowlege but haven't studied the matter in depth.
 
People argue that we would never use them for the wrong reasons, who determines whether something is used for the right or wrong reason? Why the double standard? Why are we allowed to have them but some other countries are not? Who is to judge who uses these weapons for good not evil, because that comes down to personal opinion, and that is ALWAYS biased.
 
People argue that we would never use them for the wrong reasons, who determines whether something is used for the right or wrong reason? Why the double standard? Why are we allowed to have them but some other countries are not? Who is to judge who uses these weapons for good not evil, because that comes down to personal opinion, and that is ALWAYS biased.


An excellent question. The answer is: We will, because we are powerful enough (in this period of time) to impose our will on other nations if we wish.


That is the way of the world. You don't have to like it, but it is so.
 
We need just enough nukes to knock the asteroid or comet coming at us off track. :roll:
 
An excellent question. The answer is: We will, because we are powerful enough (in this period of time) to impose our will on other nations if we wish.


That is the way of the world. You don't have to like it, but it is so.
That is exactly the problem.
 
That is exactly the problem.

I agree this is ridiculous. And I suppose the rest of the world is just going to sit around and let us do this? Yeah Right. This is Curtis LeMay and William Sheridan style thinking. It never has been real and never will be. The real answer should be a collection of countries such as the UN and if they cant get it together then another yet to be determined group.
 
No more than 2 per person.
 
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?

I agree with Lachean in that I don't like the use of the term "allowed".

However, I don't see why we could possibly need more than 10-20 nukes.

Nuclear weapons are designed to exterminate civilian populace, not to destroy military targets.

I'm ethically against their use period, but I can understand our need for having a few just in case.
 
That is exactly the problem.

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.
 
As many as we want.

Who can tell us otherwise? No one. That's the perk of being top of the world.
Would you repeat that to the President and about 98% of the Left?
 
We should have enough to completely evaporate all nations that may oppose us. Nuclear weapons in my opinion are a powerful deterrent.
 
From the other page....
Airbust do cause fallout, however it is reduced compared to a surface or underground blast. It is also carried up into the atmosphere and is carried away by the global winds. So there is no local falllout from airburst.
 
Airbust do cause fallout, however it is reduced compared to a surface or underground blast. It is also carried up into the atmosphere and is carried away by the global winds. So there is no local falllout from airburst.


True. My main point there was that most nuke attacks would be airbursts, and the fallout would be far smaller compared to any calculations that assume all ground-bursts.
 
We should have enough to completely evaporate all nations that may oppose us. Nuclear weapons in my opinion are a powerful deterrent.

Indeed, a very powerful deterrent.

We all know there are countries that'd love to take a shot at us. Nukes are important, not lovely things but important. I wouldn't feel safe if we just got rid of nukes altogether. It's one thing to limit the number, I get the rationale behind that, but not to rid our military arsenal of them completely.
 
Back
Top Bottom