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.

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?

Kandahar said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...)

Lachean said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Goshin said:

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...)

Click to expand...

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?

Kandahar said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Goshin said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

iacardsfan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Nobody can "allow" us anything, stupid question, stupid poll.

Your Star said:

No nation should have any nuclear warheads, so in turn the US should have none. If someone is stupid enough to launch a nuclear warhead on us, we should not fire a nuclear warhead back, no matter how much it would feel good, because that would doom the entire world.

Click to expand...

We should fire enough back to make sure the NEXT guy gets the point that firing off nuclear weapons at us is a VERY bad idea. Its too late for the idiot who fires at us they should be oblilerated and no hint of their existance left and we should lace our weapons such that the area we attack is useless for the next 10,000 years. The next people thinking about such foolish action will be able to look at our track record and rightfully conclude that we are exceptionally dangerous and should avoid confict with us at ALL costs. We screw up when people dont absolutely KNOW we WILL act with ABSOLUTE unabashed RUTHLESSNESS in defence of ourselves. This is the reason we have the conficts we do, people do NOT KNOW that we are capable of genocide both the capability and the will. When push comes to shove when we are backed up against the wall, there is NO civilization that is as deadly and as ruthless as us. Look back at world war 2 and you find the examples not of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Here is a list of cities that were targeted and destroyed at least in part by us. Conventional bombing damage to Japanese cities in WWII[164]
City
% area
destroyed
Yokohama
58
Tokyo
51
Toyama
99
Nagoya
40
Osaka
35.1
Nishinomiya
11.9
Shimonoseki
37.6
Kure
41.9
Kobe
55.7
Ōmuta
35.8
Wakayama
50
Kawasaki
36.2
Okayama
68.9
Yahata
21.2
Kagoshima
63.4
Amagasaki
18.9
Sasebo
41.4
Moji
23.3
Miyakonojō
26.5
Nobeoka
25.2
Miyazaki
26.1
Ube
20.7
Saga
44.2
Imabari
63.9
Matsuyama
64
Fukui
86
Tokushima
85.2
Sakai
48.2
Hachioji
65
Kumamoto
31.2
Isesaki
56.7
Takamatsu
67.5
Akashi
50.2
Fukuyama
80.9
Aomori
30
Okazaki
32.2
Ōita
28.2
Hiratsuka
48.4
Tokuyama
48.3
Yokkaichi
33.6
Ujiyamada
41.3
Ōgaki
39.5
Gifu
63.6
Shizuoka
66.1
Himeji
49.4
Fukuoka
24.1
Kōchi
55.2
Shimizu
42
Omura
33.1
Chiba
41
Ichinomiya
56.3
Nara
69.3
Tsu
69.3
Kuwana
75
Toyohashi
61.9
Numazu
42.3
Choshi
44.2
Kofu
78.6
Utsunomiya
43.7
Mito
68.9
Sendai
21.9
Tsuruga
65.1
Nagaoka
64.9
Hitachi
72
Kumagaya
55.1
Hamamatsu
60.3
Maebashi
64.2
German cities.
Essen, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Braunschweig, Lübeck, Rostock, Bremen, Kiel, Hanover, Frankfurt, Mannheim, Stuttgart, Dresden, Munich, and the Ruhr. Note Cologne was totaly destroyed. You can go back to before the Civil War and find all sorts of examples of us being quite ruthless.:bomb:

So when people say that we dont do that sort of thing, history says otherwise. It would be wise on our part to point to history and show our enemies that we can make war better than anyone. Peace comes though strength. Our enemies must KNOW without doubt that to wage war with us is to invite death and destruction to themselves. Wars happen when people think they can win with acceptable cost. Show our enemies that the cost is at best absurdly confiscatory in ALL ways then the likely hood is they will not start with us, and will seek to avoid confrontation.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

There would be absolutely none, and that is the point. To make useing nuclear weapons a pointless endeavor.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Personally I think we should go out of our way to make our nuclear weapons as "dirty" as possible and to use them in such fashion as to maximize residual effects. I couple that strategy with widely publisizing that fact to any and all, to make the point that any nuclear exchange with us is going to be absurdly viscous. The smallest unit we should have is one megaton warheads and those should be mirved.

I would really like to get rid of nuclear weapons. I really would. We have come close of nuclear war numerous times as a result of accidents and bad signals. The Cuban Missile Crisis, often portrayed as a success for the Kennedy Administration, mostly consisted of close calls, ass-covering, and poor communication. I don't trust any group with nuclear weapons. However, I just don't see any world power giving them up. Mutually Assured Destruction almost certainly stopped World War III from breaking out between the US and the USSR, but we could have seen far worse.

Van Basten said:

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.

Click to expand...

You do realize that without Nuclear weapons, there is frankly nothing that can stop a NATO steamroller no?

Some of the countries in the world that are against a nuclear free world are some of the most hateful to America and the West. Kissinger argues for a nuclear free world because it eliminates any real threat to American military power. So in that aspect getting rid of nuclear weapons across the planet is beneficial for America. Saves us money and eliminates the real threats to our military.

Dooble said:

It depends on which political side is in power. If we went straight Democrat in all three branches for the next 50 years, we wouldn't have any nuclear warheads. Just a hate-filled media with a bunch of adulterous, foul mouth politicians.

Click to expand...

If you look at the cities which have been predominantly led by Democrat Mayors, those cities have higher crime, lower school test scores, more welfare, greater drug abuse and higher rates of teen pregnancy, iirc.

Look at Detroit, New Orleans, D.C. and Chicago, to start the list.

So, what we'd likely have is the whole USA in the shape of those cities.

Not good. Not good at all

I don't think we should have any nuclear weapons on the planet. It is too destructive and would obliterate the world as we know it. However, with other nations having them I think 300-500 is plenty. Honestly, one bomb could do enough damage to send a message. The bombs we have today would make Hiroshima look like simple dynamite.

iacardsfan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I never said we were perfect. :mrgreen:

Do you have any idea how much MORE war, destruction, chaos and conquest would likely have taken place if we had NOT stepped up to the plate as the world's new superpower?

Have you looked at the brutalities commited by previous world empires?

Perhaps you need to study more history. It will give you some useful perspective.

We are, compared to almost any previous world superpower, relatively quite benign and light-handed.

If it were not us, it would be someone else... perhaps you'd prefer Red China or the former USSR were ordering the globe according to THEIR preferences? I guarantee you someone would be the big dog... and most other current candidates would NOT be as nice about it as we've been.

Dooble said:

How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?

Click to expand...

One hundred million warheads.

Surtr said:

One hundred million warheads.

Click to expand...

Dr. Evil Agrees

I also like the option "arms are for hugging". I would like to hug a few places with nuclear arms.

Goshin said:

I never said we were perfect. :mrgreen:

Do you have any idea how much MORE war, destruction, chaos and conquest would likely have taken place if we had NOT stepped up to the plate as the world's new superpower?

Have you looked at the brutalities commited by previous world empires?

Perhaps you need to study more history. It will give you some useful perspective.

We are, compared to almost any previous world superpower, relatively quite benign and light-handed.

If it were not us, it would be someone else... perhaps you'd prefer Red China or the former USSR were ordering the globe according to THEIR preferences? I guarantee you someone would be the big dog... and most other current candidates would NOT be as nice about it as we've been.

Click to expand...

Everything you have said is so stereotypical of somebody who is anti-communism. In theory communism is possible and potentially good. It has never been carried out by a person who was capable of managing it without becoming power hungry. The USSR was in an arms race with us. Assuming that we had not continued in the arms race they would have become the next world super power, they would have continued the spread of communism, which is where most of you think that the USSR could never be peaceful. Communism is an economic system, not a form of government, therefore it is simply the dictator who rules the country that makes communism seem bad. The United States combated the spread of communism even though they were never asked to. There is no saying that the USSR would ever threaten the sovereignty of the world. Just because there is communism does not mean there is evil.

iacardsfan said:

Everything you have said is so stereotypical of somebody who is anti-communism. In theory communism is possible and potentially good. It has never been carried out by a person who was capable of managing it without becoming power hungry. The USSR was in an arms race with us. Assuming that we had not continued in the arms race they would have become the next world super power, they would have continued the spread of communism, which is where most of you think that the USSR could never be peaceful. Communism is an economic system, not a form of government, therefore it is simply the dictator who rules the country that makes communism seem bad. The United States combated the spread of communism even though they were never asked to. There is no saying that the USSR would ever threaten the sovereignty of the world. Just because there is communism does not mean there is evil.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, I am indeed anti-communism. However, my anti-communism is not the knee-jerk reaction of someone who grew up in the Cold War days (though indeed I did), but of someone who has studied both the theory of communism (IMO a well-intentioned but misguided philosophy) and the REALITY of communism when applied via governmental force on a national scale: Gulag, purges, Political Officers, "counter-revolutionaries are shot or hung", secret police, imprisonment or execution of dissdents, Tienamen Square, one-party rule, USSR workers saying "we pretend they work, and they pretend they pay us", oppression on a vast and terrible scale... the reality is far from the theory, and always has been in the real world, and probably always will be.

It sounds like you're singing that tired old song about how "Communism WOULD work if only it was done right!" :roll:


Well so far every attempt to implement it on a national scale has failed and resulted in misery and oppression for hundreds of millions of people.


Yeah, so would anarchy, IF ONLY people would play nice without laws... and there would be no need for government if men were angels, but they are not.

Communism fails because it FAILS to take into account human nature... there will always be a Stalin waiting in the wings to co-opt the Glorious Revolution. It is the nature of things.

If your mantra is "Communism good, USA bad!" then we are destined NOT to see eye-to-eye... but you need to change your lean to something more honest than "moderate".

Lachean said:

The US government is who is allowing the US government... sounds to me like a poor check on that power, should a cap on nukes be law.

Click to expand...

The check on that power comes by way of votes. Do we voters want a strong commander in chief, or do we want an attention whore who loves excessive vacations and golf dates?