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



## MA-Caver (May 3, 2010)

> *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
> 
> ...



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 (May 3, 2010)

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 (May 3, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (May 3, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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 (May 3, 2010)

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 (May 4, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> 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 (May 4, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> 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 (May 4, 2010)

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 (May 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (May 5, 2010)

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 (May 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


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


 


Big Don said:


> 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 (May 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And there ya go.


Asking how the American people can possibly benefit is wrong?


----------



## elder999 (May 5, 2010)

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.*
> ...


 


			
				Big Don said:
			
		

> 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....



Bruno@MT said:


> Actually, those weapons cannot readily be reinstated..


 
Actually, *they can.*




			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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? _"*O*pporunity *F*or *F*irststrike._"

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 (May 5, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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 (May 5, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (May 5, 2010)

elder999 said:


> 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? _"*O*pporunity *F*or *F*irststrike._"
> 
> ...


 
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 (May 5, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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



5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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 (May 5, 2010)

Welcome back, Elder.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2010)

elder999 said:


> 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 (May 6, 2010)

Big Don said:


> 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.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> 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.


 
Remember all that great Gulf War footage from the cruise missile cameras?

While all (?) of our ground based Tomahawk nuclear missiles have been deactivated in accordance with the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, we still have ship and airship based ones. Additionally, the modification of cruise missiles that carry conventional payloads to the ability to carry the W80 warhead is not technologically challenging at all, nor would reconstructing ground based platforms for them be. The Tomahawk has a range of (about) 1200-1500 miles, and the W80 warhead is what's called a variable yield (or, sometimes incorrectly, "dial-a-yield") that ranges between 5 and 200 kilotons. For perspective, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki devices were about 12.5 and 18 kilotons, respectively. While we couldn't attack Russia from anywhere but Alaska with a ground based approach with such a device-at least, not without deploying it on foreign soil like, _Afghanistan,_ say.., we certainly could from the sea or air-and, with their GPS guidance, variable throttles, and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlators, we can pretty much park a nuke in someone's lap with one-under the radar, and in a matter of minutes.

ICBM's?_We don't need no stinking ICBMs!_ :lol:

All of this was and is in keeping with the shift in nuclear doctrine away from "MAD," and the growing possibility of tactical, rather than strategic nuclear warfare, and the increasing likelihood of actually using the things in warfare (not even going to get into the times that we may or may not have considered it in the past....)

And, again, in light of your earlier post-your quite right: the number of thousands of warheads we have isn't stategically significant at all-safe to say that it's enough to destroy every major city in the world-including ours-at least twice. Not likely that we'll ever use all of them, anyway....in fact, it kind of brings up the question of why we have so damn many. Interesting history there, of course.....


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 6, 2010)

elder999 said:


> While all (?) of our ground based Tomahawk nuclear missiles have been deactivated in accordance with the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, we still have ship and airship based ones. Additionally, the modification of cruise missiles that carry conventional payloads to the ability to carry the W80 warhead is not technologically challenging at all, nor would reconstructing ground based platforms for them be. The Tomahawk has a range of (about) 1200-1500 miles, and the W80 warhead is what's called a variable yield (or, sometimes incorrectly, "dial-a-yield") that ranges between 5 and 200 kilotons. For perspective, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki devices were about 12.5 and 18 kilotons, respectively. While we couldn't attack Russia from anywhere but Alaska with a ground based approach with such a device-at least, not without deploying it on foreign soil like, _Afghanistan,_ say.., we certainly could from the sea or air-and, with their GPS guidance, variable throttles, and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlators, we can pretty much park a nuke in someone's lap with one-under the radar, and in a matter of minutes.
> 
> ICBM's?_We don't need no stinking ICBMs!_ :lol:



Thanks.



elder999 said:


> All of this was and is in keeping with the shift in nuclear doctrine away from "MAD," and the growing possibility of tactical, rather than strategic nuclear warfare, and the increasing likelihood of actually using the things in warfare (not even going to get into the times that we may or may not have considered it in the past....)



I dread the day the first tactical nuke will be detonated.
The best kind of nuke imo are the strategic multi-megaton ones, for the simple reason that no one in his right mind will ever be the first one to launch one of those. With tactical nukes, the barrier is lowered significantly, and as soon as they exist, no doubt they will be used in a conflict in which the other side does not have nukes at all. Slippery slope. Especially because -no offense- the US seems to be prepared to go to war and / or armed conflict at the drop of a dime.



elder999 said:


> And, again, in light of your earlier post-your quite right: the number of thousands of warheads we have isn't stategically significant at all-safe to say that it's enough to destroy every major city in the world-including ours-at least twice. Not likely that we'll ever use all of them, anyway....in fact, it kind of brings up the question of why we have so damn many. Interesting history there, of course.....



Simple math I guess.
First you need enough to cover the MAD scenario against the major strategic targets of all major players. Of course you need to have multiple sites with that capability in order to have a guarantee of being able to launch. Then you also need enough to arm the submarines carrying strategic nukes.
And you also need various types of nukes for various purposes, if only to be able to produce a bigger bang than the soviets.

And also, many ICBMs carry multiple warheads.
The multiplication quickly adds up.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
Well the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO in every catagory. 9-1 in tanks alone I believe. I still remember in armoured school someone saying that they had to kill 9 Russian tanks before they were allowed to die in battle.

NATO had a first usage policy against the WP, simply because they outnumbered us by such a huge margin. Plus unless your the West Germans, who cares about first useage? Germany will be glowing, not the US.

Russia went bankrupt because commoditiy prices dropped like a rock after the Arab oil embargo cleared up. Oil exports from Russia became worth seriously less then they ever had so $$ coming in dropped, thats what bankrupted the USSR, not an arms race.

BTW the USA is $10trillion in debt right now and growing, spending $600billion on the military every year...who's at risk of becoming bankrupt from military spending now?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 6, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Well the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO in every catagory. 9-1 in tanks alone I believe.



Based on the usual Soviet quality standards, I'm guessing 7 didn't work at all and the 8th would need serious work before it could do anything.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 7, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Well the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO in every catagory. 9-1 in tanks alone I believe. I still remember in armoured school someone saying that they had to kill 9 Russian tanks before they were allowed to die in battle.
> 
> NATO had a first usage policy against the WP, simply because they outnumbered us by such a huge margin. Plus unless your the West Germans, who cares about first useage? Germany will be glowing, not the US.


 
I'm curious as to where you get your info that NATO had a first strike policy.  I've never seen that.

I do know that the Soviets had a first strike policy as well.  A couple of books that I have read written by defected Soviet military personnel actually stated so.  What is also interesting is that they thought NATO weak because we didn't.  Now obviously, I don't know where they might hve gotten this particular piece of information, but they stated they knew.



> Russia went bankrupt because commoditiy prices dropped like a rock after the Arab oil embargo cleared up. Oil exports from Russia became worth seriously less then they ever had so $$ coming in dropped, thats what bankrupted the USSR, not an arms race.


 
I might have overstated the case that the U.S. policy caused the situation, however, considering their efforts to keep up with us militarily, one could certainly make the case that we helped to hasten it.

[quote[
BTW the USA is $10trillion in debt right now and growing, spending $600billion on the military every year...who's at risk of becoming bankrupt from military spending now?[/quote]

Interesting way to put it.  Of course, the U.S. has an actual Constitutional mandate for military spending.  It would argue that it would be more accurate to state that the things which will cause the U.S. to go bankrupt are those spending items for which it was never intended to spend money, such as business subsidies, farm subsidies, social welfare, education, etc.  Oh, and bank bailouts.

Or did you pick the militarye because you don't like what the U.S. is doing with it, so you're making a political argument instead of a historical one?


----------



## elder999 (May 7, 2010)

Big Don said:


> . What possible good can come from publicizing how many weapons of which type we have? How does this revelation benefit the American people?


 
Kim Jong Il has announced he'll return to njuclear negotiations, probably after a bit of ***-chewing by China, accompanied by their tying it to aid.

The IAEA has put Israel's nuclear capability on their agenda for the first time in 52 years of existence.

Russia (and a variety of other nations) have renewed their solidarity with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear capability-symbolized by U.S. troops being invited to march in Red Square with Russian troops at the Victory Day parade this year for the first time ever.

Behind the scenes, basically, momentum is growing against what is rightly perceived as the greatest rogue nuclear threat in the world-Iran. This disclosure was part of what has fostered this, and partly based on analysis of the IAEA inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities at the end of last year.

...and now I've said enough.


----------

