US Reveals nuclear aresenal

[GJ02]

Makes me laugh how they try and stop other countries developing nuclear energy for what ever reason, yet they have a shed load of nukes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_nuclear_weapons

 

[apeZ]

Now double that number.

 

[djmc0]

This thread has been reported to Langley

 

[Glaucus]

Makes me laugh how they try and stop other countries developing nuclear energy for what ever reason, yet they have a shed load of nukes

Why, responsible country vs a country which has a dubious nature. Rather us and our allies have them and not our enemies. Selfish maybe, but certainly logical.

 

[GJ02]

why so so so many tho ?
all it takes is 1 or 2

 

[starfighter]

Except the will only ever use them as a last resort and have a democracy so MAD actually works. can you say the same about Kim Jon Il or the leader of Iran?

 

[starfighter]

why so so so many tho ?
all it takes is 1 or 2

I agree they really don't need so many these days but back in the cold war they had to make sure they got atleast a few off before being hit first. best way to be sure. with Nuclear subs and the like I agree it is a waste of money having so many now. Sort it Obama.

 

[Glaucus]

all it takes is 1 or 2

it takes a lot more than.
Different types and different generations I imagine is a lot of the reason. You don't really just scrap them.

 

[Anim]

Makes me laugh how they try and stop other countries developing nuclear energy for what ever reason, yet they have a shed load of nukes



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_nuclear_weapons

Because nuclear energy is all they can do with that technology and material, right? right????????

why so so so many tho ?
all it takes is 1 or 2

Because 1 or 2 may get shot before they hit their targets, fire 30 and you're guaranteed that the country your hitting will be uninhabitable.

 

[manoz]

Never knew they made rulers that long!

 

[oli356]

Why, responsible country vs a country which has dubious. Rather us and are allies have them and not are enemies. Selfish maybe, but certainly logical.

Exactly

 

[Doonhamer]

it is a waste of money having so many now. Sort it Obama.

I thought they were sorting it. Is it not something like 70% less than they had 20 years ago?

 

[Tefal]

why so so so many tho ?
all it takes is 1 or 2

because the arsenal is/was built to take on the soviets, ie having to destroy hundreds of launch sites some in massive bunkers.

Also if you only have 2 what happens when your enemy takes them out first?

 

[Tefal]

I thought they were sorting it. Is it not something like 70% less than they had 20 years ago?

something like that.

iirc they send some of the material to Russia and vis versa and each uses it in power plants.

 

[Minstadave]

Why, responsible country vs a country which has dubious. Rather us and are allies have them and not are enemies. Selfish maybe, but certainly logical.

This makes absolutely no sense Has dubious what? Are or our?

 

[TheVoice]

Reading about the START treaty brings back memories of Metal Gear Solid. Loved the effort they put into that game to actually educate you a bit about what was going on, never really seen that in a game since.

 

[SourChipmunk]

Makes me laugh how they try and stop other countries developing nuclear energy for what ever reason, yet they have a shed load of nukes

Our stockpile keeps getting smaller and smaller. But the important thing is that everyone else still has less than us.

 

[Tefal]

This makes absolutely no sense Has dubious what? Are or our?

motives and our at a guess.

 

[Glaucus]

This makes absolutely no sense Has dubious what? Are or our?

Fixed, not really that hard.
pretty much what he said:

motives and our at a guess.

 

[peetee]

Thats not even that many really...
They are not necessarily all big enough to level a city etc, I would imagine a lot are tactical yields, theres all the submarine launched ones, air launched etc...
They are not all huge ballistic missiles.