Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The US Reveals the Size of its Nuclear Stockpile

profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_nuclear_weapons

5,113, fuck the North Koreans!!!!

Political incorrectness aside, what do you guys think about this? It seems like way too many for me, but apparently not the rest of the US.
May 4 2010 12:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Hack.The.Pow.
Posts: 1294 - Karma: 25
haha yeah I saw that on yahoo earlier today. Pretty rediculous shit. It also said the stockpile has been rapidly declining since the cold war, so I can only imagine what it used to be at. There is really no need for that many nukes. Seriously if we EVER needed to launch a nuke its not like we're going to need to come anywhere close to using 5000+
May 4 2010 12:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Cheezcake.
Posts: 721 - Karma: 22
i highly doubt the U.S. is actually telling the world the honest truth about the size of it's nuclear arsenal.
May 4 2010 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
IceCreamer
Posts: 1587 - Karma: 27
That is a lot.
May 4 2010 12:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
Exactly what I thought when I read it. Sounds to me like they are trying to quickly gain positive attention by saying that the amount of nuclear warheads is "shrinking rapidly." Also, I think that the US government is essentially showing off their biceps in a nuclear war that they figure might happen.

"The important part is that the U.S. is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark." This alone shows that the US wants to be upfront with other countries not only about what they have, but what they can use if needed. I think they're looking for some sort of trust to eliminate (hopefully) the need for such powerful weapons.

That's just my take.
May 4 2010 12:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Chickendodo
Posts: 1426 - Karma: 33
or anything else... ever... down with government! up with anarchy! punx!!!!
May 4 2010 12:23AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
while his info is most likely blown somewhat out of proportion, i think this is kind of a sunning example that is somewhat true to a certain extent

maybe there aren't 10k bb's, but there are certainly at least 5k

May 4 2010 12:26AM
0 0
profile picture
TheDude
Posts: 2058 - Karma: 117
what a waste chuck norris needs all that platonium for tissues and toilet paper.
May 4 2010 12:26AM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
It's 10.5 inches girl, I swear!
May 4 2010 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
prontocuts.com
Posts: 5244 - Karma: 42
hasnt this been known forever?
May 4 2010 12:31AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,003
the damage done by one single nuke is staggering, to use even close to that would destroy the entire planet.
May 4 2010 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
yeah, we dont need that many. nobody does. but we have them as a deterrent, and i think thats fine.

its like, we probably wont start nuking shit like crazy, but if somebody pisses us off enough, we can effectively remove all life from the face of the earth. this would be a total bummer for most people, so they try to avoid making it happen.


i wish everybody could just get the fuck along. y'know? im almost positive i can go through a whole day without being a dick to anyone, why cant everyone else?
May 4 2010 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Dainsey
Posts: 2263 - Karma: 378
pics or it didn't happen
May 4 2010 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Dustin.
Posts: 13839 - Karma: 7,704
Who cares? Even if it was only 500 we could still blow the world to hell. We could have 1,000,000 and we'd be in the same situation.
May 4 2010 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11630 - Karma: 24,465
this made me lol
May 4 2010 12:35AM
0 0
profile picture
Hi.Phi.
Posts: 602 - Karma: 84
We need more...... never know when Kenya will attack.
May 4 2010 12:37AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
i am rather confident that the U.S. is level headed enough not to initiate a nuclear attack in this current state. we would have no problem obliterating every living thing in a country that attacked us, but i think we know the consequences of nuking north korea for example
May 4 2010 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
futurespin
Posts: 2178 - Karma: 168
well for a country like north korea or iran, we could destroy them with a couple nukes. If we were to fight russia though it would probably take about 5000 or so before they surrender.
May 4 2010 12:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
Very true. I mean shoot, we had nuclear weapons pointing towards Cuba from Miami and towards the USSR from Turkey during the Cold War, yet we managed to not pull the plug, and neither did they.

That alone gives me a little bit of relief. Although I'm not worried about another nuclear conflict to that scale, it is very possible. I'm not trying to instill fears into your heads, but there is a potential for just about anything at this time, or ever.
May 4 2010 12:43AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
we would just have to hope that iran or north korea didn't get the chance to send any our way before they got destroyed
May 4 2010 12:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
What's to say they wouldn't destroy the US first with a few more nukes though?
May 4 2010 12:44AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,003
if you launched 5000 nukes, the whole world would die
May 4 2010 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
hahaha but OH NO, WE ARE GOING TO REDUCE THEM BY 1/3rd AMERICAN IS UNSAFE OMGGGGG.

so we could only destroy a country 20 times over instead of 30. boo hoo.
May 4 2010 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
Take a peek at the ex Soviet stockpile including what Russia and the Ukraine has... they have just as many... just the ones in the Ukraine are sitting out in the open getting rusty.
May 4 2010 12:53AM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
our nukes would automatically launch to pre-designated targets from hardened bunkers, and destroys the country that fired first. were dead, but we died with our middle finger in the air.

its called mutually assured destruction, basically if one country wants to wipe out a another, everyone everywhere dies.


kinda like your friend wants your piece of cake, but you want the cake too, so instead of splitting it in half you douse you, the cake, and your friend in gasoline and light a match.


or the martyrdom perk in COD4



hahah im writing this speech for public speaking and im just so full of comparisons and examples its crazy.
May 4 2010 12:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
Click for larger image
May 4 2010 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Considering the fact that they are all props anyways, this does not really concern me at all. Nuclear weapons no longer exist as a physical weapon. They are simply a power statement in the big world of politics. Look at most of the countries that are players on a global stage. What do the majority of them have? Right, they all have nuclear arsenals. Granted, there are exceptions such as Japan, but these weapons are crucial in cementing a county's position as power.  Now we only have a tad over 5,000 of them? Bummer, that's really going to make it hard to continue to function as a superpower.  This does not matter for several reasons. First of all, we can still destroy most highly developed life on our planet (not the actual planet, we can't do shit to hurt it), and it's not like we have only 5,000 nuclear weapons or anything. Us and Russia are still an elite club as far as nuclear arsenals are concerned.  It's a political gesture that means very little, and it does not effect our actual launching capabilities at all. How many launch facilities do you think we have?
May 4 2010 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Cheezcake.
Posts: 721 - Karma: 22
not what i was going for at all.
May 4 2010 1:00AM
0 0
profile picture
dodgeridge*rider
Posts: 1359 - Karma: 25
the crazy thing is the hydrogen bombs they made in the 60s were like 20x more powerful than the A-bomb used in WWII. and im not sure but the bombs they have now are probably 100x more powerful
May 4 2010 1:00AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
that's why i really hope we don't launch first

whoever fires first is "that guy" who killed the world
May 4 2010 1:02AM
0 0
profile picture
pomme-de-terre
Posts: 3915 - Karma: 703
that would be the hugest party foul in history. At least one of the top 3.
May 4 2010 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
In addition to electing George W. Bush....... TWICE!
May 4 2010 1:35AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Are you just trying to start your own shitstorm?


Any one have any thoughts on abortion or evolution? How about Obama, he's doing a great job, right?
May 4 2010 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
ski_DC
Posts: 1347 - Karma: 53
its important that we have so many for a few reasons. FIrst, it underscores America's status as the global military power. Second, while 1 nuke is bad enough and 10 could blow up the world or whatever, having more allows America, and any country, for that matter, to depoly more weapons to different tactical locations. Thay second strikes are easier in the event of an attack. Having a nuclear network is a safety blanket, unfortunately. Finally, We have had many of these for years and years. It is easy to build them up but more difficult and dangerous to dispose of them. Imagine the size of the stockpile at the height of the cold war.
May 4 2010 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
Click for larger image
May 4 2010 1:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Dan.
Posts: 7201 - Karma: 1,126
try 1400x more powerful than both OG bombs combined, with the potential of being twice as large as when it was built and tested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
May 4 2010 2:13AM
0 0
profile picture
TheBeardedOne
Posts: 2286 - Karma: 58
Damnit Obama.. what have you done..
May 4 2010 3:35AM
0 0
profile picture
steezeeepolizeee
Posts: 8756 - Karma: 796
Its like having pocket aces, but so does everyone else at the table.
May 4 2010 4:42AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
have you guys forgotten that we signed a treaty with Russia to draw down our arsenals to just over 1500 each, and that both countries would provide access for inspectors to affirm this?


Who wants nukes? why provide other countries an excuse to pursue a nuclear arsenal?
May 4 2010 7:31AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
May 4 2010 7:32AM
0 0
profile picture
skithesprings
Posts: 9086 - Karma: 1,349
not quite, contrary to popular belief, nukes cant take out entire countries. actually, you only get a radius of a few miles at most, and while 500 would really fuck shit up, it probably couldnt even wipe out just russia if that was the objective.

and im not arguing with you, just sayin.
May 4 2010 8:06AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
nukes have been meant to take out entire cities:

though the Tsar Bomba is an example of an old-style nuke (before ICBM & miniaturization)

Click for larger image

Click for larger image
(radius of fireball is ~ 5 miles

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png/350px-Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png[img]
(radius of red circle is ~21 miles)
May 4 2010 8:51AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Click for larger image
May 4 2010 8:51AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
Click for larger image
May 4 2010 8:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Motherfucka
Posts: 1179 - Karma: 26
cod
May 4 2010 9:22AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Although today we have ICMBs with ROVs and such which really increase the damage. If one missile can  destory multiple targets on its own, a massive launch could easily cripple a country.
May 4 2010 9:34AM
0 0
profile picture
Dirty.Harry.
Posts: 1779 - Karma: 351
Well let's just hope that one of our soldiers in Afghanistan doesn't get a 25-kill streak because then they can call in a tac nuke.
May 4 2010 9:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
If the discovery channel is telling the truth, then 1 "boomer" nuclear submarine carries enough nuclear warheads to make all of south America uninhabitable for the next 200 years.

Just wait till we figure out how to use antimatter to blow each other up.
May 4 2010 10:21AM
0 0
profile picture
Steeze_Cake
Posts: 613 - Karma: 16
Hit one with a hammer :)
May 4 2010 10:25AM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,270
well we were super careless during the cuban missile crisis, that was about as hot as the cold war got. we threatened them assuming they didn't already have missiles in cuba and that they were planning on installing them there. then when we forced them to back down and went to cuba we realized there were fucking missiles pointed at us the whole time. nevertheless we kept that one pretty quiet
May 4 2010 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Dustin.
Posts: 13839 - Karma: 7,704
Duh... I obviously was not speaking literally as if one bomb had a 4,000 mile radius of destruction. But imagine the 500 most populated areas of the world and imagine them getting nuked. Ya. 500 is just as bad as 5,000 in my opinion. You could still destroy the world in a figurative sense.
May 4 2010 12:18PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)