Next, Obama will order the US to defend itself with vats of boiling oil.... just like they do in his homeland of Kenya.

BTW, not only will the US have less deployed ready-to-fire nukes than China, it will have less than Pakistan!

I thought I'd never see the day....

LOL

As long as we have enough to nuke Pakistan it's OK.

How dare he cut our ability to destroy the planet to only 100 times over!

As long as we have enough to nuke Pakistan it's OK.

Actually, you only need enough to nuke Mexico.

If anyone is going to kill off the US, it'll be the Mexicans.

Next, Obama will order the US to defend itself with vats of boiling oil.... just like they do in his homeland of Kenya.

#1 | Posted by Tosser

Obligatory stupid shit and racist comment from the Wanker.

If only the PakiTards would do the same.

How dare he cut our ability to destroy the planet to only 100 times over!

#4 | Posted by 726

Hmmmm. So in the mind of this retard who is the financial advisor to the uber-wealthy, three warheads is enough to blow up the world.

You're really stupid. Totally, irredeemably stupid.

It was hyperbole and you know it, RiR. 300 is still 1.5 per country- more than enough.

One wasn't enough to get Japan to surrender, even after we annihilated their naval and air power.

Still. Obama knows best. Everything else he's doing is working so well, why not unilateral disarmament? What could go wrong?

This is good news IMHO if we can figure out how to dispose of them safely. At 300 nukes of the quality we have, we can still kill every living thing on the planet 2 times over.

Weren't the democrats just talking about how unilateral disarmament was a bad idea when your enemies are still wielding their weapons?

That was in regard to Obama taking advantage of super PACS, and now in a way more egregious than the Citizens United ruling.

RiR, those Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were matchsticks compared to today's technology. What's bizarre is that the reductions didn't have worldwide reciprocity among other nuclear countires.

#11 - Do you understand that there is a difference between the words reduction and disarmament?

This is insane. The US needs at least 900 to 1000 nukes.

Flag:

This is insane. The US needs at least 900 to 1000 nukes.

#14 | Posted by YS_1 at 2012-02-15 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly, wouldn't want to have anyone actually left alive after WW3 now would we?

That was in regard to Obama taking advantage of super PACS

Last I checked, super PACs weren't designed for the purpose of annihilating human civilization.

#13 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2012-02-15 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes I do. Did you miss the larger point? Yes you did.

Last I checked, super PACs weren't designed for the purpose of annihilating human civilization.

#16 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2012-02-16 02:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

You wouldn't be able to tell that from how Obama spoke about them before he started using them, and then used them in a way worse than Citizens United would allow other candidates to use them.

The US needs at least 900 to 1000 nukes.

#14 | Posted by YS_1

Explain please. What does that mean?

What kind of nukes? Strategic? Tactical?

What yields? kilo-tons? Mega-tons? Tons of tons?

What are the delivery systems? MIRVed ICBMs? Cruisers? SLBMs in boomers? Old style drop and run like hell bombs?

What is the split between land-based and sea-based? How about air-launched delivery systems?

The more nukes there are, the more massive security is needed to protect them, at great cost.

You pull these numbers out of your butt, but I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

#7 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2012-02-15 01:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yes because once you kill everyone once, you need to do it several times more just for good measure.

Take your panties out of your vag and grow a set.

Glad to see you hopping on the right wing hysterics bandwagon for the day. Especially over something that has not even proposed yet.

Keep on the Rushrage!

RiR, those Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were matchsticks compared to today's technology.

Don't interrupt his perfectly good hysteric dujour. The man has to have something to hang his hat on since unemployment is dropping, businesses are hiring, approval is up and the clown currently leading the pack for his party would get mopped up in the general election.

#11 - Do you understand that there is a difference between the words reduction and disarmament?

#13 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE AT 2012-02-15 07:26 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

The politics of hysterics demand that they take reductions and call them disarmament to sell their hysterical ranting to the moderately sane.

Just like slowing the growth of the pentagon was immediately (and still) called "gutting".

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

Of course it is already decided that 300 or better yet unilateral disarmament by Obama.

You hysterical poofs kill me.

#23 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

I personally wasn't being hysterical... just pointing out the disconnect democrats have. In fact, even if he just reduces but does not disarm the larger point of my statement still makes sense.

Democrats were talking about how it is stupid to put down your "guns" (whether over a period of time or completely and immediately) when your enemy still has their "guns" drawn.

Here the democrats are cheering this... and yet make excuses for Obama when he not only draws the super PAC gun after saying it was destructive to society, he proceeds to escalate the arms race by using the Super PAC in a way that is more egregious than what Citizens United enables any other candidate to do.

Not even two peeps from Democrats about that...

"Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads."

Strategic. No mention of TNWs, them small boys, the bunker busters, the cruise missile tipped, low-yield in the k-ton range.

Don't like Cut & paste? Don't read this:
This is straight forward country thinking...
Jeff Foxworthy on Muslims:

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
You may be a Muslim

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
You may be a Muslim

3. You have more wives than teeth.
You may be a Muslim

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean.
You may be a Muslim

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
You may be a Muslim

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
You may be a Muslim

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
You may be a Muslim

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
You may be a Muslim

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
You may be a Muslim

10. Your cousin is president of the United States .
You may be a Muslim

#26 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2012-02-16 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why in this thread?

Jeff Foxworthy on Muslims:

No, it's not.

He felt like a loser, so he is trying to show me he isn't one. LOL

#28 | Posted by Tosser at 2012-02-16 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

That sounds like self defeating action on his part.

Never said he was very bright, did I? LOL

Democrats were talking about how it is stupid to put down your "guns" (whether over a period of time or completely and immediately) when your enemy still has their "guns" drawn.

No one is talking about getting rid of all nukes. The US will still have enough even if reduced to the lowest of three scenarios to nuke the world twice over. How many times over do we have to kill everyone on the planet for you to feel safe?

As for the hysterics... you listen to talk radio? I had it on to catch the news and weather on the way home and the right wing host made it sound like the world was ending, that and his words are exact "why don't we just surrender and get it over with". That is the hysterics. Over what? A request for a plan for three levels of warheads with 300-400 being the lowest.

One wasn't enough to get Japan to surrender, even after we annihilated their naval and air power.

There you go.

#31 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, you are missing the larger point. I am not worried about the Nuclear weapons and disarmament (either immediate or progressively).

The democrats were using their fears of disarmament (immediately or progressively) to make excuses for why Obama was using super PACS (something that Obama thought would destroy politics and democracy) not only the same way as his enemies, but in a way more egregious than any other candidate could take advantage of them.

Keep missing that point.

You are the only only hysterical one here... keeping me laughing.

Carl Sagan was very concerned about Nuclear Winter. He proposed that America should have no more than 500 nukes... at the most, all between 100-200 kilotons (no megaton weapons, thanks).

That would protect against all threats, including Nuclear Winter and "madness in high office".

Then there was a calculation (classified at the time) that gave the result to the question "how many Hiroshima sized nukes would it take to destroy the US as an industrial power forever?" (answer... 400).

It is no accident that almost all other nuclear powers aim for about 250-500 nukes.

How many Hiroshima sized nukes would it take to fuck up forever....

India? 20

Pakistan? 30

China? 300-400

Israel? 2-5

Iran? 10

In case you were wondering... (numbers from the Urdu media quoting certain nuclear analysts)

BTW, nobody (except maybe the Norks) uses a Hiroshima type or size weapon.

There is also the thing that it doesn't matter how little or how many nukes you have.

What matters is how much fissile material you can produce.

For example, it is calculated (from satellite pics) that Pakistan can produce enough Plutonium for 50 to 150 nukes a year.

The weapons themselves can be created in days (whatever type they may be).

I am sure if America runs out of it's 300 nukes, it will make more from the material it has in storage.

America, btw, can also take over command of all British nuclear weapons since Maggie Thatcher.

So there is that.

Its funny how nothing Obama ever does seems to be wrong to you fucking idiot democrats. Hell I wonder if he switched parties and became a republican(not that we would have him) would you guys defend that too.

I see Tokyo Tosser thinks that now his country has Nuclear Weapons that makes em all cool and smart.

Nuclear Weapons are nothing but a money pit. What good are they if you can never use them and if you did it would mean the end of the world as we you it?

Anyway...So how are those indoor flush toilets coming along Tosser? It's been 5,000 years now and last we checked 80% of the Pakistani population still doesn't have access to an indoor flush toilet.

But, at least you got a Nuke!

You might as well let everyone shit down those nuclear silos for all the good they will do you.

Wait you don't have nuclear silos as you have to keep those nukes moving or those sneaky bastard Ameerikans might swoop in during the night and steal them.

the end of the world as YOU know it...

The reason you have enough nukes to destroy the world a couple of times is so that a first strike doesn't eliminate all your capacity. Even ballistic subs don't fully solve the problem as a true surprise first strike will go after those as well and once the torpedoes are in the water it's too late.

Still if we maintain 3-4 hundred with a decent split between subs and land based I think we have enough to keep anyone from screwing with us. As tosser so politely pointed out even a first strike that eliminated 50% of our capacity would still leave us with enough to destroy pretty much anyone with the possible exception of China. Since the calculations were Hiroshima sized I suspect that 150 current yield weapons would be enough even for China.

The reason you have enough nukes to destroy the world a couple of times is so that a first strike doesn't eliminate all your capacity.

That doesn't take into account the MAD theory. I believe there won't be a second strike should there be a first.

The reason you have enough nukes to destroy the world a couple of times is so that a first strike doesn't eliminate all your capacity.

#40 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2012-02-16 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag

Following MAD theory, you also want to ensure that you have enough to be of some use should the enemy develop the technology to reliably shoot down your own retalatory missles. The nightmare scenario would be to have a China or Russia develop both the capability to hit any target in the world AND have the capacity to negate a retalatory strike. You never want a nuclear exchange to be "winnable" for either side...

That being said, this is a SCENARIO STUDY. Kind of a "what if" exercise that has no basis in reality.

No one is talking about getting rid of all nukes .. lowest of three scenarios to nuke the world twice .. how many times over do we have to kill everyone on the planet
#31 | Posted by 726

Posted by L_E_Light at 2012-02-16 08:22 PM | Reply

Another Reagan voter, if that old, who never realized Ron's one real genius idea was getting rid of them all.

Damn this a target rich environment.
Thank you for sticking to it Rogers.

Weapon systems that dwarf the planet must be curtailed or else.
I lived the 50's and the paranoia and obvious stupidity.
It was obvious to me as a child.

Unfortunately the two states possessing the vast majority of said weapons are less stable than China.

It's been 5,000 years now and last we checked 80% of the Pakistani population still doesn't have access to an indoor flush toilet.

And last time you said "80% of the pop HAS flush toilets"... LOL

And that we don't have TVs.

And that we don't get free ketchup.

you don't have nuclear silos

Because all Pakistani missiles are fired from mobile launchers. That gives them a huge strategic advantage, where they can be on any point of Pakistan's extensive motorway network at the moment of hostilities.

Another example of the roadway-defence concept.... all Pakistani motorways are designed to let aircraft land and take-off. Nobody can bomb out thousands of miles of landing strips. LOL

The US would love to have it's missiles mobile (like Pakistan, like India, like the Russians, like the Chinese), but they have too much invested in silos... the locations of which is known to everyone.

However the use of nukes at sea on boomers, is the ultimate trump card.

Not even Gawd can take down a Nuclear Triad.

you have to keep those nukes moving or those sneaky bastard Ameerikans might swoop in during the night and steal them.

www.npr.org

Rubbish from an American media source that lives on donations. LOL

Tokyo Tosser thinks that now his country has Nuclear Weapons that makes em all cool and smart.

It does, actually.

Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal and the fastest growing nuclear infrastructure on Earth (according to US).

While US itself is shedding nukes like you shed lice.

Yep... damn cool. LOL

Nuclear Weapons are nothing but a money pit.

For the US maybe.

For Pakistan, the money for nuclear weapons was far more efficiently spent than if we had to buy American fighters and bombers, for example.

For the amount of destruction per Rupee, nukes are the cheapest weapons of all.

It's the delivery systems that cost (like boomers).... the bomb itself is quite cheap by comparison.

What good are they if you can never use them and if you did it would mean the end of the world as we you it?

All of Pakistan's nukes are tactical. As far as we have been told, we don't use "city busters" (though there is no way to check).

An example of Pakistani battle-field tactical nuke system... a multi-barrel "nuclear katyusha".

http://is.gd/5ZcWk6

Fuck man.... let me give a proper link... sorry. LOL

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/
story/pakistans-short-range-
ballistic-missile-nasr-is-a-
matter-of-concern-for-india/0/
140087.html

Indian page with lots of bla-bla....

But at least they admit, this is true:

Pakistan seems to be accumulating nuclear weapons at a rate which bears no relation to the programme of its sole adversary, India. Its weapons holdings have already outpaced India's and will soon approach the level of France and UK.

Look at the pic of the battle-field nuke. LOL

In strategic literature, short-range tactical nuclear weapons have been considered particularly destabilising.

Gawd.....

We don't need a reduction in warheads.

We need a reduction in looking for targets.

All it takes is one bomb. Not 300. One bomb dropped on the wrong target and it's all over.