Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GRAPHS: how many nukes do we have compared to any potential threatening country?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:34 PM
Original message
GRAPHS: how many nukes do we have compared to any potential threatening country?
These are the nuclear arsenals of most of the countries in the world. Damn! They could do us some damage couldn't they?



But it looks a little different when you add us and Russia into the picture:



And if you throw in the extra nukes we and the Russians have in mothballs:




You probably already knew this, but you can send it to your righty friends as Rush, O'Reilly et al get their knickers in a knot about the threat from Iran.

Every world leader knows that not only do we have enough nukes to destroy the whole world several times over, we are the only country who has ever used them. They know that it would be suicidal to nuke us or give a nuke to terrorists to nuke us. That's why the Soviets never attacked us even when they had roughly as many or slightly more nukes than us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Looks like there are plenty of nukes to destroy the ENTIRE WORLD........
several times over, so when the nuclear volley begins 'WE' can be assured there will be very little left living and there will be little or nothing to live for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. my main point is that unlike Mutually Assured Destruction with Russia...
some country that is little more than a zit on our ass militarily is no meaningful threat to us since attacking us would be suicidal several times over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Agreed. So why the hell are 'WE' spending over a trillion dollars........
and countless lives to deal with 'several' zits on our ass, specially when 'rubbing' a little diplomacy on THEM could go along way to resolving all the nuclear issues and make THEM go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. because nukes aren't the issue, they're the excuse.
Which is also my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. k&r for graphic graphics
MAD indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. I think the real issue is terrorism and nukes (and why we don't want Iran to have em)
In the old days few countries had nukes. If the soviets attacked we could detect their launch, same if we attacked them.

If was a non-detectable event (ie, under radar, snuck in to country, etc) we pretty damned well knew who it was and could retaliate en masse.

Say Iran gets some nukes. A nuke is smuggled into the US and set off. We don't know 100% for sure who brought it in (unless we have a close relationship with them and they can and will account for their nukes). Who would back using our nukes against them without a ton more evidence?

The more countries that have them and the more they are spread out the greater the chance someone will use them in a covert way against another country (Like Israel, UK, Turkey, etc).

Mutual Assured Destruction only works when you can pinpoint the enemy and rapidly respond.

But even worse for Iran - It may well be their death knell - they get nukes, we use one on ourself covertly, blame them, nuke em back before they cannot prove they did not do it, and pnac gets finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. If you read the kind of instructions the Bushies have sent Pentagon, they don't have to trace it
If a nuke goes off here, it will be blamed on Iran or whoever we want to kick.

If a nuke went off here, it would give us a pass with the rest of the world to retaliate, and most Americans would be asking even fewer questions.

Your last line is the most likely scenario since no nation in history has intentionally commited suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. You are forgetting the reason we have so many nukes
One word: Redundancy.

During World War Two we produced over 44 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition. .30-06, .30 carbine, .45 ACP, and .50 BMG, and probably some .303 British for the UK.

There were a little more than two billion people on the planet at the time.

Basically, you make so many nuclear weapons because you don't know how any potential war will play out. How many nuclear subs will be sunk before being able to fire their missiles? How many bombers will be destroyed in a sneak attack before they can take off? How many bombers will be shot down on the way to their targets? How many ICBM fields will be hit before they can launch? How many ICBMs will fail in flight? And how many nuclear bombs will be down for maintenance at any one time?

Also, please note that nukes come in a variety of sizes and types. A B-52 is not going to drop an 8" nuclear artillery shell, nor is an ICBM going to attack with a nuclear gravity bomb.

We have a hell of a lot of nukes. We also have a hell of a lot of different methods of dropping them on people, and each method requires its own particular modification to work on the platform.

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/01/us-military-ammo-p...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. yeah, I was in CAP in high school, so I know all about the triad. Any one leg can be knocked out...
and we can still retaliate with the other two.

Since we can take out most countries with one Trident sub, at some point, redundancy becomes overkill.

Also, since a country acquiring a handful of nukes would deter us from invading them, exactly how many do we need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well, they are already built
We've already made them decades ago. All we need to do now is is maintain them and stockpile them. The cost of doing that is nominal, it would seem to me, and dismantling and reprocessing them would offer no real financial savings or strategic benefit.

We were originally intending to have to destroy huge numbers of targets in a huge country, and we needed redundency in that attack, so that's why we needed so many warheads.

Once you buy a gun and the ammo for it, it doesn't cost anything extra to keep the box on the shelf or the gun in the closet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. now we got the redundancy to heat most countries to a million degrees, then dig a hole where it used
to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. www.originalchildbomb.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. Easily wipeout the human race, the question is do we have the maturity
as a race to NOT destroy ourselves? History says no, but I will be more optimistic then history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC