Obama: On a path to eliminate Nuclear Weapons (reduce by 40% by 2021)

2010-07-13 23:33:38

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6806|San Diego, CA, USA

Yahoo News wrote:
A government document reveals that the Obama administration is planning to cut the U.S. nuclear stockpile by up to 40 percent by 2021.

The Energy Department document provides details of the reductions that President Barack Obama has called for on a path to eliminating nuclear weapons. The reductions continue a trajectory of cuts that already has reduced U.S. stockpiles by about 75 percent since 1989.

In May the administration said that it had 5,113 nuclear warheads.

The new document says the administration would like to reduce that number to a range of 3,000 to 3,500.

The document was presented to Congress in May and posted Tuesday on the websites of the Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_ … _stockpile

via http://www.drudgereport.com/
---

So now that the world know how many nukes we have (a disadvantage we have to the other super powers), is this a goal that Humankind should strive for?

Does this make the world a safer place? Does it make it more dangerous for us? Are we looked upon by the world as weaker or as a leader?

2010-07-13 23:36:30

#2

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Npt

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-07-13 23:37:47

#3

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6838|the dank(super) side of Oregon

harmor wrote:
So now that the world know how many nukes we have (a disadvantage we have to the other super powers)

We have enough armament to destroy civilization many times. Are we going to be outmaneuvered in a nuclear holocaust?

Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-07-14 17:54:40)

2010-07-14 03:42:32

#4

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6907

Whether you think nukes are good or not, I don't really see how you can be against this move. Storing nukes is fucking expensive, and we still have enough left around to blow up the entire world many times over.

2010-07-14 04:07:45

#5

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

if you think the key nuclear powers don't have an inkling how many nukes each other has, you're rather wrong.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2010-07-14 04:49:17

#6

13rin: Member; +977|6737

I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to give some of them to Iran....

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2010-07-14 04:57:53

#7

jord: Member; +2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.

Granted I don't have a degree in Nuclear sceience and Nuclear politics but I'm assuming once you get over like 100 Nukes it's the same, I mean what's the differance between 100 Nuclear missles hitting China and 1000 Nuclear missles hitting China? Either way they're both fucked.

2010-07-14 05:47:03

#8

Gamematt: Stocking ur medpacks; +135|6920|Groningen, The Netherlands

They probably still only need about a hundred to totally f*ck the world up, so I dont really see how it's any better having 3000 instead of 5000.

2010-07-14 06:36:10

#9

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Gamematt wrote:
They probably still only need about a hundred to totally f*ck the world up, so I dont really see how it's any better having 3000 instead of 5000.

What if your Silos get knocked out? All part of MAD, having enough nukes to counter attack.

2010-07-14 06:50:55

#10

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5959|College Park, MD

as long as we replace them with something like ion cannons (totally serious, that shit would be tight)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-07-14 06:54:25

#11

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6758|so randum

Cybargs wrote:
Gamematt wrote:
They probably still only need about a hundred to totally f*ck the world up, so I dont really see how it's any better having 3000 instead of 5000.
What if your Silos get knocked out? All part of MAD, having enough nukes to counter attack.

hello nuclear submarine fleet. they're the ones with the real power, not hidden silos.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2010-07-14 07:03:54

#12

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

FatherTed wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Gamematt wrote:
They probably still only need about a hundred to totally f*ck the world up, so I dont really see how it's any better having 3000 instead of 5000.
What if your Silos get knocked out? All part of MAD, having enough nukes to counter attack.
hello nuclear submarine fleet. they're the ones with the real power, not hidden silos.

That's where a lot of numbers go too

2010-07-14 07:04:23

#13

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5959|College Park, MD

FatherTed wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Gamematt wrote:
They probably still only need about a hundred to totally f*ck the world up, so I dont really see how it's any better having 3000 instead of 5000.
What if your Silos get knocked out? All part of MAD, having enough nukes to counter attack.
hello nuclear submarine fleet. they're the ones with the real power, not hidden silos.

and Metal Gear REX

2010-07-14 12:29:56

#14

pace51: Boom?; +194|5431|Markham, Ontario

The USA should destroy a lot, but not all, because if they lack nukes, china or maybe russia will be free to attack without fear of retaliation.

2010-07-14 12:31:10

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

pace51 wrote:
The USA should destroy a lot, but not all, because if they lack nukes, china or maybe russia will be free to attack without fear of retaliation.

Go away.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-07-14 12:34:48

#16

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6755

JohnG@lt wrote:
pace51 wrote:
The USA should destroy a lot, but not all, because if they lack nukes, china or maybe russia will be free to attack without fear of retaliation.
Go away.

quoting to see if this one gets deleted too.

2010-07-14 12:37:56

#17

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

burnzz wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
pace51 wrote:
The USA should destroy a lot, but not all, because if they lack nukes, china or maybe russia will be free to attack without fear of retaliation.
Go away.
quoting to see if this one gets deleted too.

pace is fm

2010-07-14 12:46:37

#18

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5517|foggy bottom

I dont understand the "defend pace" bandwagon, really. obvious garbage is obvious.

Tu Stultus Es

2010-07-14 12:50:43

#19

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6972|US

Pace actually has a point (not often that I will say that). Nuclear balancing is a reality.
The number the US want depends on our estimation of how many would be lost in a surprise attack, how many might not lauch, how many might not strike the target, and our maximum estimation for how many targets we might need to hit. I would imagine there are several hundred targets in a major nation, and some redundancy would be required.

2010-07-14 18:03:17

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

Guys, do you really think the government would tell us the actual number of nukes we have? That's like thinking they'd tell us the real number of nuclear subs we have.

2010-07-14 19:07:49

#21

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
Guys, do you really think the government would tell us the actual number of nukes we have? That's like thinking they'd tell us the real number of nuclear subs we have.

The number of nuclear subs is common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines … tates_Navy

Hard to hide something that big, especially when they've been worked on by a myriad number of contractors.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-07-14 19:12:35

#22

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

RAIMIUS wrote:
Pace actually has a point (not often that I will say that). Nuclear balancing is a reality.
The number the US want depends on our estimation of how many would be lost in a surprise attack, how many might not lauch, how many might not strike the target, and our maximum estimation for how many targets we might need to hit. I would imagine there are several hundred targets in a major nation, and some redundancy would be required.

Nuclear weapons are mostly about posturing anyway. I seriously doubt any major power would use more than one or two, and even then that would be under extreme circumstances (yes I know it has happened before, can't help but wonder if that was more about "testing in the field" tbh).

2010-07-14 19:55:12

#23

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6932|Canberra, AUS

Jaekus wrote:
RAIMIUS wrote:
Pace actually has a point (not often that I will say that). Nuclear balancing is a reality.
The number the US want depends on our estimation of how many would be lost in a surprise attack, how many might not lauch, how many might not strike the target, and our maximum estimation for how many targets we might need to hit. I would imagine there are several hundred targets in a major nation, and some redundancy would be required.
Nuclear weapons are mostly about posturing anyway. I seriously doubt any major power would use more than one or two, and even then that would be under extreme circumstances (yes I know it has happened before, can't help but wonder if that was more about "testing in the field" tbh).

And plus you can't really say people "got" nukes back then.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-07-14 21:21:22

#24

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Guys, do you really think the government would tell us the actual number of nukes we have? That's like thinking they'd tell us the real number of nuclear subs we have.
The number of nuclear subs is common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines … tates_Navy

Hard to hide something that big, especially when they've been worked on by a myriad number of contractors.

Heh... well, they certainly won't give all their current locations at least....

2010-07-14 22:19:06

#25

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6581|New Haven, CT

What is the harm is revealing the exact number? It's not as if their effectiveness is compromised by it.

BF2S Forums Obama: On a path to eliminate Nuclear Weapons (reduce by 40% by 2021)

Yahoo News wrote:

harmor wrote:

Gamematt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Gamematt wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Gamematt wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Gamematt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer