the soviets could have one more than us, thus, they would win a nuclear war.nukchebi0 wrote:
What is the harm is revealing the exact number? It's not as if their effectiveness is compromised by it.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Obama: On a path to eliminate Nuclear Weapons (reduce by 40% by 2021)
TBH, everyone else knows we'll still have nuclear subs pointing missiles at the cities of all belligerent countries. I think Obama's just giving lip service here.
What it is, is a sneaky way to get rid of older warheads which may be nearing the end of their service life, while putting a little positive political spin.
Oh, and:
http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998 … hashimoto/
2048 nuclear explosions between 1945 and 1998
Oh, and:
http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998 … hashimoto/
2048 nuclear explosions between 1945 and 1998
Shit like this is always political gesture. But it sure does relieve a lot of tension tbh, especially with SALT and START treaties.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
TBH, everyone else knows we'll still have nuclear subs pointing missiles at the cities of all belligerent countries. I think Obama's just giving lip service here.
Until 1945, then it was all too clear.Spark wrote:
And plus you can't really say people "got" nukes back then.Jaekus wrote:
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).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.
Nah, not really. Not until the Soviets detonated theirs and even then probably not until the arms races. And we were still learning until the development of ballistic missiles.Jaekus wrote:
Until 1945, then it was all too clear.Spark wrote:
And plus you can't really say people "got" nukes back then.Jaekus wrote:
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).
Last edited by Spark (2010-07-15 09:31:31)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Obama: On a path to eliminate Nuclear Weapons (reduce by 40% by 2021)