Already have more nukes than every other country, this is literally pointless. After a certain point having more nukes just becomes a hat on a hat.
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
186 points (96.5% liked)
World News
32352 readers
412 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh there is a point. Hint: Who does the US Government pay to maintain/create it's nuclear arsenal?
Private contractors probably, it's all a big bonanza for a few rich people to get richer I'm sure. Just paying for more hats on hats.
But never underestimate how dog brained these people are, they probably actually believe this makes us more secure lol
General Electric unless it’s changed
One of our most handsomest generals! 
Lmao
Is this what Lt. Surge got promoted to in Pokemon Red 2/Blue 2?
The US Department of Energy…
America has a lot of warheads but its delivery systems are relatively behind Russian and Chinese systems. For instance, the current US land/silo based missiles are Minuteman 3s, which were first built in the 1970s. Even with upgrades, they are generally understood to be inferior to much more recent Russian Yars and Chinese Dong Feng missiles.
That said, increasing the number of warheads doesn't really help in terms of that deficiency so the between the lines conclusion is that the new American missile systems have hit such snags that the military is considering making up the deficiency with numbers of warheads.
Does it really matter if the delivery system is inferior? Google says they have five thousand warheads. Even if 4900 get intercepted (98% success rate), 100 nukes will connect.
Also, besides the launch silos, there's the bombers and the nuclear subs, which are enough to end the world by themselves
Nuclear war planning isn't as simple as applying a rate of interception or failure to your stock of warheads. You have to plan for eventualities like what happens if you're subject to a first strike - can you ensure that enough of your own warheads will survive to retaliate? If not, or if your opponent thinks not then your opponent is much more likely to try a first strike.
Modern missiles aren't just faster or harder to shoot down, they're also more survivable. Have you noticed that while the Russians and Chinese parade their missiles on big ass trucks, the US doesn't seem to have any? That's because there isn't a road or rail mobile variant of the Minuteman 3. So those MM3s have been sitting in silos only for decades, more than enough time for opponent satellites to pinpoint exactly where they are. On the other hand, a Russian or Chinese missile can drive around their own road or rail systems and be untraceable unless you have real time satellite footage that just happens to catch them moving.
So if your missiles can't move, you can only protect them by hardening their emplacements and silos. Unfortunately, most American silos are about as old as the missiles in them and were designed to withstand much lesser yields of warheads. Maybe some could be brought up to a newer standard, but building of that scale would also paradoxically tip your opponent off to which missile sites to target first.
Therefore, if you're in a position where you aren't convinced your own missiles will survive a first strike, your only move to maintain deterence is new missiles or more missiles (or both). Contracts were passed out for new missile designs around 2017 but it seems like nothing has come to fruition. Therefore the only other option is to build more warheads so that they can be fired from planes and other systems instead.
This leads on to the next point which is that warheads are not all necessarily sitting on missiles read to go at all times. Most of the time they're in central stockpiles that are easier to guard and maintain and are only parcelled out to units in times of heightened nuclear tension. A modern nuclear power has more platforms that can deliver nukes than actual nukes themselves - the whole point of a nuclear triad (ICBMs, planes, subs) is to ensure maximal redundancy so that no one type of attack can destroy all delivery systems.
Hence, a nuclear war planner has to figure out how many ICBMs and warheads are likely to survive a first strike, then figure out how many warheads are needed to put on planes and ships and subs for a counter strike. If the US military is thimking it needs more warheads, then one major reason could be that it's realized it's delivery platforms are not as survivable as predicted.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Have you ever played TF2? Because a hat on a hat makes sense, from a certain point of view.
load more comments
(11 replies)
This is bad for you. It's also bad for me. And everyone else.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" Let's build more world ending bombs! That'll show 'em.
they are building, fewer, better bombs, to replace the old ones that qualify for AARP/social security.
Does anyone else have dreams about nuclear war on a regular basis? Cause I do, and I don't particularly care for it.
Maybe Todd Howard?
Does anyone else want to set the world on fire? Cause I don't. I just want to start a flame in your heart.
load more comments
(2 replies)
lmao tens of millions of people are starving in US right now, but the priority is to build more nukes 🤡
Let them eat fuel rods!
They have high energy content!
there were not decades of cuts. Obama's "modernization" efforts were categorically expansion and escalation.
Well shit.
What the fuck is a GRAVITY BOMB???
What the fuck is a GRAVITY BOMB
Simply means it is a free-fall bomb. They are cheaper to make as they don't require an entire ICBM to deliver.
nah bro, it's a black hole bomb that destroys the solar system.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Shroedinger's Russian nuclear arsenal. When there's a story about risking escalation, libs tell me it's fine because Russia doesn't have the money to maintain its nukes, so it'd only be a "limited" nuclear exchange. When this story comes out, the libs tell me that Russia has a much larger and better maintained nuclear stockpile, so it's only necessary for the US to spend more on it to catch up. It's sort of the same way that Russia simultaneously is on the verge of defeat, yet also has the intention and capability to conquer all of Europe, like Hitler, if we don't stop him here.
The enemy is both strong and weak, and you never know which one it's gonna be.
load more comments
(2 replies)
China: has like 300 nuclear weapons, none of them stationed outside their country. Has no forward military bases from which to stage or launch attacks, has limited forward radar visibility of incoming attacks. Has a couple SSBM subs which likely operate entirely in the south China sea from which it can launch. Wants to expand to 1000 by 2030.
Russia: Has over 4000 warheads, most aging. Has no meaningful forward military bases outside their country for staging attacks on the west. Has no meaningful forward radar visibility of incoming attacks from beyond its borders. Has a few SSBM subs from which it can launch.
US: Has over 4000 warheads, many aging. Has many hidden, classified, constantly operating SSBM submarines which regularly intentionally cruise to the north Atlantic (near Russia), the south Pacific (near China), and a variety of other locations. Has ground-launched missiles, an air delivery system. Has world class sonar (included super-sensitive listening stations bolted to the bedrock of the east and west coasts) and aggressive drone campaigns to hunt and constantly track Chinese and Russian missile subs to allow them a first kill. Has forward warning radar systems positioned thousands of miles from its borders in northern Canada, in Europe, in the Pacific on island chains. In addition has a massive, the most massive spy satellite network in operation constantly watching other powers in incredible detail. Has a space force dedicated to among other things sabotaging Chinese and Russian space assets with kill switches or remote disable explosives which could be used in aggression to blind their enemy first. Of all major world powers will have the most warning and most time to react decisively in case of a full scale launch and attempted sneak first strike on them by either Russia or China. Stations nuclear weapons with allies in "sharing" agreements where the US has final say on their use and launch in countries from the UK to mainland Europe near Russia to Turkey, is considering such an agreement with South Korea right on China's border.
But tell me again how the US is backed into a corner in this situation and has no choice but to build more warheads and pour hundreds of billions that could feed, cloth, shelter, and provide healthcare to its people into new delivery systems which will fatten and enrich defense contractors to the tune of hundreds of billions of overage costs if not trillions for systems that may or may not even work thanks to contractor greed and sloppiness.
Someone REALLY needs to put America in its place. I’m sick of this ‘we rule the entire world, and there’s nothing you can do about it’ attitude we have here. It’s disgusting.
Also: Trump pulls out of our nuclear agreement with Russia, and this is how Biden’s government responds? Escalation? They seems to have similar ideals.
Biden is doing everything in his power to eliminate the argument that trump is worse/less responsible/more bellicose.
As a trans person, I still hope genocide joe wins for my own personal safety. but I'm also aware that safety provided by dems is tenuous at best. Especially if we decide to fry the planet over Taiwan and Crimea.
As a fellow trans person, I don't think Biden can guarantee my safety because I'm in a red state. He seems to be allowing red state anti-trans legislation without much pushback. At best he might not make the problem even worse, but he won't protect us.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›