General Discussion

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)

70. As of Sept 2013 the USA has

Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:48 PM

Sep 2014

This:

United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

Maybe you can explain to me how having nearly 5000 Nuclear warheads equals "Disarming and singing Kumbaya?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

148 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

President Obama is massively expanding U.S. Nuclear Weapons: (price tag: 1 trillion bucks) [View all] cali Sep 2014 OP

I find this deeply upsetting and disgusting. cali Sep 2014 #1

Yep drynberg Sep 2014 #24

In a long line of deeply upsetting and disgusting. woo me with science Sep 2014 #121

That's a lot of unemployment $, food assistance, medical care leftstreet Sep 2014 #2

Right on! Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Sep 2014 #3

Only if you include the START ratification that this was the carrot for Recursion Sep 2014 #91

Yeeeehawww! Santa is coming to town! Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #4

Perfect. + about a trillion nationalize the fed Sep 2014 #5

DON'T FORGET, redruddyred Sep 2014 #15

This is not a new tendency of Obama's - truedelphi Sep 2014 #6

Really, just Richard D Sep 2014 #7

clearly, not about you. redruddyred Sep 2014 #13

He's thinking lark Sep 2014 #59

Don't be so harsh. We will be protected from the commies* while we stand in the bread lines. rhett o rick Sep 2014 #8

There is no place for nuclear weapons in this world today WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #9

I think the answer is... SomethingFishy Sep 2014 #18

Golly, I was fixing to buy a bridge from you there for a minute... drynberg Sep 2014 #26

The article says the Obama administration, wondering how much of this was done by Congress uppityperson Sep 2014 #10

haha, nothing is ever done by congress. redruddyred Sep 2014 #12

Zing!!! Initech Sep 2014 #64

Follow the lobbying $$ CentralMass Sep 2014 #49

The modernization program was part of the deal by which the Senate confirmed START Recursion Sep 2014 #90

nuclear weapons are an especially capital intensive. redruddyred Sep 2014 #11

I sometimes think DU is a weird black hole where the year 2010 never happened Recursion Sep 2014 #95

a synonym for oral sex comes to mind... redruddyred Sep 2014 #138

You don't get that? Recursion Sep 2014 #139

no, I don't. redruddyred Sep 2014 #140

START required Senate ratification Recursion Sep 2014 #141

sure. redruddyred Sep 2014 #142

Now this is wasteful government spending! Initech Sep 2014 #14

I've learned not to believe anything the Prez says, because he never follows thru, but does the blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #16

For some people it is enough that he talks the talk. zeemike Sep 2014 #20

Russia announced their intention to modernize expand their nuclear arsenal Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #17

lol. of course you're on board with this. cali Sep 2014 #23

Neither is perpetual outrage. nt Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #27

If they're gonna perpetually perpetuate the nuclear arms race Hissyspit Sep 2014 #97

Says the guy who references Jonathan Turley Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #105

Oh good grief. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #106

I'm with Hissy, what else you got? nt ChisolmTrailDem Sep 2014 #130

Cali, choie Sep 2014 #61

There is no issue LondonReign2 Sep 2014 #137

Waah! It's all Pooty Poot's fault. He made us do it! RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #25

You're right...Perhaps America should unilaterally disarm and destroy all our nukes Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #34

cute strawman. No one said anything like that. cali Sep 2014 #36

Cute Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #52

are you seriously suggesting that this relatively minor issue cali Sep 2014 #55

33 billion a year over 30 years Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #57

lol. I'll wager I know as much about as you. And plenty of people cali Sep 2014 #65

I read the article Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #68

Do you really believe anything from 60 minutes anymore!? Seriously! Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #62

60 Minutes is dead to me. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #119

I love how she tries to have it both ways. stevenleser Sep 2014 #129

That's funny ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #66

Why stop there? ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2014 #50

Actually we should disarm unilaterally WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #74

+1 progressoid Sep 2014 #124

Completely agree with you. closeupready Sep 2014 #134

Are you fucking serious? CrispyQ Sep 2014 #133

General Colin Powell had called for that, he called Nuclear Weapons Useless. happyslug Sep 2014 #135

Look for the indent in a thread, and there you are. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2014 #67

"Building of new nuclear weapons"? Recursion Sep 2014 #98

A trillion dollars Unknown Beatle Sep 2014 #19

Gee, just what the shrinking middle class needs Jack Rabbit Sep 2014 #21

Um, WHY??? hifiguy Sep 2014 #22

The article says why (hint: Republican opposition to Start Treaty) frazzled Sep 2014 #28

It was the deal he had to cut to get START through the Senate Recursion Sep 2014 #89

Disgusting! So much for "being broke." nt valerief Sep 2014 #29

People, did you expect him to simply disarm the US and sing kumbaya? hardcover Sep 2014 #30

Ugh. SammyWinstonJack Sep 2014 #32

uh, who the puck said anything about disarming? cali Sep 2014 #37

You didnt actually read the article, did you? ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2014 #47

Clearly you didn't ConservativeDemocrat Sep 2014 #58

Oh look another "reality" based Reagan "democrat". ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2014 #71

As of Sept 2013 the USA has SomethingFishy Sep 2014 #70

Things get old, we need to replace those retired warheads. hardcover Sep 2014 #86

Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #76

Sure they are. They're a deterrent. hardcover Sep 2014 #87

I have to disagree WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #144

... SammyWinstonJack Sep 2014 #31

Funny BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Sep 2014 #38

Yeah I love it BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #41

Exactly! ctsnowman Sep 2014 #145

Up to a trillian over 30 years. eggplant Sep 2014 #35

even Sam Nunn expressed disappointment in this. and no, 300 million plus a year is sure as shit cali Sep 2014 #39

33 billion a year over thirty years, actually BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #40

And that's why I corrected it. eggplant Sep 2014 #42

lol. a few hundred million or a tens of billions, what's the difference? cali Sep 2014 #45

"figures"? Let's not get personal. eggplant Sep 2014 #80

In context BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #48

yikes. thank you. when it comes to numbers like that, I'm so dazed cali Sep 2014 #43

the problem is BlindTiresias Sep 2014 #46

Yep, a republican controlled house will do that. eggplant Sep 2014 #79

I had better stop all that reading for comprehension ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #69

The impact of this on future disarmament is that START got ratified Recursion Sep 2014 #100

Some people get it. eggplant Sep 2014 #131

Dear Mr. President: Paper Roses Sep 2014 #44

Well said, I agree. WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #78

his nobel prize is looking more and more ironic. cali Sep 2014 #51

If this is how Democrats generate enthusiasm for our party, JEB Sep 2014 #53

The more that I hear/see dotymed Sep 2014 #54

Is Obama responding to the nut-job REPUBLICAN darling, PUTIN? randys1 Sep 2014 #56

So much for all that hopey changey stuff KamaAina Sep 2014 #60

It costs a trillion bucks over 30 years? Single payer could save 1.1 trillion bucks in a decade! Efilroft Sul Sep 2014 #63

We have the utterly blatant hypocritical gall locks Sep 2014 #72

no. delrem Sep 2014 #73

No WHEN CRABS ROAR Sep 2014 #77

No (nt) bigwillq Sep 2014 #83

Sickening. Another betrayal. Scuba Sep 2014 #75

You'd give up START to avoid this spending? Really? Recursion Sep 2014 #99

False choice. Scuba Sep 2014 #107

No, it's not. It was actually the choice Obama faced Recursion Sep 2014 #108

Yes, it is a false choice, your denial notwithstanding. Scuba Sep 2014 #109

I'm going to try this one more time because I respect your posting history Recursion Sep 2014 #112

Are you kidding me? You've not even showed one link between this action and START. Scuba Sep 2014 #113

ROTFL Recursion Sep 2014 #114

So you can't show that START relies on this action and no other choice is available. Got it. Scuba Sep 2014 #115

I did, very clearly Recursion Sep 2014 #116

Nope, not clear at all. Scuba Sep 2014 #117

Yes, in fact I did Recursion Sep 2014 #118

Why lie if you have a good argument? jeff47 Sep 2014 #81

I'm pretty sure this is naders fault Doctor_J Sep 2014 #82

This one's largely Lieberman. Obama needed START ratified Recursion Sep 2014 #92

uh huh Doctor_J Sep 2014 #93

What? Recursion Sep 2014 #94

A trillion here, a trillion there. JEB Sep 2014 #84

But, like, Russia flew near Canada so totally justified. Union Scribe Sep 2014 #85

That was what it took to get the Senate to agree to the 2010 arms reduction treaty with Russia Recursion Sep 2014 #88

So much for campaign promises! How many are left that haven't been broken? sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #96

Who pays? grahamhgreen Sep 2014 #101

We do. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #103

I guess it's time to bring the Neutron Bomb back.... defacto7 Sep 2014 #104

Tom Lehrer - We Will All Go Together When We Go - with intro dipsydoodle Sep 2014 #110

Slavery is NOT dead: it has just become more color-blind. loudsue Sep 2014 #111

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA woo me with science Sep 2014 #120

Not amused :( Lenomsky Sep 2014 #122

Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave. I suggest ballyhoo Sep 2014 #123

I doubt it. This is right up his alley since Nobel invented dynamite and other explosives. nt stevenleser Sep 2014 #132

To spend a trillion bucks on a nuclear arms update is no less than insanity. ladjf Sep 2014 #125

Looks like a lot of you hippie peaceniks need to grow the fuck up and get with the program!!!11! progressoid Sep 2014 #126

Well, we gotta develop nuclear drones. tclambert Sep 2014 #127

Another view: A trillion bucks is what the health insurance companies are netting every two years Doctor_J Sep 2014 #128

Most of our nuclear deterrent HoosierCowboy Sep 2014 #136

I trust his judgment. FlatStanley Sep 2014 #143

Seems like a bad time for it. davidthegnome Sep 2014 #146

Exactly, David locks Sep 2014 #148

He can come full circle by pronouncing it.. Veganhealedme Sep 2014 #147