4800 nuclear missiles... <--- edited for correct spelling

[master_shake_]

and stupidity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

 

[MongGrel]

It is a bit unnerving what some of the old school Air Force guys do these days it seems.

I've done work on many areas related after I left the service, as far as security in the sleepy areas of SD and being bored to death it's probably not much of a worry.

Some of the things I've seen about the Air Force in general worry me a bit for the last few decades, but it had more to do with their officer training being so religiously oriented to me.

But I'm just a former Jar Head.

 

[Strk]

I'm 31 and I don't remember floppy disks that big. How old are those?

 

[MongGrel]

I'm 31 and I don't remember floppy disks that big. How old are those?

Really old.

 

[master_shake_]

I'm 31 and I don't remember floppy disks that big. How old are those?

wiki says 71

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

 

[Strk]

wiki says 71

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk

That's crazy.

 

[MongGrel]

Redundancy.

 

[Jeff7]

Sometimes it's just not enough to kill your enemy merely one time.

 

[twinrider1]

Lol, Oregon Trail. Had not thought of that game in ages.

 

[T9D]

There is no godly reason to need 4800 nuclear missiles. Let's be honest it was to get the contractors and politicians rich. They had no idea that years later we'd be able to see this disgusting amount of stockpile that they were cashing in on. I mean my word think of even 500. 500 would be an insane amount. How could even 500 not be overkill. And someone how they managed 10 times more than that.

 

[Markbnj]

There is no godly reason to need 4800 nuclear missiles. Let's be honest it was to get the contractors and politicians rich.

It was a numbers game with the Soviet Union. And in certain respects it worked.

 

[JMapleton]

All this, and yet people still believe government can solve their problems?

 

[Carson Dyle]

That number is warheads, not missiles. The 2010 New START treaty will reduce that number to 1585.

The US had over 30,000 nuclear warheads in the 1960s. I'd say things are moving very much in the right direction.

 

[John Connor]

and stupidity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

Both funny and alarming at the same time. Perhaps the Tridents in subs are better taken care of.

We need the nukes as a deterrent.

 

[John Connor]

Fucking scary. But can't you say we are conducting a test? LOL! But isn't trajectory an important aspect in whether you will be nuked?

The primary drawback of using conventionally tipped ballistic missiles is that they are virtually impossible for radar warning systems to distinguish from nuclear-tipped missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.[14] Then Russian President Vladimir Putin, among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(missile)#Conventional_Trident

 

[CNNN]

nuclear wessels

 

[pcgeek11]

Both funny and alarming at the same time. Perhaps the Tridents in subs are better taken care of.

We need the nukes as a deterrent.

Before I retired I was a Missile technician on Submarines ( Polaris A2 & A3, Posiden C3 and Trident D5 ). The Navy had none of that BS. Then again the Navy has never lost a nuclear weapon. The Air Farce has dropped / lost several.

One Trident Submarine could have as many as 192 W76 100 Kilo ton nuclear warheads on board.

 

[Rakehellion]

Cliffs?

 

[biostud]

Cliffs?

Why use bazillions of dollars on weapons you're not going to use and can't maintain properly.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Why use bazillions of dollars on weapons you're not going to use and can't maintain properly.

It's so you can be sure that the other side know what will happen if they decide to do it.

Pretty much the only way to go.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

and stupidity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

Not 4800 nuclear missiles. It is 4800 nuclear warheads. Much of these are on delivery platforms that deliver multiple independent re-entry vehicles. For instance, Peacekeeper carries 10 per delivery unit. The Trident is 10-14 per delivery unit.

Only things like cruise missiles (ALCM, Tomohawk etc.) use single-warhead per delivery unit. And 4800 is nothing compared to what it was back in the early 1980's. It isn't our 4800 you have to worry about.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Lol, Oregon Trail. Had not thought of that game in ages.

LOL same here but if given the choice I would rather play that than.. Fallout.

It's examples like these that the rest of the world likes to point to and scream "American stupidity" but I'll take benign, transparent stupidity over "elsewhere's insanity" any day. USA had mishaps like this that we live to laugh about, I don't know if events in other nuke nations would be as entertaining.

I doubt that humanity could have a single launch & detonation in today's world, at least a few other nuke nations would want to join the fireworks. If USA were to nuke Australia, I bet at least N Korea would vow to avenge their Australian friends or infinite combinations of other stupid excuses would emerge that would quickly spiral into a all out arsenal expenditure.

According to Star Trek canon, we'll get a nuke war before this century expires. I like to think the ST prophecy ends with touchscreen displays, tablets and Siri. Hopefully my niece's grandchildren will get to laugh about how wrong Roddenberry was.

 

[xaeniac]

Looks like these systems are not online. Possibly one positive.

 

[John Connor]

Before I retired I was a Missile technician on Submarines ( Polaris A2 & A3, Posiden C3 and Trident D5 ). The Navy had none of that BS. Then again the Navy has never lost a nuclear weapon. The Air Farce has dropped / lost several.

One Trident Submarine could have as many as 192 W76 100 Kilo ton nuclear warheads on board.

A 100 KT blast on Manhattan would have apx. 390,350 deaths and 665,160 injuries. Freaking crazy! http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Why does the blast extend up to Connecticut?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Why use bazillions of dollars on weapons you're not going to use and can't maintain properly.

Because MAD is the greatest securer of peace the world has ever seen. It's actually worrisome we DON'T put enough money into properly maintaining them

Before I retired I was a Missile technician on Submarines ( Polaris A2 & A3, Posiden C3 and Trident D5 ). The Navy had none of that BS. Then again the Navy has never lost a nuclear weapon. The Air Farce has dropped / lost several.

One Trident Submarine could have as many as 192 W76 100 Kilo ton nuclear warheads on board.

As it turns out, putting Nukes in the air is a bit more risky then keeping them floating.