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

[_Rick_]

Then again the Navy has never lost a nuclear weapon.

Well, except for those it lost.

You want two nukes? Pick them up off the seabed in the Atlantic, where USS Scorpion lies.

 

[Gerle]

What is a missle, is it like a missile but more tacticool?

 

[PottedMeat]

Well, except for those it lost.

You want two nukes? Pick them up off the seabed in the Atlantic, where USS Scorpion lies.

i guess the army's never lost a nuke - do they even have any battlefield nukes anymore?

 

[slag]

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.

Why do you say that? Have we ever had a nuclear war with 30k nuclear warheads? Seems like its a good number to have it if stops war with our enemies.

 

[Exterous]

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

This was my thought too

 

[IronWing]

When the MX system was brought on line the Air Force developed and test-deployed a new launch control system to go with the new missiles. The system failed so miserably that the Air Force reverted to the Minuteman III control system because it works.

And in case you are wondering...
http://www.amazon.com/Imation-Disket...dp/B003I211UA/

 

[Harrod]

Ha ha, "F-you world, America is shutting this down."

 

[Carson Dyle]

Why do you say that? Have we ever had a nuclear war with 30k nuclear warheads? Seems like its a good number to have it if stops war with our enemies.

You don't think 1500 is better "if it stops a war with our enemies"? How about 500? We still achieve MAD, but at an enormously reduced cost.

 

[manimal]

US was trying to avoid aggro from some IT mobs.

 

[biostud]

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

Maybe in cold war thinking.

Give me an example today where the enemies of US is more afraid of a nuclear retaliation than a conventional one.

Also this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

Always relevant (Ukraine/Russia)

 

[slag]

You don't think 1500 is better "if it stops a war with our enemies"? How about 500? We still achieve MAD, but at an enormously reduced cost.

No, more is better. It's the American way and it works.

 

[Carson Dyle]

No, more is better. It's the American way and it works.

Idiotic.

 

[LennyZ]

. Then again the Navy has never lost a nuclear weapon. The Air Farce has dropped / lost several.

USS Scorpion had 2 nuclear torpedos on board when it sank.
They are still onboard.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I'd say most of those systems are actually better than anything that would be made today. They're likely all solid state....less odds of being hacked or having major issues with extra layers of complexity that aren't needed.

 

[IronWing]

Idiotic.

There was a logic to it when most of the bomb materials were produced back in the 50s and 60s. The infrastructure needed to enrich uranium and extract plutonium for 100 bombs isn't much smaller/cheaper than the infrastructure needed for 30,000 bombs so the marginal cost of being batshit crazy isn't too bad.

 

[manimal]

dude the game missle command was training us for drone operations. Mind blown.

 

[manimal]

There was a logic to it when most of the bomb materials were produced back in the 50s and 60s. The infrastructure needed to enrich uranium and extract plutonium for 100 bombs isn't much smaller/cheaper than the infrastructure needed for 30,000 bombs so the marginal cost of being batshit crazy isn't too bad.

They also ignored the budget office and their estimates of costs over the lifetime of the products.

 

[ultimatebob]

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.

I think that the idea was to ensure that we had enough remaining missiles to vaporize the entire Soviet Union even if they successfully attacked us first.

That said, I'm sure that the military contractors didn't complain about the overproduction

 

[slag]

Idiotic.

Says the person living in colorado..

pfft

 

[Exterous]

I think that the idea was to ensure that we had enough remaining missiles to vaporize the entire Soviet Union even if they successfully attacked us first.

That said, I'm sure that the military contractors didn't complain about the overproduction

This. It wasn't about having just enough it was about having enough that the Ruskies could hit most of our arsenal first we'd still have enough to paste them too

 

[_Rick_]

USS Scorpion had 2 nuclear torpedos on board when it sank.
They are still onboard.

Oh, and this one was lost too. Oops, I guess.

 

[Thump553]

Sixty Minutes had a great episode on this a year or two back. We have 20 y.o missile technicians working on computers that are actually older than them. And the physical structure is falling apart to-I remember them showing blast doors tied or wedged open because the hinge mechanisms were broken.

You want to think of something really scary? If our nuclear missile infrastructure is in this bad a shape, what do you think Russia's is like, given that damn near everything in Russia is crap quality to begin with?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

You don't think 1500 is better "if it stops a war with our enemies"? How about 500? We still achieve MAD, but at an enormously reduced cost.

500 is below the threshold for an effective deterrence, and probably would have invited attack during the cold war. keep in mind several things:

1. you're talking about a total number, but many are specialized in their use - a nuclear depth charge is no direct threat to an inland city or base.

2. the concept of killing a target with a monster 5-20 MT bomb is way out of style. it turns out to be much more effective to use several 150+ KT weapons instead, in terms of damage inflicted.

3. all these devices are spread across multiple delivery platforms, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. i doubt 500 would be enough for 1 or 2 bombs for each carrier, sub, destroyer, and land-based missile, never mind the bombers. hardly an efficient or effective use of resources.

4. even in the absence of defensive measures, less than 100% of the weapons fired will be successful. people failures, launch failures, navigation failures, and firing failures add up. then consider the enemy would try to eliminate as much of your capability as quickly as possible, and defend itself as thoroughly as possible.

the sum total of all this must be greater than what the enemy would be willing to receive, or the scheme doesn't work.

There was a logic to it when most of the bomb materials were produced back in the 50s and 60s. The infrastructure needed to enrich uranium and extract plutonium for 100 bombs isn't much smaller/cheaper than the infrastructure needed for 30,000 bombs so the marginal cost of being batshit crazy isn't too bad.

plutonium is created by neutron capture of depleted uranium (U238), but highly enriched uranium (90%+ U235) is sometimes used in structural components to jack up the yield with a single design.

I'd say most of those systems are actually better than anything that would be made today. They're likely all solid state....less odds of being hacked or having major issues with extra layers of complexity that aren't needed.

most of this infrastructure is made today, except for the warheads themselves. the vast majority of complexity and spending has always gone to the delivery systems and not the actual devices.

 

[Artorias]

Sixty Minutes had a great episode on this a year or two back. We have 20 y.o missile technicians working on computers that are actually older than them. And the physical structure is falling apart to-I remember them showing blast doors tied or wedged open because the hinge mechanisms were broken.

You want to think of something really scary? If our nuclear missile infrastructure is in this bad a shape, what do you think Russia's is like, given that damn near everything in Russia is crap quality to begin with?

Nah. Russian equipment is the exact opposite. There is an old Russian saying/idiom (which I don't remember at the moment), that basically says that Russian equipment is made to last. I can bet you they've got some old ass equipment still ticking just fine.

 

[John Connor]

Nah. Russian equipment is the exact opposite. There is an old Russian saying/idiom (which I don't remember at the moment), that basically says that Russian equipment is made to last. I can bet you they've got some old ass equipment still ticking just fine.

Actually, the old Russian idiom is if it ain't broke don't fix it.