• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The USA finally whips out its Penis, and measures it.

T

Train

Lifer
And even after a 75% reduction, it's big.

The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and many thousands more that have been retired and are awaiting dismantling, according to a senior defense official.

The release of the number of warheads marks only the second time in U.S. history the government has released the once top secret information.

The Pentagon statistics show the nuclear stockpile was reduced by 75 percent between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and September 30, 2009, and 84 percent since its peak of more than 31,255 in 1967.

The 5,113 warheads include active and inactive ones, according to the senior defense official.

The numbers released Monday also include yearly statistics on the strategic long-range and nonstrategic short-range weapons dating back to 1962. Previously released information on the stockpile size showed the number of warheads from 1945 through 1961.

The release of the most recent stockpile accounting by the U.S. government "is important to nonproliferation efforts, and to pursuing follow-on reductions" after the upcoming ratification of the updated START treaty, according to a fact sheet released by the Pentagon on Monday.

"We think the United States has set an example of transparency," according to a senior defense official.

Reporters were briefed on the statistical information at the Pentagon as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the United Nations during a conference to review of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Active warheads are those ready to be used within a short period of time, while inactive warheads are maintained but have key parts removed from them, the official said.

The United States has thousands more nuclear warheads that have not been dismantled but are slated to be taken apart. Those weapons have key parts removed from them and are not maintained, the official said. The warheads are only being kept secure and it would take a good deal of effort and money to restore them to working order, the official said.

The Pentagon did not provide a figure on the number waiting to be dismantled, but did acknowledge there are thousands.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
effowe said:
I thought Florida was America's wang.
Click to expand...

Which would make Cuba the commie vagina? That keeps sending people over that, if they can get past America's Condom (the coast guard) begin to reproduce and multiply over America's wang?

Yeah it makes sense. Guess the south-west is America's ass. Lots of action going on back there...
 
irishScott said:
Which would make Cuba the commie vagina? That keeps sending people over that, if they can get past America's Condom (the coast guard) begin to reproduce and multiply over America's wang?

Yeah it makes sense. Guess the south-west is America's ass. Lots of action going on back there...
Click to expand...

California earthquakes = farts?
 
i wonder how much money that is, all told, that we've spent assembly and dismantling nukes? i'd bet over a trillion, but maybe not. but hey, at least we created jobs. :awe:
 
brblx said:
i wonder how much money that is, all told, that we've spent assembly and dismantling nukes? i'd bet over a trillion, but maybe not. but hey, at least we created jobs. :awe:
Click to expand...

And probably prevented world war three in the process, but never you mind that.
 
brblx said:
i wonder how much money that is, all told, that we've spent assembly and dismantling nukes? i'd bet over a trillion, but maybe not. but hey, at least we created jobs. :awe:
Click to expand...

It created your favorite kind of job: People sitting on their asses watching TV, waiting for something to happen.
 
For those of you screaming overkill, the idea was dispersal IIRC. If the enemy launches at us, we have enough to launch back even if some of them hit.
 
irishScott said:
For those of you screaming overkill, the idea was dispersal IIRC. If the enemy launches at us, we have enough to launch back even if some of them hit.
Click to expand...

And it's a good idea. Ask any IT guy how important redundancy is and he'll give you an ear full 😀
 
MikeMike said:
How many destructions of Earth does that equal?
Click to expand...


surprisingly, not even one. Not even all of the nuclear arsenals on earth combined could destroy every inch of land. sure the atmosphere will probably tank first, actual land area will still have places free from nuclear radiation
 
Freshgeardude said:
surprisingly, not even one. Not even all of the nuclear arsenals on earth combined could destroy every inch of land. sure the atmosphere will probably tank first, actual land area will still have places free from nuclear radiation
Click to expand...

And in a blink of the Earth's life it will have completely forgotten about it.
 
Freshgeardude said:
surprisingly, not even one. Not even all of the nuclear arsenals on earth combined could destroy every inch of land. sure the atmosphere will probably tank first, actual land area will still have places free from nuclear radiation
Click to expand...

Nuclear winter would happen with much less than that.

An India/beloved patriot exchange would kill us all, some of us more slowly than others.
 
The sad truth about nuclear weapons.


Without that nice assurance of "If you try to kill me, I'll kill you completely," humans would probably just go back to the old-fashioned methods of killing each other in conventional warfare. That way, you're pretty much assured that one side will quit while they still have a decent surviving population, so that they can build up and go right back to more war in the future.

With a full nuclear exchange of course, well, as someone suggested, we could basically make ourselves a nice endgame scenario - kill everything, several times over. You know, lasting world peace, because there wouldn't really be any appreciable populations left. Yay, sweet victory.



TwinsenTacquito said:
And in a blink of the Earth's life it will have completely forgotten about it.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I think the first concern of most people when it comes to nuclear warfare is human life, and not the wellbeing of bacteria and various small mammals all over the place. You could utterly devastate the human population, and nature would probably feel a nice speed bump, though nowhere near the level of the huge mass extinctions of the past.

If your house is about to be vaporized by a large explosion, I don't know that you'll be thinking, "Oh well, at least some kind of Earthly life will survive this mess."
 
Last edited:
31,000, holy crap. I just read this on CNN.com. Man were we a little insecure during the cold war. I wonder what Russia's count was.

I wonder if that figure was phony and they were just trying to over-inflate how much we reduced our nuclear arsenal.
 
Should have used them in the circled areas:

freevectorworldmap.gif
 
What they don't tell you is that even though they've reduced the warhead count by 75%, they've also improved overall warhead yield by at least an equivalent amount.

Quality over quantity baby!!! YEAH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top