Russia still has the most Nuclear weapons

reply to post by StellarX


I appreciate the 2nd grade level explanation of your opinion

Nice try in your attempt to twist my reply into some sort of chest pounding statement but it doesn't fly. I was expressing my opinion that we have way too many nukes to begin with and that those numbers on either side are over kill. It was not a political statement.

Thanks for revealing and exposing your personal agenda.



[edit on 27-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by Sliick
The only ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile)nukes he knew about were the Peacekeeper missiles. We went from 150 active warheads to 50.

Hi Sliick,

The peacekeepers were withdrawn from duty back in 2005/6, as i recall so discussion about their potential warhead loadings is relatively moot.

Active, via my instructor, just means that the warhead is actually loaded onto the missile. I assure you that we have MANY more warheads than the Russians.

Your assurances may perhaps not amount too much if you are not even aware of the fact that the peacekeepers are no longer operational... Why you or others think you can claim that anyone in the west knows how many warheads the Russians deploy or operate is quite beyond me and the researchers who are active in this field make it clear that we are dealing with estimates and very probably minimum numbers. Since information is far more readily availing in the west odds are the underestimation is probably being done for some foreign , truly dangerous ( unlike Iraq and Iran) arsenals.

The Peacekeeper missile is able to hold up to 10 warheads each. We only have 5 flights of Peacekeepers (10 per flight) that we are told about and work on. As I am sure there are more (if i knew of any, I wouldn't tell you). I knew of another 15 flights of MMII (Minuteman II) missiles.

Why are you so sure there are more peacekeepers or LGM-30 F/Minutemen II's when the LGM-30G/ minutemen III is the current version deployed 'officially'? Isn't the 'secret' weapons supposed to be better& more modern, at least in theory?

They are capable of holding only 3 warheads each.

The LGM-30F could as far as i remember just hold one large warhead but did have penetration aids.. The minutemen III carries three warheads and is normally deployed with all three...

The instructor didn't know how many of them were "deactivated" but MMII's usually had only one warhead active each. It wouldn't take us more than a week to fully load all of our ICBM's. If we did that, the number of "active" nukes would jump about 8 times the active count today.

Only i have never noticed a discussion where anyone suggested that there are still any II's in service today......

That's just our ICBM count. We have MANY more ALCMs (Air to Land Cruise Missile) and quite a few Nuclear armed submarines.

Yes, there are ALCM's but the stocks are VERY modest and many of those few have been rebuilt with conventional warheads to facilitate more conventional ( Iraq&Afghanistan) strikes. I just call it disarmament but what do i know.

***This knowledge is true to the best of my recollection. It has been a few years since I was enlisted and things may have changed***

Yup, it's certainly dated and would have been both ten and twenty years ago.... Then again you might be be getting on in years so you might have been doing this before i was ever born.

Stellar

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I appreciate the 2nd grade level explanation of your opinion

Hi again slayer,

I do the best i can, my apologies..

Nice try in your attempt to twist my reply into some sort of chest pounding statement but it doesn't fly.

Actually i just wanted to correct your ignorance on the topic but i can see that you already know everything and don't have much time for other facts&figures on this issue.

I was expressing my opinion that we have way too many nukes to begin with and that those numbers on either side are over kill. It was not a political statement.

And i politely tried to point out that it is not overkill and in fact miles short of it given Russian active ABM and passive civil defenses. But then you would have to know something other than the conventional views gained in a few hours of reading to feelanything other than 'offended'. Disarming is ALWAYS political and doing away with nuclear weapons , while building F-22's and new generation of hunter submarines ( as if those can protect against nuclear attack) is most certainly all politics. In fact what about the Pentagon aquisition program isn't political?

Thanks for revealing and exposing your personal agenda.

And since we are going to be playing this game why not go ahead and lay out my personal agenda so that you may at least get my opinion on it? If you haven't noticed if you give me rope i may very well hang myself ( in the court of public opinion; as misinformed as it is) thus sparing you the heretic hunt.

Just let it all out.....

Stellar

[edit on 27-5-2009 by StellarX]