It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. nukes can "destroy the globe several times over,"

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 





And who the ? knows why the US had that many nucs back then and then again, who cares?


It was because of a quaintly named defense strategy called M.A.D : Mutually Assured Destruction.

The USA and the USSR were engaged in a battle of one-up-man-ship. The idea was that each side had more than enough nukes to destroy the other many times over, that no first strike could get them all, and therefore could be guaranteed to be destroyed in the retaliatory strike.

Sound insane? Yep. And the irony was lost on absolutely no one. Thus the name M.A.D.

That the USA and the former USSR countries have managed to dial back the insanity is an absolutely stunning result. Is it perfect yet? Of course not.

Is the number of nukes that are left a surprise? Nope. The numbers still available to both sides is well known, and the numbers continue to dwindle according to the formulas specified in the SALT and START and related treaties. The latest of which (New START) was signed recently.

Does the Iranian president have a point about the fact that there are still too many nukes in the world? Yep.

Is the Iranian president due any political capital for pointing out the bleeding obvious to his semi-captive audience? Hardly.

New START reduces the operational nukes to 1550, but the stockpiled weapons remains in the high thousands. Note that despite Iran's contention, the USA currently only has 2200 operational nukes, and Russia has just under 2800.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by rnaa]




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I wish the press would just stop reporting what that tyrannical maniac abergibberjabberjeed says.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Yeah OK... they have 5,000 that they are telling us about...

What about the rest?

People honestly believe these figures?



How ironic the situation though. U.S. accusations aimed at Iran and its nuclear intentions hold no proof to back them up. Iran literally uses the 'proof' provided by the U.S. in order to use it against them.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The US could destroy the world.

But Iran WOULD destroy the world.

Therein lies the difference.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
Yeah OK... they have 5,000 that they are telling us about...

What about the rest?

People honestly believe these figures?


Its important to remember that the real punch is packed on the nuclear submarines, their missiles have multiple warheads and those ones and also the nuclear torpedoes the subs carry are never counted in these statistics.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


- What is the reason for 25000 nukes?
- Can't 5000 nukes destroy the world many times over?
- Is Ahmadinajad's comments correct?
- Does his comment have any meaning in regards to the conference it was spoken to.
- Is the American nuclear activities transparent?
- If not then how do we know the truth?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
The US could destroy the world.

But Iran WOULD destroy the world.

Therein lies the difference.

"US WOULD destroy the world" holds more weight than "Iran WOULD destroy the world".



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The thing is the U.S. isn't retarded enough to try and end the world.

If anybody has the most numbers saying they will fire their nukes
it will be either China or Japan.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by plumranch
 


- What is the reason for 25000 nukes?
- Can't 5000 nukes destroy the world many times over?



Did you just fall out of a tree?
Does the Phrase 'cold war' mean anything to you?


Yeah let's not talk about the fact there has been already a huge reduction form earlier cold war periods 25.000 down to 5.000 OR that Russia actually presently has more "Operational" nukes.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





Did you just fall out of a tree?
Does the Phrase 'cold war' mean anything to you?


Yeah let's not talk about the fact there has been already a huge reduction form earlier cold war periods 25.000 down to 5.000 OR that Russia actually presently has more "Operational" nukes.

COld war?

Yes I'm aware, but are you aware that you don't need 25000 nukes to defeat an enemy lol

Especially an enemy which lives in the same planet..

I can understand if the government of the past had a strong belief in Aliens..

Don't blame the cold war..

I can only imagine two clinically insane people pointing 1000 missiles at each other while living in the same house, knowing it would destroy all their livelihoods..

Soo once again, why do you need 25000 nukes? The only answer I see is Alien invasion.. Other than that I see clinically insane..

From 25000 to 5000, now the question is, what do you need 5000 nukes for? I don't see that as an achievement, I don't see that as a step, because we all know they are still pointing towards this earth, armed and ready..

So tell me, how is that an achievement? The situation is as it was.

We still have earth as target, and me living in this earth am a concerned citizen of this earth..

I don't take the excuse "we reduced the numbers".. because even though you reduced the numbers, the capability to destroy the earth is still there, and that capability is armed and ready..

It is like saying, umm back then we could destroy the earth 50 times over but now we can destroy the earth 10 times over.. And say that is an achievement.. When knowing those arms are ready..



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




Yes I'm aware, but are you aware that you don't need 25000 nukes to defeat an enemy lol


Yes you do.

Provided that you define "defeat an enemy" as "scare your enemy to bits so he doesn't imagine attacking you by while bankrupting his economy and placating your own military/industrial complex".

The 25,000 nukes were never meant to be used to blow up things. They were meant to ensure that the 'Ruskies' wouldn't use their 30,000 nukes (or what ever it was) against 'us'.

See my earlier post. It is called M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction

The theory was that each side had so many nukes that the other side could not hope to wipe them out in a first strike. Thus whoever started a nuclear war was guaranteed to be destroyed too. Thus a nuclear war was rendered unwinnable under any circumstance and therefore unimaginable.

What happened was that one side would then say that OK, but we'll get you on the second strike, then the other would see that bet and raise for the third strike, and so on until there was enough bombs between the two that they could sterilize the planet 11 times over (I think that's the last estimate I heard).

It is an insane theory but it was the underlying 'logic' of the entire cold war.

From the American point of view, it also had the advantage of ensuring that the USSR could never build a stable economy based on a peacetime prosperity because so much of their economy had to be dedicated to keeping up their military posture. And that stratagem seems to have worked perfectly.

Oh, and by the way, that number 5000 is the total operational warheads that the USA and Russia have combined. USA has 2200, Russia has 2800.

Before the SALTs and the STARTs, there was in excess of 50,000 nukes. That is indeed progress, these things don't just magically disappear with a wave of a magic wand.

After so many years of ensuring the bomb isn't used by making sure you've got so many of the d*mn things, you have to do it in steps earn each other's trust and continue to maintain some level of relative balance. If either the USA or Russia had just gone out and unilaterally scrapped 100% of their nukes, they would have left themselves open to some idiot in the White House or the Kremlin (yes, like GW Bush or Breshnev) noticing that the other side had their pants down.


[edit on 6/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Soo you needed 25000 to scared your enemy? So I'm right, it wasn't the Aliens, they just went crazy after all the blood shed during WWI and WWII..



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yes.

It was insanity on both sides. The Soviet's made sure they had about 10% more than the US.

The insanity of it was NOT lost on either side. That is why they explicitly and openly called it M.A.D.

Once you are on the treadmill it is hard to get off. That is why the current levels can be rated as progress, the treadmill is slowing down, and one day we might just be able to step off.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yes.

It was insanity on both sides. The Soviet's made sure they had about 10% more than the US.

The insanity of it was NOT lost on either side. That is why they explicitly and openly called it M.A.D.

Once you are on the treadmill it is hard to get off. That is why the current levels can be rated as progress, the treadmill is slowing down, and one day we might just be able to step off.

I will regards it as a step, and be optimist when we don't have the capability to destroy the earth..

That concern we all can have, because if they throw 5000 nukes at each other, their stupidity won't just effect the stupid but everyone who resides on this planet..

So yes, I'll have that concern until that day comes..



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rothmans
 




Its important to remember that the real punch is packed on the nuclear submarines, their missiles have multiple warheads ...





one MIRV, 10 warheads



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The early 80's called and want their breaking news headline back.

-m0r



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





"US WOULD destroy the world" holds more weight than "Iran WOULD destroy the world".


Again, where have you been, Oz?

As a matter of fact all existing nuclear powers have been very responsible nuclear powers! Why make the allegation ""US WOULD destroy the world" holds more weight "?

Track record actually is important for nations! No nuclear use through several major wars, conflicts and cold war means something!

You actually think Iran would be a responsible and reasonable nuclear power once they are fully nuclear? And on what basis?

The reason that Amedenijad made his statement in the first place was because of the lack of verification of nuclear capability.

The US accuses Iran of having developed illegal nucs. Iran accuses the US of having way over the 5000 we have claimed, thus the US could destroy the world.

Obviously the US or any other nuclear country could have destroyed the world several times over so that argument is moot!

Amedenijad was simply employing his favorite technique of asking a question of the interviewers and obfuscating, creating fear rather than reassuring them that Iran was in compliance with the Internation Nuclear
Committee regulations.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


zzzzz

The US, the only country in the world who has used nuclear weapons..

Track record as you stated does matter, the Western nations have started more wars than the rest of the world..

Past decade two wars, both meaningless wars, both aggressive wars..

Yes America has a very A++ record for destruction.. That being said, America has more chance of destroying this earth than Iran.. Since America has that capability.. Since America has that record for destruction, not to mention the European record, or the Russian record..

Iran in the other hand, go look at the Iranian record..

If I had a job to give gun licence, I would rather give Iran a licence than the US.. Hence America has a record../

I don't know why I'm over simplifying things for you..

zzzzz

ooz



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by plumranch
 


- What is the reason for 25000 nukes?
- Can't 5000 nukes destroy the world many times over?



Did you just fall out of a tree?
Does the Phrase 'cold war' mean anything to you?


Yeah let's not talk about the fact there has been already a huge reduction form earlier cold war periods 25.000 down to 5.000 OR that Russia actually presently has more "Operational" nukes.




The Cold War was just a money making scam for the corps and the MEGA wealthy shareholders, there was never a military threat from the USSR, their forces were painted rust, merely a philosophical threat.

It actually bankrupted both sides, the west however was able to con and lie for another 20 odd years before the bankruptcy became apparent, now we're trying desperately to keep the $$£ afloat by raising the price of oil to keep the petrodollars flowing through the leaking system.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstracer17h
The thing is the U.S. isn't retarded enough to try and end the world.

If anybody has the most numbers saying they will fire their nukes
it will be either China or Japan.


You think Japan are likely to fire "their" nuclear missiles at who.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join