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.

 

2013 Nuclear Stockpiles

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Here are the estimated Russian Nuclear Stockpiles
compiled by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

bos.sagepub.com...

Here are the current estimated U.S. Nuclear Stockpiles
compiled by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

bos.sagepub.com...

Here are the estimated World Stockpiles of Nuclear Weapons:

www.ploughshares.org...

If you click on the "Full Report" links to any country, you will find a PDF with complete estimated information.

Realistically, I do not believe any "Gun Control Law" can save you from this reality.

Wake up and smell the half life.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Lol your avatar is fitting to the post. Im pretty sure we will destroy the earth way before any celestial object does. I just hope something changes before we do. Boy I hope we find a way to get to any of the potentially habitable planets soon...

I wonder how many nuclear weapons it would take to destroy the world. Because 16,200 between two countries seems like plenty...
edit on 26-6-2013 by StrangeTimez because: last bit



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by StrangeTimez
 


We have not got enough to destroy the earth...think of how many have been tested and we are still here.
Granted it would knacker up the planet but life would still go on, there are many places which would escape the radiation fallout etc.
I used to think that nuclear war would completely destroy us but Slayer69 showed me the truth.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeTimez
 


It would take less than 300 of the megaton devices to render the surface of the earth inhabitable
in the current way that we are used to living upon it..

The Fallout and Nuclear Winter would pretty much be the Ace Card for us all.

Then, The Subs would Deploy their rock hard high hard ones. Salutations.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
A few points...


Originally posted by Wildmanimal
It would take less than 300 of the megaton devices to render the surface of the earth inhabitable
in the current way that we are used to living upon it..


As far as 'we' know only the PRC still deploys warheads in the megaton range and open sources suggests around 60 of those on ICBM range weapons. As for the claims to how much deployed MT it would take to 'render the surface of the earth uninhabitable' you would have to be more specific as to what the authors ( presuming that you are using a source here) means by inhabitable as the planet is a very big place and the 7 billion people +biota wont just sit still and die.


The Fallout and Nuclear Winter would pretty much be the Ace Card for us all.


Fallout is something that can obviously be very hazardous to crops and livestock but if you go look at the dosages required to even ruin the current seasons crops you will probably be surprised to find how high radiation levels would have to be over how large tracts of even prime target countries such as the US and Russia to greatly effect crop production in ways that could create large scale starvation. This is of course presuming that such countries do not store sufficient food to meet its needs for just a few months in which case fallout effects may be even less obvious.

As for nuclear winter we do not know if such a thing is even possible( and evidence from volcanic events and the like imo suggest otherwise) and if it were it would at the very least require that most remaining nuclear weapons were used in their most ineffective ground bursting roles to thus loft as much dust/fine particulates as possible into the upper atmosphere. Again this presumes that there is not adequate food stores in the belligerent countries to provide a buffer against the worse short term effects of nuclear winter like conditions.


Then, The Subs would Deploy their rock hard high hard ones. Salutations.


? Sadly i can assure you that a nuclear war is not only possible and practical to fight and win but that the very large majority of the worlds population will survive a large scale exchange of weapons between Europe, the USA, Russia and the PRC. I do hope that i will not be proved correct thought and luckily there are in fact so many unknowns( and thus tremendously hard to estimate risk profiles) introduced by such high technology weaponry( or in the case of nuclear weapons the delivery systems) that Russia/PRC would have to be an order of magnitude weaker before even a country as well armed as the US dared to risk it's delicately balanced economy in such a venture.

What nuclear weapons and high technology weapons really do well is introduce orders of magnitude worth of complexity into the traditional balance of power computations and this is why even a superpower like the USA only felt secure moving on a third world economic and military power such as Iraq after a decade of siege like sanctions and bombardment from the air.

Either way if you are really concerned about the welfare and future survival of our species i can suggest some things i consider to be actual threats!

Cheers
Stellar



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I find it very interesting that only a few countries "officially" have any nuclear weapons.
Also surprised India and Pakistan have so many how did that come about!?

Looking at the list the possibilities of a nuclear war are only really between a few countries.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by guidetube
I find it very interesting that only a few countries "officially" have any nuclear weapons.
Also surprised India and Pakistan have so many how did that come about!?


I have not really spent time trying to prove the alternative and as far as i know the official holders of nuclear weapons are pretty much the holders of nuclear weapons. In this day and age if your enemy does not have them you can not use them anyways and even if they do have them will they use them if you do not have them? Fact seems to be that the only people who can really 'use' nuclear weapons are those that are both above the law ( as the US was in 1945) and beyond prosecution due to size of their conventional armed forces which brings us back to the fact that they are largely useless paperweights unless you are bent on global domination and or the primary target of such alliances.

Well India needed them because of China/USSR ( to say nothing of preventing western interference) and Pakistan could in the end not afford to go without given the history before and after the British partition... That , at least, is the superficial reasons and if you are after 'real' and or comprehensive reasons i am sure there are numerous and fittingly robust tomes on the subject matter which not even i will ever start reading.



Looking at the list the possibilities of a nuclear war are only really between a few countries.


Most of the countries that have nuclear weapons had to get them because the USA national security state/MIC would rather build nukes( so that they can enforce their corporate capitalist takeover/control of the world) than a truly prosperous nation thus forcing many others into grossly expensive competing programs in mostly failed attempts to guarantee some sovereign control of their own economies.

That, at least, is the world as i have come to understand some of it's workings...

Stellar



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Thanks for response very informative



I think in a global power grab / NWO type scenario those holding these things have trump cards.
Possibly a few could go off commencing a WWIII or something like that.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Apologies for responding to your reply so late. If you do happen to read this,
I will let you know that I have also read the "potential survival rate data".
To be clear however, and these are major issues, the data for food supply chains, disruptions due to
EMP, (Electrical Blackouts),fuel supply disruption,medical supply disruption,communications and then general
social anarchy and fear , have not been plugged into the radiation,blast radius,fallout data.

The Estimated Survival Rates that you speak of are only those colds sums Without the above
mentioned Data plugged into the equation. This data plug has a reciprocating insert as well.

Furthermore, the immediate survival rate is greatly reduced due to the onset of Cancer at varying
internodes and no methods of treatment or cure. Living under these conditions are questionable
due to the reduction of morale and the obvious infighting that will occur.
Consumption of radioactive material in ANY shape or form is cumulatively toxic/fatal.
These dangerous levels of toxins would no doubt be consumed by any survivors suffering from
starvation.

Taken into the account the above mentioned short list of additional trauma I believe
that the survival rates that you are comfortable with will prove to be most unfortunate.

Humanity as we know it would cease to exist. Period. The long term results? Depends on the Half Life.



Thank You for your well thought provoking reply.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


thank you wildmanimal i found your reports very interesting. with that many nukes in the world i can say one thing. we are #ed!



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Basically if you take out the likes of USA, Russia, GB etc then you are only left with a few hundred in the hands of what I see as more threatening nations more likely to get into a war and start firing these things.

Obviously if these more stable countries attach each other (say Russia v USA) then it's a mess that much is certain. But unlikely. More probable is smaller less stable countries shooting these things off and getting it right back at them. Like a "mini" nuclear war were the smaller players have it out?

What would be consequence of such a thing, say the remaining hundred or so being used against each other?



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Hi, try to excuse my tone; i am trying but this was clearly a failed attempt.


Wildmanimal
Apologies for responding to your reply so late. If you do happen to read this,
I will let you know that I have also read the "potential survival rate data".


I do follow up so that's rarely an issue... I am sure you have read date on potential survival rates but it seems to me that you are working from the data sets which i ( or at least the views i favor) have disregarded in favor of others.


T, (Electrical Blackouts),fuel supply disruption,medical supply disruption,communications and then general
social anarchy and fear , have not been plugged into the radiation,blast radius,fallout data.


These have in fact been 'plugged' into some models as there really are not too many more factors! I do not believe these are all easily modelled but that is what you practice for and that is why some nations have good date and others have much less or nothing at all.


The Estimated Survival Rates that you speak of are only those colds sums Without the above
mentioned Data plugged into the equation. This data plug has a reciprocating insert as well.


That is not the case and any data that does not attempt to model at least most of those factors are not worth the paper it is printed.


Furthermore, the immediate survival rate is greatly reduced due to the onset of Cancer at varying
internodes and no methods of treatment or cure. Living under these conditions are questionable
due to the reduction of morale and the obvious infighting that will occur.


The risk of cancers are dangerous overestimated ( something akin to the rubbish believed about Chernobyl) even in worse case scenarios. I have provided these sources many times before and i am sure you can sufficient material online to satisfy you that even with zero preparation evacuation out of cities and the like will reduce cancers and radiation related deaths to a minimum.


Consumption of radioactive material in ANY shape or form is cumulatively toxic/fatal.
These dangerous levels of toxins would no doubt be consumed by any survivors suffering from
starvation.


Consumption is not that big a risk( inhalation however can be bad even if it is more easily prevented) and even if you are forced ( for lack of packaged food) to eat vegetables or fruit/grains simple rinsing and pealing will probably still be sufficient after just a few days wait. It really depends on how close to an event this happened but the Japanese have eaten plenty of contaminated food some decades ago and they are again doing so today which i believe will have no discernible affect on their longitivity.

www.who.int...
daisyluther.blogspot.com...
www.kantei.go.jp...

What i am trying to show is that people live without problem in areas of the world where the natural background radiation is hundreds and sometimes thousands of times higher than what our regulators have decide 'safe' levels to be and the effects/models vary wildly depending on what data you feed into your model. In the US as in most countries what will eventually kill people will not be radiation sickness but probably starvation and social upheaval due to the absence of stored food supplies& means of transportation to population center's. Nuclear weapons are no threat to the survival of humanity ( or even civilization) but we could greatly mitigate the effects with proper education and organization.


Taken into the account the above mentioned short list of additional trauma I believe
that the survival rates that you are comfortable with will prove to be most unfortunate.


It's not that i am comfortable with any deaths as much as i would really like people to stop thinking nuclear war to be impossible " because we would all die" or " because there will not be any winners" when the actual facts make it very clear that just as in every past war there is very likely to be winners and losers as much as there will be survivors. Nuclear weapons have not prevented world war three from happening ( but they have contributed greatly) and they will not indefinitely provide humanity with a suspension of large scale hostilities. The second world war generation and their kids are getting on in years now so that knowledge is fast fading and if the next generation is either too afraid of conflict or too ignorant of the costs another world war is in the making.


Humanity as we know it would cease to exist. Period. The long term results? Depends on the Half Life.

Thank You for your well thought provoking reply.


I have good news in as much as i complete disagree! What depends on the half life? That is all well understood...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by theman1111
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


thank you wildmanimal i found your reports very interesting. with that many nukes in the world i can say one thing. we are #ed!


Since around the second world war preventable disease ( mostly related to under or malnourishment) have killed between 20 and 30 million people a year which is equivalent to to depopulation of North America, Europe and probably Russia as well. Caucasians fear nuclear weapons while the rest of the world deals with real threats to their existence. Suffice to say that you can tell much from what a person worries about of fears and it takes a great deal of education for a western person to gain perspective and identify the actual threats to their societies.

That's my opinion and i will keep working on the tone.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You have some good points. Its been fun discussing this with you.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


Sorry for the tone and i do realise that if i could more often disagree in productive ways i may well encourage the sort of discussion that might actually lead to some opinions being substantially altered...



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Perhaps these nuclear missiles can be used to intercept asteroids threatening the Earth, as well as possible alien invasion.

A satellite in space can fire a nuclear missile at the asteroid once a target lock is achieved. The nuclear missile will propel towards the asteroid and detonates upon impact.

Now many habitable planets have been discovered, and it is likely that at some day in the future, the aliens go to Earth and lay waste on it. Nuclear weapons save the day.

However, I'm not sure whether this will be permitted by the government...



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
human should just abandon nuclear altogether and use thorium



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
All of this is really, really scary! First-- all the firing's or " lack of confidence" which removed the officer from over-seeing Nukes in my area of Montana.



Let's not forget the funnies going on w/ the Bush/Cheney Admin

9 Stolen Nukes


.... And now for the scariest video of all IMO--



I would love to understand how in the hell they can do this (?) Chrystal Ball? On the bills dealing w/ 911, the Ok City bombing... It looks spot on!! I heard Canada's money has a hidden message concerning the US but I lost the link and can't find it.

Obama has always been a Bush. They work for the same people.





edit on 12-10-2013 by tracehd1 because: Fix



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
so what do you think of china's underground great wall where they claim to store hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons?



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join