==Obama Administration Releases New Nuclear Warhead Numbers==

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 1 per post.

File: 1430410882087.jpg (44.19 KB, 600x336, 25:14, 233790714a6b9c83d18c5626f4….jpg)

==Obama Administration Releases New Nuclear Warhead Numbers== Anonymous 04/30/15 (Thu) 16:21:22 75a05d No.14089

Updated Stockpile Numbers

>First, Kerry updated the DOD nuclear stockpile history by declaring that the stockpile as of September 2014 included 4,717 nuclear warheads. That is a reduction of 87 warheads since September 2013, when the DOD stockpile included 4,804 warheads, or a reduction of about 500 warheads retired since President Obama took office in January 2009.

Disclosure of Dismantlement Queue

>Second, Kerry also announced a new number we have never seen in public before: the official number of retired nuclear warheads in line for dismantlement. As of September 2014, the United States had approximately 2,500 additional warheads that have been retired (but are still relatively intact) and awaiting dismantlement.

Increasing Warhead Dismantlements

>Kerry also announced that the administration “will seek to accelerate the dismantlement of retired nuclear warheads by 20 percent.”

>Under current plans, of the “approximately 2,500” warheads in the dismantlement queue, the ones that were retired through (September) 2009 will be dismantled by 2022. Additional warheads retired during the past five years will take longer.

Anonymous 04/30/15 (Thu) 20:02:13 66bd8a No.14100

How many of these "disarmed" warheads do you think will mysteriously re-appear to hit their target if a nuclear war appears?

Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 05:39:54 75a05d No.14116

Well two things:

1) The definition of dismantling, I don't know what the actual procedure is but it could be as simple as removing key components too scrapping the whole thing for parts.

2) Things deteriorate and eventually reach an end where it isn't really worth it too upkeep anymore, others are no longer useful (or as useful) and retired, the rest is simply replaced with something better Nukes are no exception.

They're probably just making good PR with standard procedure and probably have more newer hidden Nukes along the way. If not our dear leader(s) didn't get the memo.

Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 14:29:10 ffa445 No.14141

>>14089

You can never trust official numbers on nukes. No nation in their right mind would disclose the actual number of nukes they posses. You can be sure that the number is at least 10% higher.

Anonymous 05/03/15 (Sun) 20:43:59 0e9185 No.14192

>>14100

No one will be around to answer that question

Anonymous 05/03/15 (Sun) 21:25:56 66bd8a No.14194

>>14192

I suppose, but the amount of people that will be around to pose similar concerns depends on the amount of nukes and the amount of cities and strategic targets that get hit if things ever things ever sufficiently escalate.

Anonymous 05/04/15 (Mon) 03:08:34 8be168 No.14207

Somebody wake me up when a nuke actually gets used somewhere, and means something more than "a few countries blackmail the world with a suicide pact".

>Japan doesn't count, they were firebombed to hell and back and would have said anything once their god told them the war was ending

Nuclear weaponry has no relevance because if they get used it's already over (and it's not even the only way the end could come). Somebody please prove me differently and set off what is unmistakably a nuclear bomb in somewhere visible to civilians.

Anonymous 05/04/15 (Mon) 04:56:49 66bd8a No.14209

>>14207

Nukes still are important because they act as deterrent, and for areas where one country has nukes and the other doesn't. Israel can raise all sorts of shit in surrounding territory because (among other things) it's the sole nation with access to nuclear weapons, rending opponents powerless. This is why Iran having nukes is such a big deal, it gives Israel a real opposition so they can't be starting shit and destabilizing regions constantly.

To use a less complex example, India has been in consistent hostilities with Pakistan for god knows how long, and both are held back by nuclear capabilites, leaving the two nations to squabble and skirmish in small mountain battles and icey, irrelevant planes on relatively equal footing. How would this scenario change if Pakistan lacked nuclear capabilities? How different would the world map be if this was the case?

Anonymous 05/04/15 (Mon) 17:34:22 527f37 No.14222

Honestly, this is probably a good thing. NUkes are probably going to fall into the hands of niggers and mexicans if there are so many of them

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 03:54:26 7cafac No.14268

>>14222

And then they nuke Europe and runaway white civilizations. yay.