Is there any significant difference if your country (USA) is hit by 5.000 or 25.000 strategic nuclear warheads? What was the point of stockpiling?
>>29891468
OPPENHEIMER
>>29891468
russia is a big country anon
>>29891468
>What was the point of stockpiling?
dickwaving contest
>>29891468
Yes.
The point of stockpiling is to ensure that your can hit the targets you want to.
5000 warheads means about 2500 to 3000 targets.
25,000 is about 10000 to 12000 targets.
>>29891550
Nice answer. I guess its "who will get crippled more?"
>>29891468
Also, keep in mind that a significant number of these are tactical nuclear weapons, rather than strategic.
>>29891613
Was looking only to strategic curve.
>>29891613
Why does the US still operate nuclear bombs?
>>29891780
Because other nations operate nuclear bombs and we don't particularly like the idea of having to do whatever they say.
>>29891613
How many nukes does China have hidden away?
>>29891468
If 90% of your nukes get shot out of the sky. You need a fat 10%.
If 90% of your nukes are destroyed in silo. You need a fat 10%.
Hence Stockpiling.
>>29892224
I'm pretty sure no one else in the whole world except for the US operates nuclear bombs anymore.
>>29892568
Probably because we're the only nation with suitable platforms to use them. Russia is the only other kid on the block and they're riding in their mom's Pinto in comparison.
>>29892774
Even 1960s Su-7 is nuclear capable. Which specific "suitable platforms" are you talking about?
>they're riding in their mom's Pinto in comparison
It's funny how you mention this, considering Russia has vastly superior ICBM and cruise missile arsenal.
>>29891780
Because it serves US national security to do so.
>>29892236
Are you asking if they have a vast hidden arsenal? They do not.
>>29892568
7 other nations have nuclear weapons.
>>29891580
no, the question will be "which group can figure out farming in a nuclear wasteland faster?"
personally, I'm going to guess a central American country or a somewhere in the south east indies; possibly Australia.
and that only because very few groups will be aiming at them.
>>29892821
>vastly superior ICBM and cruise missile arsenal.
What capability do the Russians have that the US does not?
>>29892885
>which group can figure out farming in a nuclear wasteland faster?
Fallout 4 is not a good source for weapons effects data.
>>29891468
Insurance, if the enemy nukes you first, you'll probably lose a good chunk of your missile silos, air force, and navy. What remains should get the job done.
>>29892896
Sending people into space
>>29892983
>Boasting about being a Taxi Driver
>>29892875
How exactly does operating nuclear bombs serve US national interest?
>7 other nations have nuclear weapons.
I am talking about nuclear bombs, not nuclear weapons in general.
>>29892896
To deliver nuclear cruise missiles with supersonic bombers. To deliver more warhead and penaid payload per ICBM. To operate mobile ICBMs. To produce modern ICBMs.
>>29893002
>Boasting about losing driver license
>>29893118
Russia has freefall nuclear bombs.
Israel has freefall nuclear bombs.
China has freefall nuclear weapons.
The US is not the only nation with freefall nuclear weapons.
>To deliver nuclear cruise missiles with supersonic bombers.
And what does this enable the Russians to do that the US can not?
Put another way, what targets can the Russians hit that the US can not?
>To deliver more warhead and penaid payload per ICBM.
The US does not have an opponent with an advanced ABM system that would require more penaids than are currently carried.
>To operate mobile ICBMs.
What does this allow the Russians to do that the US can not?
>To produce modern ICBMs.
What targets can the new Russian weapons hit that the US can not?
>>29892875
>Are you asking if they have a vast hidden arsenal? They do not.
That's exactly what a country that does would say, tho.
>>29893195
>Russia has freefall nuclear bombs.
I am fairly sure they do not. But feel free to show me nuclear bombs that Russia operates. Same goes for China.
>Israel has any nuclear weapons
Cool story.
>And what does this enable the Russians to do that the US can not?
This enables their bombers to be at the launch point significantly earlier.
>The US does not have an opponent with an advanced ABM system
So you are saying that the US is waiting for S-500 and A-235 to become fully operational and effectively reduce its second strike capability before launching R&D to create a modern ICBM in response?
>What does this allow the Russians to do that the US can not?
This allows them not to put all nuclear retaliation eggs in one SSBN basket.
>What targets can the new Russian weapons hit that the US can not?
Any targets hidden behind an advanced ABM system shield.
>>29893310
>Russian Gravity Nuclear Bombs
http://nuclearforces.org/country-profiles/russia
>Isreal not having nuclear weapons
If you arent going to put any effort in to this...
>>29893351
This article also implies they have nuclear torpedoes. I am still waiting for a single example of a nuclear bomb that Russia operates. In the case of the US it is B61.
>If you arent going to put any effort in to this...
Just because they say they have it doesn't mean they do.
>>29893310
>This enables their bombers to be at the launch point significantly earlier.
And?
>S-500
Max engagement speed is 7 km/s.
Mk 12 and Mk 21 RVs are moving faster than this.
A-235 is limited in the number of RV it can effectively intercept.
>This allows them not to put all nuclear retaliation eggs in one SSBN basket.
You might have a point if the US SSBNs were vulnerable.
>Any targets hidden behind an advanced ABM system shield
Good thing no one has one then.
>>29893407
>Russia has no nuclear torpedos
>Israel has no nuclear weapons.
Ok, anon. There is no fooling you. You are on top of things.
>>29893425
>And
And to preform preemptive strike.
>Mk 12 and Mk 21 RVs are moving faster than this.
>Speed > 6000 m-s
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/trientd5.htm
>A-235 is limited
There is exactly zero point double zero percent of certain and definite information on A-235 around as of now. Anything you imply about its limitations is pure speculation.
>You might have a point if the US SSBNs were vulnerable.
Nothing is invulnerable.
>No one has one yet
Ftfy. If the US leaving the ABM treaty and Russia running the development on all cylinders didn't ring a bell for you then at least try to consider the fact that simply stopping the research in hope that the opponent does the same never did good for anyone.
>>29893449
I am still waiting for an example of a nuclear bomb that Russia operates. This sure must not be a problem if they really operate any.
>Israel has nuclear weapons
Just because they say they have it doesn't mean they do.
>>29893605
>>29893449
>Oppenheimer, employed in nuclear weapon policy field
>vs.
>Anon, master of Wikipedia
Yeah, I think I know who I'm going to trust.
>>29893648
I'm not asking for your trust, I'm asking him to give me an example of a single nuclear bomb that Russia operates. This sure must not be a problem for someone employed in nuclear weapon policy field.
>>29893648
I would trust him.
Its not like he confused the RV on the Trident and the RVs on the Minuteman or anything.
Im sure he has superior command of the facts.
>>29893679
I provided you a link by Pavel Podvig explaining the Russian nuclear arsenal includes gravity bombs like the RN-28.
If you refuse to accept it, there is not much I can do but laugh at you.
Just to help you out, the link you provided was not about the Mk 12 or Mk 21.
You should take another swing.
>>29893702
>Minuteman
24100 km-h, 6700 m/s
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mineman3.htm
>>29893729
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM3475.pdf
7.5 to 9.5 Km/s.
>>29893729
Im just going to let you claim whatever you would like.
Anyone who does not believe Israel has nuclear weapons cant be too attached to reality.
>>29893722
How am I refusing to accept it? I'm simply asking you to show me a single nuclear bomb that Russia operates. The link you provided mentions neither RN-28 current operational status, nor even this specific bomb at all.
>the link you provided was not about the Mk 12 or Mk 21
>Data for LGM-30A-B-F-G (-30G with Mk.12 MIRVs)
You should take another swing.
>>29893750
Pic related.
>>29893776
Talking about claiming it is you who started to claim some limitations of A-235, a system even the appearance of which has not yet been revealed.
>>29893776
Hi Oppenheimer you're one my only favorite tripfags
>>29893941
>arguing with Oppenheimer on this topic
you have to be new here
>>29893979
>Arguing
I'm asking for specific information rather politely and not getting any in return.
>>29894079
This. Tripfag is being BTFO as we speak and it is glorious.
>>29893941
Oppenheimer BTFO
>>29894079
No you are a moron.
Info on Russian tactial weapons is sparse beyond types in service. Oppen gave you a link from a respected source Pavel Podvig that states that they have them in service.
You refused to accept it.
You also claim that the Jews dont have nukes, that the Russians dont have nuclear torpedos.
You arent asking politely. You are being a fucking idiot.
>>29891468
>yuropoor maths don't into using decimals right
Kys faggot
>>29894079
Tell me more that Israel has no nukes.
>>29892821
Sure thing Vasily.
ITT Burgers on suicide watch.
