What would be an appropriate size for the US nuclear arsenal?
>>73203843
Enough nukes to wipe out every damn country that isn't america and then some
>>73203843
Three times the size of any other state's nuclear arsenal.
>>73204167
Why?
>>73204037
Why?
Enough to make sure that if we don't survive nobody else will.
>>73204292
>Seriously asking why
>>73204292
Because it would cause enough fear even if like China and Russia ally against the U.S.
>>73203843
What's the difference between 50,000 and 6 gorillion? The world is fucked after a certain number, so an upper limit is pointless.
>>73203843
YUUUUUUUUGE
>>73203843
All of them
>>73204292
Because MURRICA FUCK YEAH, that's why.
Don't pretend like you wouldn't want a bunch of nukes with a German Trump hovering over the button.
Trump is going to make the world our cucks again!
>>73203843
100x more.
>>73204446
Why would you need more than them?
>>73204304
Y'all strike me as rather nihilistic and anti-humanistic.
>>73204447
The upper limit could be below the value required to fuck up the world forever.
>>73204562
How high would you allow taxes to become to finance all of that?
>>73204646
>Why would you need more than them?
Because when you totally destroy each other you want to have the better odds.
>>73204646
>ask how many
>don't accept any answer
Piss off
>>73205008
You've told me your opinion. Now I'm asking you for your reasons.
>>73204941
Why would you ever need more than "enough to kill everyone else"?
Size 4.
exaclty one ZORDILIION missiles, fampai
we are those young gentlemen
>>73205175
>Why would you ever need more than "enough to kill everyone else"?
Because MAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
>>73204533
well about 80 years ago there whould be a thing with view nukes help make germany great again btw germany have about 20 nukes as lending from the US ...
>>73203843
about 3k missiles with about 10-50 a-warheads so we talking about 10k-20k warheads ...k=1000
there isn't a correct answer to this question anymore, because nuclear ICBMs are now multi-warhead and can no longer be effectively stopped.
>>73203843
realistically 500 warheads active.
thats enough to hit major civ targets and enough to hit military targets multiple times globally.
most wrheads will probably be targeting russia, china, euro nations (yes euro nations since they still fear the EU), brazil, mexico and maybe canacucks.
>>73203843
When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size
All of them
>>73205303
I don't get how mutually assured destruction entails having more than the other. It seems to me it only requires having enough to completely kill the other.
>>73205405
>about 3k missiles with about 10-50 a-warheads so we talking about 10k-20k warheads ...k=1000
So approximately 10x as much as today. That means maintenance alone would cost approximately 50% of the current TOTAL military budget. Building them in the first place would probably double the yearly expenses for about a decade.
Who will pay?
>>73203843
As many as we want, fuck what everyone else thinks.
>>73204292
A deterrent to any serious invasion
0, every country should have 0
There are 1,113 active, ready to use warheads. Most are W72s or W80s. About 100 of those are being serviced at any given time (typically tritium replacement and conventional explosive inspections).
2,184-2,190 sit in "ready reserve." However, only about half of these are capable of being "turnscrew" armed at a moment's notice. Most of these are warheads for B61s (375 kT) and B83s (750 kT).
Another 5,000 to 6,000 sit in dead stockpile. Can't be readily fielded due to age and lack of delivery systems for those payloads.
>>73205725
How many do you want?
>>73205763
But considering other countries have some, what's a realistic goal?
>>73205776
Very good op, nice figures are you that guy from /k/ by any chance?
Anyways NATO maintains a First Strike Monopoly against any adversary.
>>73205689
>I don't get how mutually assured destruction entails having more than the other.
it doesn't mean that at all, that poster is a retard. the MIRV takes away first-strike capability from everybody. MAD is all about ensuring a sufficient response to deter any one strike. an overwhelming response is not necessary, so a large warhead collection is irrelevant. nor is the response "only to be used after X number of warheads" are launched at you for some large X. X is 1.
>>73205689
>I don't get how mutually assured destruction entails having more than the other. It seems to me it only requires having enough to completely kill the other.
It's about probabilities. The other side could deactivate some of your silos. Some of your own soldiers could refuse service. Some missiles could be shot in air. Aliens could come and rape you anally. That's why you need more than enough. It's all about odds. Each side made simulations to be sure they are safe enough.
>>73203843
>What would be an appropriate size for the US nuclear arsenal?
As many nuclear weapons as there are non-US cities with <10000 people.
So we're probably looking at about 10,000 warheads at minimum.
>>73205902
>But considering other countries have some, what's a realistic goal?
just enough to respond to all of them simultaneously, to meet the requirements of MAD.
>>73206033
Not from /k/, no.
That 1,113 number was disclosed to the UN by Sec of State Clinton a few years back.
A quick Google will affirm this in the positive.
>>73203843
Unlimited
>>73203843
about three-fiddy
>>73205689
who knows they need that stuff ... btw today they have about 7 k warheads...
we also dont need BER but ...
her a nice link:
>http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/2/77.full.pdf+html
so its only about 3-2x as
mutch as they have now but under the max warheads number of cold war times ...
>he still thinks nukes are viable :^^^)
h-heh
>>73206121
you can have a single warhead with a yield of 10mt that could destroy a city of 100k+
Its not quantity, its quality.
>>73203843
i hope its big enough to wipe out eorpe and all the niggers muslims so i can die a death filled with glory giving my soul willingly vanishing into the afterlife.
i will welcome a meteor , nuke or gunsthot towards my body with open hands.
there is no saving my younger generations-
the jew has managed to get a hold of the world and i rather not wait till things get worse.
but then again im immortal and reborn everyday to pay for my sins in gods eyes.
ive had so many lives to live and ended with lovers as man and woman that i stopped counting.
praise jesus , turn to him before its too late and stop the lamenting.
death is coming to all of you wether you like it or not.
rather accept it now then begging for your life like a weakling.
may god have mercy on you all unlike he didn´t have any on me.
i should´ve bown to men , but i refused and now ive to live as a man forever with the knoweldge of an angel but none of the might.
>>73204646
Nukes are a surprisingly cost effective deterrent. What I would like to see is essentially a giant CATOBAR rail launcher that could launch re-entry capable modified jdams into low orbit. Build it into the side of a mountain and don't use it until ww3 kicks off. No country on earth could survive a consistent saturation bombardment of GBU-31v3's
Again, to anybody arguing for more nukes than today: how should this be financed?
>>73206067
So what you actually mean is "enough to assure MAD", not "more than the others".
>>73203843
this big
>>73206961
we are all doomed by ww3 without it trust me on that all the nuklear-reaktors that whould be 100 of charnobyls word wide ...
>>73206961
>Nukes are a surprisingly cost effective deterrent
Against strategic threats.
But you did not answer the question. How high would you allow taxes to become to finance new nukes?
>>73207216
>100 of charnobyls
So about 50.000 dead people?
That's less than 1 Hiroshima.
>>73203843
Enough to make Aliens think twice about fucking with us.
>>73207315
i need dat sponge to wash my face pls
>>73203843
just need to detonate 10 nukes in a short period of time to trigger nuclear winter
so, as the result would be the same no matter what the number is
just 10
>>73206033
OPpenheimer hasn't been around for months as far as I've seen
>>73205902
>But considering other countries have some, what's a realistic goal?
Realstic goal is for all countries to get rid of nukes and also destroy all blueprints and anything else that could be used to create more.
>>73207546
Kek. No. Even if they were, say 10 megatons each (about the largest fielded nukes) on groundbursts to create the largest amount of fallout/dust/smoke/fires, 100 mT wouldn't even be 1/50th the power of Mount St. Helens, which only cause local climate issues.
>>73207285
yeah and you were on belarus last week right ?
fucking chromoson-chages and cancer and the contarmination... remamber in charnobyl they build a coffin around the reaktor by ww3 nobody whould have time and care about it or think far enough..
Planetary obliteration x 6 million.
>>73203843
Enough to maintain MAD
>>73203843
None.
>>73203843
one per terrorist house
>>73203843
subjective
>>73205776
From /k/, and according to someone we have who works as a legit nuclear strategist...
>In an all out exchange against Russia, 90-95% of our arsenal will strictly be used to destroy Nuclear silos, Nuclear Command Centers, and any other means of nuclear retaliation first and foremost
>Nuclear silos are so blast proof, and to get around any sort of missile defense, multiple warheads are sent at each target, leaving few to none to attack defenseless cities
>Most major population centers will be spared. The largest cities most in danger of destruction would be San Francisco, Washington DC, Moscow, and Chicago; Most of the US infrastructure should be preserved, not much can be said about Russia, however.
>Initial casualties estimated at 80 million in worst case scenario
>Remaining nuclear arsenal is used on economic and strategic military points if following armistice talks are not successful.
>Nuclear war with a lesser armed country like China may have US economic points such as oil production centers and power plants targeted first.
It's sort of relieving and disappointing to find out that nuclear warfare isn't all it's cracked up to be and most of us will survive to tell the tale. The Fallout won't even be that bad either. Most of it will be rendered harmless in 14 days.
>>73207615
He got doxed so he doesn't trip anymore.
>>73207710
I don't think that's possible. The cat is out of the bag. Sure, you still need centrifuges to collect the pure fissile material, but the technology between nukes is known and everyone who isn't north korea can build them.
>>73207840
It's Chernobyl. And I have no idea what you're trying to say right now.
>>73207909
Who will pay?
>>73207978
What's your opinion?
>>73203843
>What would be an appropriate size for the US nuclear arsenal?
One per one of Trump's chins :^)
>>73204037
FPBP
you get to come over the wall
>>73204292
Because it is the world against the US. Study the Realist school of International Relations.
>>73208040
I can imagine no realistic scenario under which China would initiate a nuclear war against the US. They have fewer nukes than France.
>>73208257
lol nvm you don't have a wall to come over.
sucks to have the reverse flag of mexico
>>73208287
That seems more like the Crazy Paranoid Delusion School of International Relations.
>>73203843
One. Big enough to fry the whole planet.
Then we just start again from scratch.
100 million nukes, each one aimed at London.
>>73205902
What part of "as many as we want" don't you fucking understand? ALL OF THEM is an acceptable answer.
Disagree and we'll hit you first. :^)
>>73208850
How many do you want?
>>73208904
10 gorillion.
>>73207315
absolutely despise these fake as fuck messages.
>>73209129
pay denbts
>>73208257
That's not our Mexico- that's europe's Mexico.
>>73209344
with what? there's no money nor jobs here.
the same as the minimum wage
>>73204037
you can come over my wall any day bb
>>73203843
bigger than that of the rest of the world combined
500 operational and another 250 in maintenance.
Destroying 500 cities is enough
