If Obama announced to the world that we had the ability to launch those warheads on missles some would claim that he weakened the US. it's just more of the same.

Well, the same could be asked of the reason NOT to release the information.

 

Personally, I consider 1 plenty. All the rest is really just extraneous.

 

Or a male measurement moment? :idunno:

Seriously...what difference does it make. It only takes one.

 

If Iran had 1 nuke and they decided to declare war against the US what are the chances that they would use that one nuke on Louisville? If Iran had 10,000 nukes, what are the chances that they use one of those nukes on Louisville? Do you still wonder if it makes a difference?

Seriously...what difference does it make. It only takes one.

 

 

If our enemy is another nation and we were involved in a nuclear exchange it might only take 1 IF it is a small country. As it is if we went up against any larger power in a nuclear exchange we would need more than that.

If our enemy is another nation and we were involved in a nuclear exchange it might only take 1 IF it is a small country. As it is if we went up against any larger power in a nuclear exchange we would need more than that.

 

you really believe that we are going to engage anyone in a conflict that involves multiple warheads?

you really believe that we are going to engage anyone in a conflict that involves multiple warheads?

 

Having enough nuclear weapons to either survive a first attack and counter-attack as well as having enough to completely destroy a target country is a strong deterrent against a nuclear attack. I don't think the significance of that can be overstated, personally.

Another brilliant move by Obama and his naive "advisors" (Come on Mahmoud, can't we all just get along)??

 

I've got a great plan for him--Let's sell most of them to Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc. and help pay for his domestic social (ist) programs?? :puke:

you really believe that we are going to engage anyone in a conflict that involves multiple warheads?

 

 

No and that is the point of maintaining a stockpile. Mutually Assured Destruction is an excellent promoter of peace.

Having enough nuclear weapons to either survive a first attack and counter-attack as well as having enough to completely destroy a target country is a strong deterrent against a nuclear attack. I don't think the significance of that can be overstated, personally.

 

Well said.

Why is the exact number an issue? If we had two, I'd understand. As it is, we have enough to destroy any enemy that we would choose to.

 

I agree. If it was a small number, I could understand the issue. But over 5,000...well I can't see Iran thinking, we take out the first 5,112 and then we are one on one with them.

Having enough nuclear weapons to either survive a first attack and counter-attack as well as having enough to completely destroy a target country is a strong deterrent against a nuclear attack. I don't think the significance of that can be overstated, personally.

 

I concur with this too.

I agree. If it was a small number, I could understand the issue. But over 5,000...well I can't see Iran thinking, we take out the first 5,112 and then we are one on one with them.

 

At least there is some rational thinking still going on in this place.

Another brilliant move by Obama and his naive "advisors" (Come on Mahmoud, can't we all just get along)??

 

I've got a great plan for him--Let's sell most of them to Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc. and help pay for his domestic social (ist) programs?? :puke:

 

How about toning down the rhetoric and give us reasons why this is a "brilliant move" and whatever your point is about Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, etc?

No and that is the point of maintaining a stockpile. Mutually Assured Destruction is an excellent promoter of peace.

 

This is (strangely) one of my favorite phrases. :lol:

 

It goes well with the idea that, between us and Russia, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy humanity six times over. As if we need to do it more than once. :lol:

Having enough nuclear weapons to either survive a first attack and counter-attack as well as having enough to completely destroy a target country is a strong deterrent against a nuclear attack. I don't think the significance of that can be overstated, personally.

 

Exactly.