There is no nation that would attack another nation with 200 nuclear weapons but not one with 2000 (either you’re sane and won’t attack either or you’re crazy and don’t care about your own survival). So when it comes to the security and territorial integrity of the US it doesn’t make much of a difference.
200 bombs is around how much we have in European bases. A realistic exchange is a 5000 megaton exchage between the Russians and United States. Counting primary and secondary targets in United States there are about 6,000 primary targets. These targets include: ICBM silos and launch centers, air force, navy and army facilities, key military support industries, command and control centers, and political infrastructures.
“There is no nation that would attack another nation with 200 nuclear weapons but not one with 2000 (either you’re sane and won’t attack either or you’re crazy and don’t care about your own survival). So when it comes to the security and territorial integrity of the US it doesn’t make much of a difference.”
The Russians and Chinese would. They have entire strategies written down discussing it.
Yup. I've been saying that for 20 something years. Although I don't agree with our conventional forces being reduced, 1000's of nuclear bombs has always been overkill and enough to kill this planet and possibly Mars (kidding).
We only need 200 nuclear bombs or less on our Tridents and bombers and land-based ICBM's to make China and Russia keep their distance. I know this, because I am an Aviation Sailor of the "Cold War" and dealt with the Soviets every overseas deployment shadowing and chasing us about, and all being on edge. The problem is with the Islamists who don't really care about MAD and survival and who look forward to DYING for their poli/religous insane cult.
Those are the people we need to worry about. Still, if we have 200 viable nukes on multi delivery systems, and the Islamists attacked tomorrow with a nuke, they would be glass (nuke isotopes have a signature and can be traced and they know that), and it would only take a few eliminate them, with about a couple hundred left over to kill China and Russia if they want to jump in, which they won't. China and Russia actually WANT to maintain their new found standard of living, unlike the suicidal Islamists, not to mention I believe they actually care about their children unlike the murderous Muslims.
Think it through. We need only enough strategic and tactical nukes to destroy our Islamist enemies. Our Trident subs have their target packages and everyone in the World knows this, but no one knows where they are on any given day.
The president doesn't even know where they are at any given moment. He relies on the Admirals and Generals to tell him if he needs to push the button. Even the Admirals couldn't tell you the exact coordinates of a Trident this moment. They would have to go through the chain at DOD/NSA and others to find the exact latitude and longitude of our Tridents. Nothing has changed since Bambi soiled our Oval Office. Happy thoughts.
2000, 1000, 500, or 200 hundred nuclear explosions? The entire world would crash even if 5 nukes went off. Think about the economical repercussions.
So, we're okay as far as nukes, if only 200 (think! how many major cities could go 1,000,000 degrees). The problem is about reducing our conventional forces and not being able to project American power when needed in regional conflicts and how that can lead to a major conventional war. THAT is my worry. And that would also have terrible economic consequences around the globe.
Bottom line: I am confident that even if we only had 100 high-yield nukes, that America is safe from nuclear destruction, other than the Islamo-facists setting off nukes on our soil by clandestine means. But again, isotopes can tell you where the fuel came from. You nuke guys tell me if I'm wrong about that.
“Well, realistically speaking 200 nuclear warheads on large cities are enough to end civilization as we know it, by ending the world economy and ushering a nuclear winter lasting for years. Maybe it would be more of an ice age than a stone age, but you get the gist.”
1)The Russians/Chinese haven’t developed the technology to track/stalk our missile subs undetected and sink them before they can fire.
2) Assuming that with our subs lost, we have enough land based nukes to survive a 1st strike.
3) That if some of our land based nukes survive 1st strike, there are enough of them to severely damage Russia. WWII proved the Russian govt. and population is willing to absorb unthinkable casualties.
4) That our nukes would even work. As far as I know, our arsenal hasn’t been upgraded since whenever. They might not detonate and would just hit the target with a thud.
5) That obama would even order a retaliation. Considering how much he loathes this country, he may welcome a nuke attack against us as payback to whitey.
6) If he was willing to retaliate, would he survive long enough to order it? A Russian sub off the east coast could vaporize DC 5 minutes after launch if not sooner.
7) The Russians don’t have a suitcase nuke in DC that would obliterate the govt. and Pentagon before they launched a strike against the rest of the US.
Russia has (say) 4000 warheads, China reliably estimated to have 3000.
If we have 300, what are we going to do?
Especially if the swiss cheese intelligence community since the days of (should have been put to death multiple times for treason, e.g. selling Loral guidance technology to China for ICBMs, allowing foreign nationals to work in classified DoD labs, disseminating the blueprints for the W-88) Clinton, the Russians and Chinese can neutralize our subs (either at sea or sabotage in port).
I've never seen stupidity of this magnitude on FR before, ergo, you are a troll.
IBTZ.