26,000 Nuclear Warheads (561 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.2 on 17 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Kellio (View user info) at 2004-07-27 03:02:23 EDT
I was reading somewhere that the US military has approximately 26,000 nuclear warheads either ready to launch or in storage. Most of these were produced during the Cold War when the US and USSR were competing in a frantic arms race. The USSR got to about 24,000 and went shit! This arms race has bankrupted our country! So the US were the winners with around 26,000.
That is a shitload of nuclear weaponery, in fact it is enough bomb every single square inch of the earth several times over. My question is why keep so many bombs when a fraction of that amount would be more then enough to bomb who ever you'd like? If the US reduced the amount to say 10,000 I'm sure the rest of the world would still be just as intimidated as normal. Not only would they still be more then adequately armed, but the government could also make a lot of cash by dismantling the bombs and selling off the materials. Of course I'm not suggesting selling off the materials as they are, after all you don't want to give people the means to make nuclear weapons. But a good idea would be to melt down any metals involved and sell them as the normally harmless metals they are. Any radioactive material could be sold to US hospitals and nuclear power plants for legitimate uses. Of course you would probably have to do something with the radioactive materials first, but I'm sure you could convert it for more peaceful uses.
Considering the amount of debt the US government has gotten into to finance the Iraq war, this would be a great way to make some cash without compromising national security.
User Reviews
Submitted by squiddles (user info) at 2004-07-28 09:36:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
think about it the US is all about power they have to be better than everyone else and one way of doing this is by owning more weapons then anyone in the world they obviously know that actually they wont ever need that many and soon enough they will find something more powerful and wonder what the fuck to do with all the weapons they own they'll probably be sold on to some fuckin lunitatic and then we will all get blown up but then again what can we do about it!
although i do think that your point is a very good one!
Submitted by Kellio (user info) at 2004-07-28 06:33:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Praise to Akrofiild and Scotsman for their constructive criticism! For that you both get a +2! Too often on ubersite criticial responses to posts are not constructive, but merely insults that amount to immature name calling.
Submitted by akrofiild (user info) at 2004-07-27 11:11:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Number of nuclear weapons in US: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm
(weapon means warhead)
Area of Earth (land): 148,326,000 square km.
Thermal Radiation radius (3rd degree burns) for 20 megaton weapon (very big): 40 km.
Thermal Radiation Area: ~ 5000 square km.
Number of 20 Mton weapons needed to blanket the earth: ~ 30000.
You would need 30000 warhead at 20 Mtons each to cover just the land mass. The majority of the US stockpile are MIRC (multiple indepedent reentry vehicles) which are smaller in size (most are under a megaton) and are designed to hit mulitple targest on single targets independantly. They are cheaper to construct than single larger ones, offer more of a controlled blast and naturally defend themselves against ABMs (anti-ballistic missle).
All millitary domination arguments aside, dismantelling a nuke is very hard and expenisve. The materials from it don't get you squat because metal is relativelly cheap and the weapon grade nuclear material is usless in the power sector.
Submitted by Scotsman (user info) at 2004-07-27 10:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Much of the nuclear material inside these missiles is now useless as a nuclear weapon due to the ingorwoth of Amerecium. As a result the material has become HIGHLY radioactive and as a result completley useless for selling on for peaceful uses. This material will need cleaned up and then stored for a VERY long time. This is a problem for many future generations.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-27 09:48:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you think it is just "take out the weapons grade plutonium, now take out that screw, and POOF! nuke dismantled!"
Sorry, it takes a bit more then that. And as far as the "Housing and storage and upkeep", when the US talks about a nuke, it doesn't mean a whole missle. It only has a few (relative to 26,000) actually on missles. The rest are in underground bunkers, on shelves, under heavy guard. With other things that need to be under heavy guard.
The "cost" wouldn't change, we would LOOSE money due to the cost of disarming them. The amount of money it takes to house nukes is lower then most people would think.
Submitted by Sambuca310 (user info) at 2004-07-27 09:23:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
true but not an Uberworthy post
Submitted by fitzie (user info) at 2004-07-27 06:35:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
We should be getting more use out of the nuclear weapons we have before building new ones
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2004-07-27 06:24:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good plan.
+2 for the principle of the thing.
I don't think weapons-grade radioactive isotopes are much use in power stations though... I may be wrong.
Submitted by Akegata (user info) at 2004-07-27 05:00:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
2+ because I hate the army.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2004-07-27 04:39:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-07-27 04:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Newsflash: The US has a military.
Submitted by Kellio (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:51:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by Banga3386 (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:26:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't quote exact figures but with what it costs to house, maintain, and secure the bombs, the money could be spent well on many other needy causes. In fact, the Department of Liquor Control is in dire trouble. If we got rid of just ONE nuclear weapon the DLC would get all the funding it needs to uphold the federal laws it is entrusted with. I know that liquor control is not everyone's favorite item but you get the point."
Great response, I hadn't even consider the various maintenance costs involved. For that you get a 2!
So not only could the government make a shitload of cash, but it would also save a shitload of cash from reduced costs! It's all good!
Submitted by Banga3386 (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:26:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't quote exact figures but with what it costs to house, maintain, and secure the bombs, the money could be spent well on many other needy causes. In fact, the Department of Liquor Control is in dire trouble. If we got rid of just ONE nuclear weapon the DLC would get all the funding it needs to uphold the federal laws it is entrusted with. I know that liquor control is not everyone's favorite item but you get the point.
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:04:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
I got a better idea. Throw them in the ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got a better idea, throw Kellio in the ocean.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:14:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ok, shit posts are hereby reserved for free iPod whoring, because I don't have any money in my Paypal account to put up an uberboard link.
http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=7411820
Submitted by Socialist_Joe (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:05:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you make me sad
who wouldnt want to be able to destroy the world several times over
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2004-07-27 03:04:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I got a better idea. Throw them in the ocean.