Some Nuclear facts.

[slugshooter]

~28,800: The total number of intact nuclear warheads retained by the United States and Russia.

~30,000: Number of intact nuclear warheads throughout the world. 17,500 of these are considered operational.

128,000+: Estimated number of nuclear warheads built worldwide since 1945. All but 2 percent of these nuclear warheads have been built by the United States (55 percent or 70,000+) and Russia (43 percent or 55,000+). 1

10,729: Total number of intact U.S. nuclear warheads (274 warheads are awaiting dismantlement)

10,455: Total warheads in the U.S. stockpile

7,000: Approximate number of operational strategic U.S. nuclear weapons

~5,000: Component parts ("strategic reserve" or plutonium pits) in U.S. nuclear arsenal

1,600: Approximate number of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons (~800 of these are operational)

8,400: Total number of operational nuclear warheads in Russian arsenal

5,000: Approximate number of Russian strategic nuclear weapons

3,400: Approximate number of operational Russian tactical nuclear weapons (total tactical arsenal said to comprise as many as 10,000+ weapons)

3,500: Approximate number of strategic U.S. nuclear weapons, year 2003 under START II.

3,000: Approximate number of strategic Russian nuclear weapons, year 2003 under START II.

1,500-2,000: Approximate number of strategic nuclear weapons suggested as the ceiling for the United States and Russia under START III agreement.

1,700-2,200: Maximum number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons that will remain in the U.S. and Russian arsenals by 2012 as agreed to by The Treaty of Moscow (also known as SORT) signed by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2002.

10,000: The number of warheads the United States will retain in 2012 (essentially the same number as today) if the reductions laid out in the Treaty of Moscow are completed by transferring warheads from active delivery vehicles to either a "responsive force" or to "inactive reserve." The active force will consist of approximately 3,500 warheads. (500 ICBM+ 1,680 SLBM + 1,376 bomber)

$3.5 trillion: Amount the United States spent between 1940 and 1995 to prepare to fight a nuclear war.

$27 billion: Amount the United States spends annually to prepare to fight a nuclear war.

$2.2 billion: Cost for one B-2 bomber (21 were authorized by Congress).

$2.5 billion: The lifecycle cost of each B-2 (RDT&E, procurement, operations, maintenance, and support).

The figures cited above were gathered with the aid of resources from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) website. www.nrdc.org

1 Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristesen, "NRDC Nuclear Notebook: Global Nuclear Stockpiles, 1945-2002," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2002.

[wtnhunt]

That is all interesting, but what is your point sluggo?

[Norm Sauceman]

THAT IS NOT CORRECT!!!!

IT IS NUKULUR!!!!!

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
That is all interesting, but what is your point sluggo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a deep seeded ulterior motive that can not be disclosed at this time.

[wtnhunt]

LOL. Figures.

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a deep seeded ulterior motive that can not be disclosed at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty dang useless thread so far then...don't ya think

[stevebeilgard]

here's a fact: usa has nukes. use since 1945... ZERO. dont count on our enemies to do the same.

[markyj987]

The moral of the story: Our nuke stockpile is bigger than you're nuke stockpile...bring it on, commies! LOL

[LifeNRA]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is all interesting, but what is your point sluggo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a deep seeded ulterior motive that can not be disclosed at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you smoking something again? Wait! That was shot! Sorry Sluggo!!! LMBO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I had to do something to wake up this very boring thread!!!

[buckee]

Now forgive me for trying to second guess the motives behind this thread, but I just had a Liberal brain-fart, that maybe slugger is suggesting that the playing field should be leveled here. Please tell me it isn't so .

[slugshooter]

[ QUOTE ]
Now forgive me for trying to second guess the motives behind this thread, but I just had a Liberal brain-fart, that maybe slugger is suggesting that the playing field should be leveled here. Please tell me it isn't so .


[/ QUOTE ]

drum roll please............................................ ........Buckee gets the prize. Actually, I didn't really have any reason for posting this, other than i was looking for North Korea nuke info and couldn't find anything I liked. As far as what Steve said, I wouldn't mind everyone being on an equal playing field, an equal field of 0. All Nuclear weapons are designed to do is eradicate an enormous amount of innocent people and the one's who aren't vaporized on detonation die a slowly painful death. Not everyone is an enemy, some just get caught up in other peoples pissin matches. However, I am not so naive to believe that this will ever happen.

[wtnhunt]

Sad truth is, that it will never happen.

You are always going to have the mentality that we have to protect ourselves by being able to counter, and that little bit of distrust in not knowing for certain your enemy has or will really rid their arsenal.

[buckee]

Yeah, I agree slugger. It would be nice to make the playing field zero across the board, as far as nuclear weapons go, but it's too late for that. Once something has been invented, the world is not about to un-invent it. Someone will always have the upper hand.

[stevebeilgard]

you can bet there are some muslim factions out there want one of those nukes.