Nukes ready to fly

[sesha_maruthi27]

Nothing new in those figures. Infact US is down to about 5000 odd nukes last I heard and Russia to 7000 odd.

Bhai the figures show that Russia have more warheads than the USA.......

 

[tramp]

Bhai the figures show that Russia have more warheads than the USA.......

Russia always had more warheads than the US, though the SALT has brought them down considerably on both sides. However, why have too many, one of them can destroy millions of population in a moment.

 

[Yusuf]

Bhai the figures show that Russia have more warheads than the USA.......

Nothing new in that. Russia always had more nukes.

 

[sayareakd]

yeah that is how Russians got bankrupt.

basic economic concept says

human wants are unlimited but resources are limited

so spend it wisely.

They chosen to spend on nukes and look what happen to Soviet Union.

I dont think some one will take notice of this fact

(hint they like green)

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

yeah that is how Russians got bankrupt.

basic economic concept says


so spend it wisely.

They chosen to spend on nukes and look what happen to Soviet Union.

I dont think some one will take notice of this fact

(hint they like green)

What about China? They are spending too much towards MILITARY.....?

 

[sayareakd]

What about China? They are spending too much towards MILITARY.....?

China has their own economics, less we said about it better it is.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

China has their own economics, less we said about it better it is.

But some way or the other something is going to happen in the near future.......

The world will change from how it is now.....

 

[Razor]

Russia always had more warheads than the US, though the SALT has brought them down considerably on both sides. However, why have too many, one of them can destroy millions of population in a moment.

Credible deterrence. Second strike capability.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Credible deterrence. Second strike capability.

How many nukes make for credible deterrence?? Few dozen? hundreds? thousands?
how many delivery systems??

 

[tramp]

How many nukes make for credible deterrence?? Few dozen? hundreds? thousands?
how many delivery systems??

Its not exactly the numbers... but the potency that matters. A variety of delivery methods like the triad under a proper command deters any enemy because they would know they would not get away lightly after the first strike. In fact a few dozen would suffice if they are discreetly distributed and kept ready for delivery through different methods --- missiles, both ballistic and cruise, bombers, rail mobile, road mobile, and submarine... so that any mischief maker would not know where the strike will come from.
India's no-first strike possibility is perfect in this regard.

 

[Yusuf]

How many nukes make for credible deterrence?? Few dozen? hundreds? thousands?
how many delivery systems??

It's a question to which there is no answer. That's why the US and Soviet built 100,000 warheads between them at the height of the Cold War. Better sense has since prevailed and we are down to a few thousands.

Pakistan has learned nothing from the Cold War and thinks nukes can save it from everything. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to fail.

 

[sayareakd]

Pakistan has learned nothing from the Cold War and thinks nukes can save it from everything. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to fail.

Yusuf bhai they are not taught history and History for them starts at 1947.

 

[Yusuf]

Yusuf bhai they are not taught history and History for them starts at 1947.

No now they claim their history is 500000000 years old. Anyways the history they have look at is lost 1945 when Cold War started.

 

[tramp]

It's a question to which there is no answer. That's why the US and Soviet built 100,000 warheads between them at the height of the Cold War. Better sense has since prevailed and we are down to a few thousands.

Pakistan has learned nothing from the Cold War and thinks nukes can save it from everything. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to fail.

All that huge stockpile of nukes did not prevent Soviet Union from imploding... and what is a weak state like Pakistan!!

 

[Razor]

How many nukes make for credible deterrence?? Few dozen? hundreds? thousands?
how many delivery systems??

I think it depends on your opponent. If your opponent is a technologically and militarily capable nation which is capable of identifying (via HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT or whatever means) your missile launch sites and or capable of tracking your SSBNs then the more nukes there are the more deterrence projected.

Its not exactly the numbers... but the potency that matters. A variety of delivery methods like the triad under a proper command deters any enemy because they would know they would not get away lightly after the first strike. In fact a few dozen would suffice if they are discreetly distributed and kept ready for delivery through different methods --- missiles, both ballistic and cruise, bombers, rail mobile, road mobile, and submarine... so that any mischief maker would not know where the strike will come from.
India's no-first strike possibility is perfect in this regard.

It is right that spreading your nukes into SSBNs, land based silos, mobile launch vehicles, bombers, rail based systems etc will help in increasing the deterrence, but capable enemy can locate and/or track these launch systems and therefore in this case there more there are, the better the deterrence.

As of 2011 the Russian Federation possesses just under 1600 strategic warheads and the USA just under 1800 strategic warheads in active duty.

 

[From Realm of D&T]

The current number of our nukes may not be enough keeping in mind we are going to have 5 SSBNs, each having 12 missiles (16 probably for S-5 and and later SSBN)

The number of warheads may jump to 150-190

 

[Yusuf]

I think it depends on your opponent. If your opponent is a technologically and militarily capable nation which is capable of identifying (via HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT or whatever means) your missile launch sites and or capable of tracking your SSBNs then the more nukes there are the more deterrence projected.



It is right that spreading your nukes into SSBNs, land based silos, mobile launch vehicles, bombers, rail based systems etc will help in increasing the deterrence, but capable enemy can locate and/or track these launch systems and therefore in this case there more there are, the better the deterrence.

As of 2011 the Russian Federation possesses just under 1600 strategic warheads and the USA just under 1800 strategic warheads in active duty.

Your points are questions and the answers to it as well.

The Cold War adversaries thought they could win a nuclear war and prepared for it. They kept building more and more bombs and found that the more they built, the less secure they got. Nuclear weapons are deterrent. One bomb that manages to get through all hour fancy defences is enough to take out a couple of million people and that is not acceptable. 3000 lives that were lost in WTC was not acceptable (as it should be the case) hundreds of thousands lives certainly will not be acceptable and is a deterrent. That's when you start talking hotline, arms reductions, CBMs etc.

But then you can only reason with same people not foolish ones.

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

The NUCLEAR AGE IS A CURSE TO THE HUMANITY, RATHER THAN A BOON. We achieved enemity through this newly found technology, nothing else. We found a new way to end ourselves.