3 ms·
The US has over 5,000 nuclear warheads. That's more than enough to drop 25 on every single country. I don't think there's any scenario justifying that arsenal.
by zug_zug 6y ago
The US has over 5,000 nuclear warheads. That's more than enough to drop 25 on every single country. I don't think there's any scenario justifying that arsenal.
- skinkestek 6y ago> I don't think there's any scenario justifying that arsenal. The scenario isn't based on a need to drop 25 nukes on every other country on earth but to be able to get back at anyone even in the case of a massive unwarned pre-emptive strike. Same on the Russian side, they probably still also have many more warheads than they need to obliterate any chosen enemy. Also, these systems takes decades to build, I don't think Putin and his leadership was/is particularly afraid of Bush, Obama or Trump planning a massive pre-emptive strike - or vice versa - these systems are probably in place because of presidents long dead and the risk of future presidents who still aren't more than bullies in elementary school.
- Retric 6y agoPre-emptive Nuclear strikes are shockingly ineffective vs a country the size of the US with Nuclear submarines. The fastest strike from a sub on each of the coasts gives plenty of time for Nukes in strategic locations to be detected and a strike to be launched. If it was needed, you can also design a bunker to survive a direct strike and launch after the fact. Though subs in the Great Lakes would be most cost effective option for the US.
- nojvek 6y agoTrump made a threat of using nuclear force many times if he had to. Other countries being afraid of US having nukes sounds fair. US then having more nukes also makes sense. Remember US govt spends trillions on the military complex. All that money has to go somewhere.