11 ms·

The US has 400 land-based nuclear weapons, not thousands upon thousands. They're there to be a better thing for our enemies to aim at than our cities.

tylerflick 2y ago
Exactly. If anyone is curious, look up the term Nuclear Sponge.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Nobody's going to be aiming at nuclear silos in the middle of nowhere that are not only designed to withstand a nuclear attack, but may well have also launched by the time your missile arrives. US early Cold War targets have been declassified. [1] We did make efforts to target airfields where nukes would have launched from (prior to the ICBM), but those were valuable and weakly defended targets, regardless of whether the enemy's ships were already airborne or not. But a large chunk of our missiles were directed towards agriculture, industry, medicine product, and a large number of targets were justified as simply "population." The Soviet targets likely would have been more or less identical. In nuclear war the goal will not be to eliminate the enemy's military - military's can be rebuilt. At the point of nuclear war absolutely all norms and rules of conflict will have been discarded. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's entire country, such that he might never be a threat again. In such a situation I'd feel far safer standing near a nuclear bunker out in the middle of nowhere than I would in the middle of a high population, high economic value urban area. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...
saganus 2y ago
According to this [0] the number of warheads as of 2020 is 3750 which does kind of qualify as "thousands upon thousands". Edit: I don't think it matters if "only" 400 are land-based, does it? it's still "thousands". [0] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_Unclass_2021_final-v2-002.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_...
- knorker 2y ago
  There's MIRV, so depends what you mean by "these things". But also some among these 3750 are in subs, and bombers. And as for "100 would do": Well, if they all hit their targets, maybe. But part of the reason for overkill is so that even a sneak attack that's 90% successful should trigger MAD. Well, I say "should", but more like that's the cold logical deterrence rationale.
  - baybal2 2y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
jp191919 2y ago
Not a launch site, but the largest stockpile of deployed nukes in the world is in a heavily populated area near seattle. https://truthout.org/articles/puget-sound-is-home-to-the-biggest-nuclear-stockpile-in-the-world/ https://truthout.org/articles/puget-sound-is-home-to-the-big...

tylerflick 2y ago

Exactly. If anyone is curious, look up the term Nuclear Sponge.

somenameforme 2y ago
Nobody's going to be aiming at nuclear silos in the middle of nowhere that are not only designed to withstand a nuclear attack, but may well have also launched by the time your missile arrives. US early Cold War targets have been declassified. [1] We did make efforts to target airfields where nukes would have launched from (prior to the ICBM), but those were valuable and weakly defended targets, regardless of whether the enemy's ships were already airborne or not. But a large chunk of our missiles were directed towards agriculture, industry, medicine product, and a large number of targets were justified as simply "population." The Soviet targets likely would have been more or less identical. In nuclear war the goal will not be to eliminate the enemy's military - military's can be rebuilt. At the point of nuclear war absolutely all norms and rules of conflict will have been discarded. The goal is going to be to eliminate the enemy's entire country, such that he might never be a threat again. In such a situation I'd feel far safer standing near a nuclear bunker out in the middle of nowhere than I would in the middle of a high population, high economic value urban area. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nuclear-target-list-offers-chilling-insight.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/1950s-us-nucl...

saganus 2y ago

According to this [0] the number of warheads as of 2020 is 3750 which does kind of qualify as "thousands upon thousands". Edit: I don't think it matters if "only" 400 are land-based, does it? it's still "thousands". [0] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_Unclass_2021_final-v2-002.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_...

knorker 2y ago
There's MIRV, so depends what you mean by "these things". But also some among these 3750 are in subs, and bombers. And as for "100 would do": Well, if they all hit their targets, maybe. But part of the reason for overkill is so that even a sneak attack that's 90% successful should trigger MAD. Well, I say "should", but more like that's the cold logical deterrence rationale.
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

jp191919 2y ago

Not a launch site, but the largest stockpile of deployed nukes in the world is in a heavily populated area near seattle. https://truthout.org/articles/puget-sound-is-home-to-the-biggest-nuclear-stockpile-in-the-world/ https://truthout.org/articles/puget-sound-is-home-to-the-big...