-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 111075)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 1032 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 150776020938.png - (62.00KB , 1200x627 , NUKEM! world nuclear weapon stockpile 2-27-2016.png )
111075 No. 111075 ID: 8c18eb
Nukes - how many is enough?
US nuclear arsenal:
The USA had a peak stockpile of 31,255 warheads in 1967, but such wild overkill was seen as crazy and wasteful, so this was reduced in several treaties with the Soviets and others to our current nuclear stockpile (usable and not) of 4,480 warheads (2017) where this excludes 2,800 that are retired and awaiting dismantlement. Our current strategic arsenal is 1,411 deployed strategic nuclear warheads ready to fly. That is plenty to eradicate countries you don't agree with (a Pentagon study during the Cold War concluded that around 300 nuclear bombs dropped on a an average-sized country will render it "destroyed" economically and militarily). But how many is enough for the US's military needs?

Donald Trump now reportedly wanted almost 10 times more nuclear weapons in the US's arsenal.

During a meeting in July with America’s highest-ranking national security leaders, the President was shown a chart depicting the US’s steady reduction of its nuclear weapons stockpile since the late 1960s. But Mr Trump apparently wanted a bigger stockpile, surprising his advisers including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to NBC News. In response, officials told the President about the legal and practical impediments to a nuclear buildup and how the current military posture is stronger than it was at the height of the build-up, the news outlet reported. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nuclear-weapons-us-arsenal-ten-times-more-reports-latest-a7994956.html
Expand all images
>> No. 111078 ID: 8c18eb
File 150776804492.jpg - (266.84KB , 1600x1200 , Russian nuke SS-18 Satan R-36M Dnepr ICBM 1.jpg )
Schizos and Satan http://operatorchan.org/t/res/107399.html
Russia's Defense Ministry-run Zvezda TV network announced last week: "Schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow." Amid growing international tensions, the Russian government has launched a nationwide civil defense training exercise to ensure the country is properly prepared in the event of a nuclear, chemical and biological attack from the West. Lasting three days, the exercise being run by the Ministry for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM) will involve 200,000 emergency personnel and the co-operation of 40 million civilians. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapon-training-attack-radiation-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7345461.html

And on top of this, Russian media is touting their new RS-28 Sarmat super-heavy nuclear missile nicknamed the Satan 2. A Russian missile design company has unveiled the first image of a new weapon in Russia's arsenal: the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, nicknamed "Satan 2." https://youtu.be/kqd2emeVuPQ

The Satan name is the NATO reporting name of the weapon (the name NATO countries give to Soviet and Russian weapons). The 1974 SS-18 (R-36M) ICBM was designated the Satan by NATO and this new RS-28 Sarmat has the NATO reporting name of SS-X-30 Satan 2. The Satan-2's maximum reported throw-weight is up to 10,000 kg (10 metric tons) and the missile could deliver a 50 megaton charge with 10 to 15 MIRV warheads carried giving it the ability to wipe out a country like France or a large state like Texas with one missile. Contemporary U.S. missiles, such as the Minuteman III, carried up to three warheads at most. The larger US LGM-118 Peacekeeper ICBM carried ten 300 to 475 kiloton MIRV warheads.
>> No. 111080 ID: 8c18eb
File 150776932686.jpg - (1.98MB , 2048x1536 , Russian nuke SS-X-30 Satan II (RS-28 Sarmat) 10,00.jpg )
Previous discussion on nuclear war and tea cookies:
Putin was exemplifying the dick-waving school of nuclear brinkmanship by announcing a super-duper nuke that can take out a whole country by itself, but but you can just save your money and send two older and already paid-for ICBMs.

The RS-28 Sarmat (Russian: РС-28 Сармат, after the Sarmat Eurasian region; NATO reporting name: SS-X-30 SATAN 2), is a Russian liquid-fueled, MIRV-equipped, super-heavy thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile in development by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau from 2009, intended to replace the previous R-36M missile (SS-18 Satan).

Its large payload of about 10 tonnes would allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones or up to 24 hypersonic glide vehicles Yu-71/Yu-74, or a combination of warheads and massive amounts of countermeasures designed to defeat anti-missile systems;it was heralded by the Russian military as a response to the U.S. Prompt Global Strike. It is suspected to have a Fractional Orbital Bombardment (FOBS) capability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat
>> No. 111081 ID: 8c18eb
  Why You Should Care About Nukes https://youtu.be/qRnU0bqsyq0
For info about divesting from nuclear weapons companies, go to http://responsibleinvest.org/
>> No. 111082 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777277299.jpg - (232.12KB , 1024x768 , US nuke W80 warhead 5 to 150kt for cruise missiles.jpg )
How much do nuclear weapons actually cost?
The U.S. government is now estimated to have 6,800 nuclear weapons at its disposal, but America hasn't actually built a new warhead or bomb since the 1990s. "It has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime," says Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior scientist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program.
The B61-12 atomic bombs, for instance, are to undergo a life-extension program that will cost roughly $9.5 billion. There are 400 to 500 of these bombs, says Gronlund, which means refurbishing one will cost about $20 million.
W-80 warheads, another type being refurbished, are estimated to cost $75 million each when you account for the price tag of the B52 bombers that deliver them. Frank G. Klotz, the national administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration, estimated that the total cost of the W-80 life extension plan will be $7.3 billion to $9.9 billion over 17 years.
Gronlund predicts that, in total, the U.S. will spend $250 billion on its nuclear program in the next few decades. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-weapon-costs.html
>> No. 111083 ID: 2001f3
File 150777297727.jpg - (4.57MB , 4610x3599 , SRMSC_MSR_HAER_ND-9-B.jpg )
Bring back real ABM systems.
>> No. 111084 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777301740.jpg - (176.16KB , 768x1024 , US nuke W80 warhead 5 to 150kt for cruise missiles.jpg )
The W80 nuclear warhead is a small nuke (under 300 pounds with a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kilotons of TNT) for cruise missiles like the AGM-86 ALCM, AGM-129 ACM and BGM-109 Tomahawk (1981–present).
>> No. 111085 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777331291.jpg - (187.63KB , 900x1200 , US nuke W80 warhead 5 to 150kt for cruise missiles.jpg )
The W80 warhead is deployed on air-launched cruise missiles and would be delivered by B52 bombers. The cruise missiles cost roughly $1 million each. The bombers, which were built back in the 1950s at a cost of $650 million each in today’s dollars, can carry 12 cruise missiles—for a per warhead cost of $55 million. Adding in the cost of a new warhead would bring the total to $75 million per deployed weapon.

B61 and B83 bombs would be delivered by B2 bombers—the so-called stealth bomber. It cost some $80 billion to develop and build 21 of these planes, or $4 billion per B2 bomber, and the current life extension program will cost $10 billion. Each can carry up to 16 bombs, so the total cost of each deployed bomb would be roughly $270 million, taking into account its share of the bomber.

What does all this add up to? Assuming the DOE and DOD plans move forward, and the United States makes further modest reductions in its deployed and reserve arsenal (to a total of 3,000 weapons) the United States will spend some $250 billion on new nuclear warheads and delivery systems in the next few decades. That's roughly equal to 30 years of federal funding for Head Start programs for kids at 2012 enrollment levels. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/nuclear-weapon-cost.html
>> No. 111086 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777352035.jpg - (526.33KB , 1600x863 , US nuke B61 nuclear bomb 2.jpg )
The United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, but it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. The DOE is currently refurbishing as many as 2,000 submarine-based W76 warheads at a cost of roughly $2 million each.

Next up for life extension is the B61 bomb. It will undergo much more extensive modifications than the W76, and the estimated price tag reflects this: It will cost $8 billion to $10 billion to refurbish 400 to 500 B61 bombs—about $20 million each.

The United States plans to replace its entire arsenal with a suite of five new weapon types over the next 25 to 30 years, violating the spirit if not the letter of President Obama’s 2010 pledge not to develop new nuclear warheads. Dubbed “3+2,” the plan would result in three weapon types for long-range missiles, and two for delivery by aircraft. One would be deployed on an air-launched cruise missile and one would be a bomb. Ultimately, the plan calls for some 3,000 of these new weapons at an estimated cost of $60 billion, or $20 million each. However, it likely will be cheaper to renovate the B61 than build one of these new weapons, so $60 billion probably underestimates the cost.
>> No. 111087 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777390866.jpg - (269.16KB , 1800x1183 , US nuke Minuteman-III (LGM-30G) ICBM silo 1.jpg )
The delivery systems are more expensive: The Minuteman III land-based missiles, which carry one warhead, cost about $50 million each in today’s dollars. The DOD is modifying them to extend their lifetime at a cost of about $15 million each. Thus, the cost of each deployed land-based nuclear weapon would be roughly $85 million.

The DOD also is modifying Trident submarine-based missiles—which initially cost about $100 million each—to extend their lifetimes at a cost of about $140 million apiece.

The Navy’s plan is to replace 12 of its nuclear-armed submarines starting next decade, at a cost of some $8 billion each. Each new submarine would carry 16 Trident missiles that likely would have four warheads, for a total of 64 warheads per vessel. Thus, the total cost for each submarine-based nuclear warhead would be roughly $200 million.
>> No. 111088 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777444042.jpg - (208.92KB , 1067x800 , US nuke B61 nuclear bomb 3.jpg )
ABM threads here:
>> No. 111089 ID: 8c18eb
  America's nuclear bomb gets a makeover https://youtu.be/4wLe1eiPhi4 Published on Nov 5, 2015
Greatly reduced since its Cold War heyday, some say the U.S. nuclear arsenal is overdue for an overhaul. The PBS Newshour got exclusive and unprecedented access to labs and facilities across the country to observe how the B-61 nuclear bomb is being upgraded and modernized.

The B61 nuclear weapon rejuvenation program, at 8.1 billion dollars, means these 700 lb bombs cost 20 million dollars to modernize.
>> No. 111090 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777884240.png - (178.65KB , 1201x1113 , NUKEM! world nuclear weapon stockpile 2017 1.png )
The Federation of American Scientists and other organizations keep track of these nuclear stockpiles and regularly release updated weapons counts.

Below is a map that shows the best estimates of which countries have nukes and how many they have. http://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-weapons-stockpiles-world-map-2017-8
>> No. 111092 ID: 8c18eb
File 150777890980.png - (77.50KB , 1239x739 , NUKEM! world nuclear weapon stockpile 2017 2.png )
Status of World Nuclear Forces
The number of nuclear weapons in the world has declined significantly since the Cold War: down from a peak of approximately 70,300 in 1986 to an estimated 14,900 in early-2017. Government officials often portray that accomplishment as a result of current arms control agreements, but the overwhelming portion of the reduction happened in the 1990s. Moreover, comparing today’s inventory with that of the 1950s is like comparing apples and oranges; today’s forces are vastly more capable. The pace of reduction has slowed significantly. Instead of planning for nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future. https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
>> No. 111101 ID: 278cbe
File 150793908986.jpg - (1.66MB , 3500x2333 , 15078400263730.jpg )
Well, judging by the actions of US diplomats in the last several months, one can conclude that US and NATO has been preparing for set date and time for some sort of large scale invasion. Again. And again, only symbolically.

>embassy closure
>diplomat expulsion
>other sorts of bullshit

>The US failed to issue entry visas for the entire delegation of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces

>The senior Russian senator warned that Russia is capable to arrange a decent response if US leaves the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Apparently, current lack of international policy in US (a direct consequence of Trump controversy) has been already exploited by some influential parties with their own separate interests. Weither it is a realistic scenario, or will it be put in action at all, is entirely different question.



Not funny, guys, not funny. Talk about dick waving, Bats.

On picture:

>The Rokot is a Russian space launch vehicle that can launch a payload of 1,950 kilograms into a 200 kilometre high Earth orbit with 63° inclination. It is a derivative of the UR-100N (SS-19 Stiletto) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), supplied and operated by Eurockot Launch Services.
>> No. 111102 ID: b3f8f4
I don't think you ever really can have enough nukes
>> No. 111112 ID: 8c18eb
File 150795425445.jpg - (50.22KB , 720x454 , US nuke B61 nuclear bomb, 141_6 in_ long, 13_3 in_.jpg )
Eh, then you pay for them.
Just to do a factory refurbish of an old B61 nuclear bomb (upgrading the fixed air fins for movable ones, exchanging the vacuum tube electronics for a microprocessor board, installing new data plugs, etc.) costs twenty million dollars. If that 750 lb bomb was made of solid gold, it would not cost that much!
An example of a defense contractor turning a simple upgrade job (they do nothing to the actual nuclear weapon within the bomb casing) into a nine billion dollar swindle.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post