Started By
Message

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted by LC412000
Any location where a plane flies
Member since Mar 2004
16673 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:52 pm
Who else besides the USA has nuclear weapons at their disposal?

Russia does, but who else in the world?
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98828 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:53 pm to
Yes, along with a lot of other countries.
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
24698 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. In total, the global nuclear stockpile is close to 13,000 weapons.


Is it weird that Japan doesn't have a nuclear arms program?
This post was edited on 10/10/23 at 1:55 pm
Posted by TheFonz
Somewhere in Louisiana
Member since Jul 2016
20357 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:55 pm to
Posted by Topisawtiger
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2012
3488 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:55 pm to
Yes. Along with Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, and perhaps Iran.
Posted by David_DJS
Member since Aug 2005
17865 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:55 pm to
quote:

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Is the pope Catholic?

Wait. Nevermind.

frick this gay world.
Posted by LC412000
Any location where a plane flies
Member since Mar 2004
16673 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:56 pm to
Nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. In total, the global nuclear stockpile is close to 13,000 weapons.

That sucks, I did not realize all these countries had these weapons
Posted by jcaz
Laffy
Member since Aug 2014
15549 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:57 pm to
Yes but they will not use them against Hamas. Maybe Iran if existentially threatened
Posted by momentoftruth87
Member since Oct 2013
71272 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:58 pm to
Most don’t have ICBM capabilities that can strike the US.
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
24698 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:58 pm to
No idea why we need 5200 nuclear missiles.. Seems that's enough to blow up the world several times over.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26082 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:58 pm to
quote:

Who else besides the USA has nuclear weapons at their disposal?


Russia
China
India
Pakistan
UK
France
Israel
North Korea

Japan has the capability to assemble a device in short order if they decide to do so. I assume they are not alone in that.

South Africa had them and supposedly gave them up/destroyed them.
Posted by Chad504boy
4 posts
Member since Feb 2005
166148 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:59 pm to
i wish Chad had 1.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26082 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:59 pm to
quote:

Is it weird that Japan doesn't have a nuclear arms program?

They have a wink wink ability to have one immediately should they politically decide to do so.
Posted by Chief One Word
Eastern Washington State
Member since Mar 2018
3686 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 1:59 pm to
quote:

Is it weird that Japan doesn't have a nuclear arms program?

Maybe because they saw the damage and death-wounded they can do.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26082 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

No idea why we need 5200 nuclear missiles.. Seems that's enough to blow up the world several times over

We have that many because we used to have 20k+

We’ve been reducing the arsenal for decades.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89488 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

Japan has the capability to assemble a device in short order if they decide to do so. I assume they are not alone in that.


Yes, Japan can have a deployable weapon assembled in about 60 days from the political decision to do so.

ETA: The Kingdom holds title to several weapons in Pakistan's possession.
This post was edited on 10/10/23 at 2:04 pm
Posted by StrongOffer
Member since Sep 2020
4308 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:02 pm to
North Korea warheads
Posted by momentoftruth87
Member since Oct 2013
71272 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:03 pm to
I think he was meaning the US would send one thru the air to their location of choice if anyone fkd with them.
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
24698 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:03 pm to
Yeah, as well as other countries have eliminated some as well too correct?

Knew we have been downsizing. Didn't know we started at 20k.

Was curious about how much they cost to produce..

quote:

Nuclear weapons have two basic parts: the warhead or bomb, and the delivery system. The United States has bombs that can be delivered by aircraft and warheads that are deployed on air-launched cruise missiles and land-based and submarine-based long-range missiles. The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for building and maintaining the warheads and bombs, while the Department of Defense (DOD) takes care of the delivery systems.

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.

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.

The W80 warhead, meanwhile, 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.

Finally, 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.


LINK
This post was edited on 10/10/23 at 2:04 pm
Posted by TheFonz
Somewhere in Louisiana
Member since Jul 2016
20357 posts
Posted on 10/10/23 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

No idea why we need 5200 nuclear missiles


It wouldn't be all missiles. That is total number of warheads. Some missiles carry multiple warheads. That is also counting bomber payload, tactical battlefield nukes, submarine launched, etc.
This post was edited on 10/10/23 at 2:06 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram