That is the number of nuclear weapons, active and reserve, the U.S. has as of Sept. 30, 2009.

In a first, the DoD announced the number the U.S. has, and a graph going back to the Cold War on number. The DoD also include dismantlement rates over the years.

They did not break down deployed, but that was known in press accounts anyways, know to be around 2,300. So, we have 2,300 deployed, ready to fire and around 2,813 in reserve.

For anyone that studied the issue, it was not hard to determine the number and it makes no sense to keep the number secret. Apparently, it was suppose to come out in the Nuclear Posture Review, but the Intel community, for some strange reason denied it.

Now, releasing the number shows the U.S. is transparent about its stockpile and is willing to discuss about going lower. We have nothing to hide.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf

don't we need like 10?

lol, 1,000 total is enough now to deter. Although, three air force generals called for 311.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2010/spring/forsythsaltzmanschaub.pdf

^^^ Yea, I think we have plenty to destroy the world.

The question is how do we deter other countries from developing neclear weapons?
Having the bigger gun is not the answer since we really can't "shoot" it.

LJ wrote: don't we need like 10?

11.........oh sorry, thought this was the Price is Right.

And we believe these numbers??? You guys need to buy my 1,000 acres of ocean front property I own.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6D4-ESfI87ghtCEm-TqM3RnqlXA

Mr. 300 wrote: And we believe these numbers??? You guys need to buy my 1,000 acres of ocean front property I own.

Because they are DoD and NNSA numbers themselves and they closely match the numbers that Federation of American Scientists have been tracking. http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f64x2k3716wq9613/fulltext.pdf

If you follow the issue, it is pretty easy to figure out the numbers, based on deployed missiles, deployed subs, deployed bombers, arms control agreements, DoE news briefs, and budgets.

QuakerOats wrote: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6D4-ESfI87ghtCEm-TqM3RnqlXA

Considering conservative Hawk James Schlesinger testified last week that the new START Treat should be ratified, I don't give Rep. (not a Senator) Cantor much credence on the issue. I highly doubt he has even read the treaty.

Did he also watch SECSTATE Clinton's speech at the UN yesterday? She pretty much called out Iran, and supported Israel.

QuakerOats wrote: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6D4-ESfI87ghtCEm-TqM3RnqlXA

Well, i think that Miss Clinton would disagree with this, as she openly sided with Israel yesterday, pretty much.

And, not sure why he is attacking the treaty, doesn't compromise our defense whatsoever...it is like he never even read the damn thing.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: That is the number of nuclear weapons, active and reserve, the U.S. has as of Sept. 30, 2009.

In a first, the DoD announced the number the U.S. has, and a graph going back to the Cold War on number. The DoD also include dismantlement rates over the years.

They did not break down deployed, but that was known in press accounts anyways, know to be around 2,300. So, we have 2,300 deployed, ready to fire and around 2,813 in reserve.

For anyone that studied the issue, it was not hard to determine the number and it makes no sense to keep the number secret. Apparently, it was suppose to come out in the Nuclear Posture Review, but the Intel community, for some strange reason denied it.

Now, releasing the number shows the U.S. is transparent about its stockpile and is willing to discuss about going lower. We have nothing to hide.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf

Do you screen your own OP's? Just curious how that works.

Mr. 300 wrote: And we believe these numbers??? You guys need to buy my 1,000 acres of ocean front property I own.

Nope, I wouldn't believe it if the government said the Earth was round. Anyone who thinks the government is going to publish the actual number of nuclear weapons it has is a naive fool.

Footwedge wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: That is the number of nuclear weapons, active and reserve, the U.S. has as of Sept. 30, 2009.

In a first, the DoD announced the number the U.S. has, and a graph going back to the Cold War on number. The DoD also include dismantlement rates over the years.

They did not break down deployed, but that was known in press accounts anyways, know to be around 2,300. So, we have 2,300 deployed, ready to fire and around 2,813 in reserve.

For anyone that studied the issue, it was not hard to determine the number and it makes no sense to keep the number secret. Apparently, it was suppose to come out in the Nuclear Posture Review, but the Intel community, for some strange reason denied it.

Now, releasing the number shows the U.S. is transparent about its stockpile and is willing to discuss about going lower. We have nothing to hide.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf

Do you screen your own OP's? Just curious how that works.

Come again?

tk421 wrote:

Mr. 300 wrote: And we believe these numbers??? You guys need to buy my 1,000 acres of ocean front property I own.

Nope, I wouldn't believe it if the government said the Earth was round. Anyone who thinks the government is going to publish the actual number of nuclear weapons it has is a naive fool.

Why would you think they would not publish it? It is already public knowledge, the START Treaty limits to 1,550 and the Moscow Treaty before that limits us to 2,200 deployed, which even the DoD said we were near.

Also, it is not hard to figure it out. We have 450 Minuteman missiles at 3 airbases, 1 warhead per missile, save 25 missiles that have 2 warheads, for a total of 500 warheads on top of the missiles.

We have 14 Ohio class submarines, each sub carries 24 Trident II missiles, which has 4-6 warheads a piece. We also know that at least 10 are at sea at all time, at least 2 in dry dock in Washington and Maine at all times. Do the math.

Add in the bombers, which is the smallest portion of the triad, are located in Montana and Wyoming. The weapons are stored onsite and number a few hundred.
See the link I posted.
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f64x2k3716wq9613/fulltext.pdf

Again, people who study the issue already know the general number, so I am sure most countries do as well. It makes no sense to hide the number and create doubts of secrecy.

yes, and there are people that study the numbers on wall street, as well as the budget, and well, we all know how that works.

Your spin is not surprising, but we need to consider the source.

lol, just google:
Warren AFB
Malmstrom AFB
Minot AFB
On the websites are the number of Minuteman III
150 at each base, meaning 450 total.

Minot also is the base for the B52, the numbers on their site.

Ohio class submarine:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=200&ct=4

The recent Nuclear Posture Review stated we will continue to 14 Ohio class subs.

You can quickly google and find how many warheads a Trident and Minuteman can carry.
Also, they are in the budgets and numerous, numerous briefings on the Hill by military people.

Again, for people who follow this, and know it was already pretty known.
Now, these are Defense Department sites, do you trust them? Or only the part of the DoD you pick and choose?

Here is also Amy Woolfe, of the Congressional Research Services, a nonpartisan organization that briefs Congress:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf

And the Nuclear Posture Review: pp. 45-46
http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

Enough sources?

If you like, tomorrow I can provide sources of Congressional testimony by former Defense officials speaking to the same numbers as well.

Yes, and the gov't can provide source after source that the new healthcare plan is going to SAVE me money.

See how that works. Investment bankers provided customer's info that every investment is solid...Bernie Madhoff had quite a line to give people. The dems and repubs both said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you need more???

And let me ask you this??? You really think....deep down inside...that the Russians are doing exactly as they SAY they will?? It's all smoke and mirrors in the gov't. You dept is no different.

The Russians? Where did they enter the picture? Besides, the treaty is verifiable-I won't go into how, I'll just say that any violation would be caught. National Technical Means and onsite verification ensure. Read the treaty-START, Moscow Treaty and reStart.

So, you don't trust the numbers the Defense Department releases?
Do you trust anything the Defense Department does? Do you trust what they are saying in Iraq now, or Afghanistan now?
Do you think SECDEEF Gates is lying? Admiral Mullen?
General Cartwright (Look his name up, you probably will need to).

Linking it to other issues makes no sense, as they are not related. No one in Congress released the number or was involved.
I highly doubt the DoD would go to all this trouble for nothing.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

You are so out of touch it's unbelievable.

Thanks. I only work on the issue for a living.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Come again?

Just a little joke...that's all.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Thanks. I only work on the issue for a living.

As do all the other people/situations I mentioned.

Footwedge wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Come again?

Just a little joke...that's all.

Haha. Gotya.

Mr. 300 wrote: You are so out of touch it's unbelievable.

HAHA someone is new to the defense threads. ptown is omniscient in these matters.

I do though believe that the government wouldn't really tell you exactly what is going on. I mean wasn't the stealth bomber first built in like 1979 and not made public in 1989? Just saying, the government isn't dumb enough to put all of our cards on the table, I think they just know that hiding our nukes is rather silly, no one can get to them. Our deterrence to other powers is as solid as it can be, so you wouldn't have to worry about that. I think they know nukes are rather useless against rogue states and extremists, so we might as well try and limit the number of nukes available abroad for them to capture in any way possible--even if it means limiting our own.

Listen folk, we're still pretty set defensively. Our nuclear stockpile is safe and can demolish any opposing power. Furthermore, what country has the ability to invade us? None. We have two gigantic oceans and a navy that dwarfs any other in the world. We're pretty damn safe people, barring some genetically engineered virus that'd kill everyone.

I believe the numbers and that is way too many. These will never be used, and if they need to be used, it's game over for everyone anyway.

Footwedge wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: That is the number of nuclear weapons, active and reserve, the U.S. has as of Sept. 30, 2009.

In a first, the DoD announced the number the U.S. has, and a graph going back to the Cold War on number. The DoD also include dismantlement rates over the years.

They did not break down deployed, but that was known in press accounts anyways, know to be around 2,300. So, we have 2,300 deployed, ready to fire and around 2,813 in reserve.

For anyone that studied the issue, it was not hard to determine the number and it makes no sense to keep the number secret. Apparently, it was suppose to come out in the Nuclear Posture Review, but the Intel community, for some strange reason denied it.

Now, releasing the number shows the U.S. is transparent about its stockpile and is willing to discuss about going lower. We have nothing to hide.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf

Do you screen your own OP's? Just curious how that works.

No, his shit just shows up and I am like "WTF...?!?!?!"

I still can't believe we had 30,000+ nukes. I mean, shouldn't there have been people whispering "You know, we can destroy Russia ten times over, but we really only need the strength to do it once."