US Says It Has 5,113 Nuclear Warheads

news.yahoo.com ^ | May 3, 2010 | Anne Gearan

[FarRightFanatic]

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says the U.S. maintains 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and "several thousand" more retired nukes that await dismantling. Monday's announcement marked the first time the Pentagon has officially disclosed the number. The U.S. has previously regarded such details as top secret. A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says the size of the stockpile represents a 75 percent reduction since 1989.

[null and void]

I think Obama would use them.

Seriously??????

[VOA]

verdict: treason

Bailiff, next case...

[cowtowney]

“Fair enough. Let’s eliminate the military entirely.”

hyperbole is the best you could do?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Timely ping. Cobbling that with this for dip-lunacy [link in profie] ...

AHMADINEJAD [Iran]: USA SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR NUKE ‘THREATS’...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6423OK20100503
[China and Russia eager to hear him — US, England, and France walk out.]

[ArrogantBustard]

Is this an emotional answer or an objective one?

I don't do "emotional answers".

Why don’t we have 2 million nukes?

We don't have 2 million targets. Or even one million. Not every bomber or missile gets to its target

Our country is broke. We can no longer do things without thinking about the costs.

True, but irrelevant. We can't afford socialism. Never could. The cost of nukes is a drop in the bucket.

[cowtowney]

Cost is important
in order to have a strong military we have to be more efficient
our country is broke
if we can’t afford our military we become the old USSR quickly

I don’t believe somone is being unpatriotic by questioning our military expenditures
quite the opposite
we have so much waste in the military it’s sickening

[ArrogantBustard]

if we can’t afford our military

Is it the military we can't afford, or the socialism?

I disagree with what appear to be your priorities.

[ArrogantBustard]

From 2007. It does not include TARP, "Porkulus", bailing out GM and Chrysler or Obamacare.

I think your focus on cutting the military is misguided and dangerous.

[cowtowney]

I’m for cutting everywhere. We have to. We are broke.

If you don’t think there is pork in the Defense budget, look here: http://www.cagw.org/issues/defense.html

It’s put there by Congressmen and Defense officials.

We need to cut everywhere, not just Defense.

Our Government budget is $14 Trillion dollars as of 9/2010.
Our US GDP is $14 Trillion dollars.
These numbers don’t work.

[ArrogantBustard]

We need to cut everywhere, Instead, we're getting porkulus, TARP, obamacare, bailouts.

These need to be eliminated.

Then, let's have at the older socialism

not just Defense.

Defense:

a) has been getting severely cut for 20 years.

b) is an actual constitutionally required function of government.

I think your priorities are dangerously wrong.

[cowtowney]

“I think your priorities are dangerously wrong.”

My priority is the survival of our country, which won’t happen if we are broke.

[ArrogantBustard]

My priority is the survival of our country, which won’t happen if we can’t defend ourselves.

[nina0113]

Not 5,112; not 5,114; no, 5,113 EXACTLY. Who counted?

Thanks for telling the whole effing world.

[rednesss]

"My priority is the survival of our country, which won’t happen if we are broke."

I guess you found out it is not patriotic to question the $1,200 toilet seat, or the $800 hammer. If it costs more, it must be better. What amazes me is that the same people who will tell you that our education system is broken, and that throwing more money at it will not produce better results, will turn right around and come to the conclusion that throwing gobs more money at the Pentagon will somehow produce exponentially better defense of the country. What we actually get is the same number of tanks, it's just that instead of costing $5 million, it costs $15. Same number of tanks, it just costs more. We must be safer right??

[cowtowney]

thanks

[Sawdring]

I do. I think a Liberal President would be more apt to use a nuclear weapon than a conservative. Liberal foreign policy allows America’s enemies to grow more aggressive because the enemies don’t fear a response. This will lead the Liberal administration to back track and to get out of trouble, be forced to use whatever means necessary to remove the threat. A Conservative administration tends to take a harder line and the enemies of America understand that the threat of supreme force is always on the table for it, so they are less likely to make a power grab.

[null and void]

Hmmmm. Good point. Cornered ‘rat and all that.