| Kantor said: Could somebody please explain to me what the point of this nuke stockpiling is? Because I genuinely don't understand. If you're going to nuke North Korea, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to nuke North Korea, and the entire Middle East, you don't need 5500 warheads. If you're going to carpet nuke Asia, you might need 5500 warheads. Which would suggest that Mr. Peace Prize Winner wants to carpet nuke Asia. I highly doubt that. |
A few simple reasons:
- Accuracy
- Volume
We have a lot of warheads from decades gone by when nuclear weapons were not accurate. When we hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were actually miles off course. We had to maintain a large stockpile to ensure we actually....Hit the target. Most US/Russian nuclear targets are designated for multiple strikes to ensure an area is decimated. With the advent of more accurate ICBMs and targeting measures, its a bit easier to hit what your aiming for, thus the reduction of stockpiles.
Volume-wise, the ORBAT for nuclear warfare is to hit targets a few times, let some time pass, then strike again when the survivors have come out. I would also mention that not every nuke is a city-buster. There are many in the stockpiles that aren't very large, and are tactical in nature. Finally, one assumes that some of the nukes, in a strike, would be deflected by aircraft, SAMs or other such weaponry.
.
That doesn't mean that I think we need that many. I could see having that many *if* focused on deflecting asteroids and other space objects, but not scorching other countries. The US could probably decimate Russia with 100 modern nukes, if not less. Same goes for Russia.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
