By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Most powerful Nuclear bomb in America being dismantled!

Andrespetmonkey on 25 October 2011
brendude13 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
brendude13 said:

I would join you, but he looks exactly like my dad...EXACTLY.

Oh yeah. You're making this easy.

I did fap over Bruce Willis once, but he was ontop of Jennifer Aniston at the time...



My Music

Around the Network
brendude13 on 25 October 2011
Andrespetmonkey said:
brendude13 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
brendude13 said:

I would join you, but he looks exactly like my dad...EXACTLY.

Oh yeah. You're making this easy.

I did fap over Bruce Willis once, but he was ontop of Jennifer Aniston at the time...

NOOOOOOO!!! She will never be the same again!!!

EDIT: I think we derailed this thread a little xD

So atomic bombs eh...What a bitch they can be.



blkfish92 on 25 October 2011

1 bomb among thousands dismantled, I feel so much safer.



           

Andrespetmonkey on 25 October 2011
brendude13 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
brendude13 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
brendude13 said:

I would join you, but he looks exactly like my dad...EXACTLY.

Oh yeah. You're making this easy.

I did fap over Bruce Willis once, but he was ontop of Jennifer Aniston at the time...

NOOOOOOO!!! She will never be the same again!!!

EDIT: I think we derailed this thread a little xD

So atomic bombs eh...What a bitch they can be.

Nah, atomic bombs are cool bruh.





My Music

Marks on 25 October 2011
Rath said:
Marks said:
Cool I guess. They're already built though so kinda pointless dismantling them, unless you're combining them into fewer, bigger bombs.


Just fewer bombs. Reduces costs and also goes a way towards to eventual goal of total nuclear disarmament. 

America and Russia now realise that having enough bombs to destroy all potential enemies a hundred times over is probably overkill.


Does it actually reduce costs? I would have thought paying the mechanics to disassemble costs more than keeping them in storage. I'm not sure though I'm just talking off the top of my head. 



Around the Network
mrstickball on 25 October 2011
Marks said:


Does it actually reduce costs? I would have thought paying the mechanics to disassemble costs more than keeping them in storage. I'm not sure though I'm just talking off the top of my head. 

 

The bombs have a shelf life. Therefore, if you want to keep 2,000 in active stock, you have to constantly dismantle and produce new ones, thus costing money. In the case of this bomb, it was a relic from a bygone era. Its so big because it was to be dropped from a bomber (B-52, B2 or B1), thus would potentially be very inaccurate. Alternatively, the ones we have in stock are much more accurate, thus require a smaller yield to achieve a kill (e.g. ICBM, MIRV and SLBM).

On one end, its sad to see this go. On the other end, we have many left to defend ourselves and assure MAD for decades to come.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

bonkers555 on 25 October 2011

......



My Video Games Collection/Set-Up.

NobleTeam360 on 25 October 2011

We still have thousands left so tell me when we dismantle enough that won't completely destroy the world.



Marks on 26 October 2011
mrstickball said:
Marks said:


Does it actually reduce costs? I would have thought paying the mechanics to disassemble costs more than keeping them in storage. I'm not sure though I'm just talking off the top of my head. 

 

The bombs have a shelf life. Therefore, if you want to keep 2,000 in active stock, you have to constantly dismantle and produce new ones, thus costing money. In the case of this bomb, it was a relic from a bygone era. Its so big because it was to be dropped from a bomber (B-52, B2 or B1), thus would potentially be very inaccurate. Alternatively, the ones we have in stock are much more accurate, thus require a smaller yield to achieve a kill (e.g. ICBM, MIRV and SLBM).

On one end, its sad to see this go. On the other end, we have many left to defend ourselves and assure MAD for decades to come.

Cool thanks for the explain. Makes sense. 



Vetteman94 on 27 October 2011
spurgeonryan said:
Marks said:
mrstickball said:
Marks said:


Does it actually reduce costs? I would have thought paying the mechanics to disassemble costs more than keeping them in storage. I'm not sure though I'm just talking off the top of my head. 

 

The bombs have a shelf life. Therefore, if you want to keep 2,000 in active stock, you have to constantly dismantle and produce new ones, thus costing money. In the case of this bomb, it was a relic from a bygone era. Its so big because it was to be dropped from a bomber (B-52, B2 or B1), thus would potentially be very inaccurate. Alternatively, the ones we have in stock are much more accurate, thus require a smaller yield to achieve a kill (e.g. ICBM, MIRV and SLBM).

On one end, its sad to see this go. On the other end, we have many left to defend ourselves and assure MAD for decades to come.

Cool thanks for the explain. Makes sense. 


So how much do you think it cost us each time we refill all 2,000 plus of these bombs?

Well we have alot more than 2000 of them, but you would do a small percentage of them every year.  It built into our defense budget, which everyone knows is astronomical. So finding out the true cost would be pretty tough.  Although with the technology we have today I am sure we have a streamlined process for something like this given that most of our tactical ones have been built fairly recently.