For the first time, Russia has more deployed nuclear warheads than U.S.

For the first time, Russia, which is in the midst of a major strategic nuclear modernization, has more deployed nuclear warheads than the United States, according to the latest numbers released by the State Department. Russia now has 1,643 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. The United States has 1,642, said the fact sheet released Wednesday. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

“Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty,” Mr. Inhofe stated in a recent op-ed in Foreign Policy. “The White House was at best nave to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit.” Mr. Inhofe stated that Russian deception in negotiating an arms reduction treaty while building up nuclear arms “poses a direct threat to the United States.” Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

www.washingtontimes.com...

Can we please for the love of God get rid of Obama now? Russia has been playing this game ever since the U.S. and other NATO allies PAID them to dismantle their missiles. They sure did chop up their old UN-accurate missiles, all the while they took our money and built new more accurate ones.

It gets even better!

China Conducts Flight Test of New Mobile ICBM

China’s military has conducted the first flight test of a new variant of one of its road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles in a sign that Beijing is increasing its strategic strike capability against the United States. The test of a new DF-31B missile was conducted Sept. 25 from a missile test range in central China.

And wait, here comes the kicker

The new DF-31B is the latest addition to China’s rapidly growing nuclear missile arsenal that includes older silo-based missiles and five other road-mobile missiles. They include the long-range DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs, intermediate-range DF-26Cs, and medium-range DF-21s—a missile the Chinese have developed into a dual, nuclear-conventional weapon that includes an anti-ship variant. A DF-21 variant also is believed to be used as China’s anti-satellite missile system.

freebeacon.com...

So its ok for everyone else to build intermediate nuclear missiles but we cant! What group of Generals are not screaming to Congress right now when they should be demanding that they be allowed to or have Russia and China called out on this right now?

If we do not hold their feet to the fire now then we need to start building the MX missiles and make them road mobile instead of that moron shelter system they had came up with that caused the program to die from cost. 75 percent of the cost of that program was not even the missiles themselves, it was the moronic shelter system.

Just to give you an idea of what the shelter system looked like, it served two purposes for all that do not know. One to keep the missile hidden in any one of many shelters so the Russians would not know which one it was in, HOWEVER all the shelters had the ability to open the top like a garage door to show the Russians by Satellite that we had a certain number of missiles. Now tell me if that made any dam sense!

waynebiddle.com... A nice site on the once great missile we had but lost do to cost and dumb policy.

I know nukes are not good but I for one do not sleep at night knowing our Minuteman missiles only have ONE warhead on them and the silos are do to reach their end of life by 2018. This all the while the Russians have new accurate missiles that are hard to find with multiple warheads.

Bring back the MX multiple warhead monster, Pershing intermediate range missile and our stealth Tomahawks for our Bombers. All these awesome systems were dismantled under the BS START Treaties. They were simply the best systems one could want, besides the MX shelter system.

The Russians were scared to death of these systems and they wanted them gone or they would not deal. This could have been the worst deal ever made between nations. One has to wonder why not one single U.S. president has called Russia out ever since they started building new ICBMs. They have left us in a situation to where most of our nuclear deterrent means nothing after a surprise first strike.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Not sure how it really matters.... the number of nukes is merely the flexing of muscles... we have more than enough to make Russia a charred dot on the map.... volume means nothing except to make your population have the illusion of security... mutually assured destruction is still a thing.. if they launched on us, they would be obliterated too.. and so would many other nations in the aftermath...

a reply to: miniatus

The ONLY point of nuclear weapons in this day in age is mutually assured destruction.. Russia and the US .. and never confirmed but obviously known.. Israel .. have that privileged... so "don't destroy our country and we won't destroy yours" ... that's the general idea of nukes..

The problem is more and more want that security in insecure parts of the world... do you want Syria to have nukes? ... even if it's just for mutually assured destruction security.... the wrong leader could cause the end of the world..

The thing we really need to focus on is getting rid of nuclear weapons, but unfortunately Pandora's box is open so to speak... so the NEXT best thing is try to prevent it the best you can... BLOCK people from having them.. do we have the right and they don't? common argument.. we should NOT have them.. but the box is open... should russia have them? NO .. box has been opened... the BEST thing is keep more boxes from opening because otherwise you only increase the chances of a trigger finger causing a chain reaction

a reply to: miniatus

I mean honestly the only use of nukes with US and Russia WAS to insure peace... nobody wanted to die .. so they both built up arms... but if you do the same in unstable countries, things could become disastrous ... it's critical that nuclear weapon technology not spread... it's not a fair argument that "you have them, so should we" ... that's absurd... we shouldn't have it ..but we do.. and that sucks... but it needs to stay away from anyone else because it just increases the risk of global death from it... so limit the demon that was let out of the box... that makes more sense..

a reply to: miniatus

Nuclear fuel .. I have no issue with that, but it should be world regulated... us and anyone else... no production of fuel capable of producing more weapons... in that case any country should be permitted nuclear energy if they sign on... if they don't that should be strictly enforced... if you want to be in the nuclear community, you deal with the rules and regulations ... and there should be a ban on future weapon productions.. just because you know the secret of doing it doesn't mean you should use it... it's a shame that's a far fetched reality

a reply to: miniatus

Not to mention that actual open war is not our biggest problem. It's internal conflict that will defeat America if it happens.

If you think that the richest most educated country in earth is going to lose militarily you're insane. Whatever China or Russia has we have better. $10 says we have ion cannons and such already. Secret military technology has always been ahead of everything anyone knows about.

More/better nukes is not going to help us at all. It's posturing like the previous poster says. All the stuff that John Oliver discussed about nukes (however intersting and frightening if true)like outdatedness and lack of security is intentional. We're trying to seem militarily weak to bait then into starting things.

At least that's my take. America is the absolute master of information control and we do it with the illusion of democracy and free speech. America has become the nation of Goebbels' dreams and Orwell's nightmares. They just haven't come out of the closet with it yet.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: miniatus

Not to mention that actual open war is not our biggest problem. It's internal conflict that will defeat America if it happens.

If you think that the richest most educated country in earth is going to lose militarily you're insane. Whatever China or Russia has we have better. $10 says we have ion cannons and such already. Secret military technology has always been ahead of everything anyone knows about.

More/better nukes is not going to help us at all. It's posturing like the previous poster says. All the stuff that John Oliver discussed about nukes (however intersting and frightening if true)like outdatedness and lack of security is intentional. We're trying to seem militarily weak to bait then into starting things.

At least that's my take. America is the absolute master of information control and we do it with the illusion of democracy and free speech. America has become the nation of Goebbels' dreams and Orwell's nightmares. They just haven't come out of the closet with it yet.

Oh I agree there is a lot of internal conflict.. but we have the least of it than many other countries... the US citizens are mostly content.... there's only pockets of it ... we think oh ferguson, or this school shooting and OMG .. but look beyond that.. have you seen the size of the protests in China? have you seen some of what's been happening in the UK? have you seen the middle east ( of course you have ) ... we're tiny in the scale of things... we really are a country that is mostly interested in the next episode of their favorite show and they catch the news on FB posts or boredom... THAT is our biggest problem.. we don't pay attention, we're more interested in being entertained...

I think we've let our power get to our heads... the chinese have dominated us informationally, it's funny you mentioned that.. but they've hacked virtually every network we have... and some we don't know about... they even attack servers I manage ... they are ahead of us in that regard, and when you consider most of our military is electronic now... we're at a disadvantage... we are late in that game... we've only JUST in the last couple of years started recruiting "cyber" warriors...

a reply to: miniatus

We are living on the illusion of dominance ... and desperately trying to regain that foothold before that illusion fades... this from an IT life long professional... the wars of the IMMEDIATE future I think will be cyber based, a new cold war so to speak..and that is happening NOW ... but artillery will eventually come back to the forefront .. and so that's why I still worry about nuclear weapons.. I think that kind of warfare is a long ways off... but it shouldn't happen at all


I hate to say I feel it's imminent but I think it is.. it only takes the wrong political move, or the tech landing in the wrong hands... and it's bound to happen because the technology is unleashed..

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


nuclear weapons have been banned across the globe
so theyre just duds

originally posted by: blacktie
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


nuclear weapons have been banned across the globe
so theyre just duds

No.... no.... no .. not duds... still exist.. and still exist in enough number to destroy the population... that's the silly thing.. Russia is making more... why? they alreay have enough to destroy the planet, and so do we ... it's a political move to motivate the population and make them feel some how safer... it's a flexing of the arms ... trying to win favor of the local population.. either way it goes, the US and Russia both would obliterate the planet if one fired first... we both have the tech to detect such a launch..

we'd kill eachother if either tried, thats' the ONLY reason we get along.. that and even still if they launched enough nukees to wipe us out.. that would end up wiping out many bystanders, possibly themselves from the fallout of such a large scale attack..

Nuclear bombs are 1940's technology. Though I have no proof but there must be something more sophisticated after 70 years!

What does Obama being in office have to do with Russia's building new nuclear weapons? What some people fail to understand is that the point of nuclear weapons is not the same as the point of conventional weapons. Nuclear warheads are not designed to slug it out on the battlefield. Their only purpose, at this point in time, is to ensure that one nuclear nation does not attempt to launch a nuclear attack against another nuclear or even non-nuclear nation, because this would ensure that both countries would be for the most part destroyed. So as long as the US has enough nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of the greater part of Russia, they are doing their job, and it does not matter if Russia has more nuclear ballistic missiles.

What does matter is the type of missiles, their platforms, and how fast they can travel, among other things. If you can design and build a missile that can outrun or otherwise evade an ABM platform, then obviously that would be a huge plus. The last time I attempted to find out the power of Americas ABM shield I concluded that we could bring down a few dozen missiles before being overwhelmed, but obviously Russia is going to have more than that even if they don't build more missiles and warheads. In my opinion the US should be focusing more on anti-ballistic missile systems than nuclear ballistic missiles themselves. Anyway, my only point is that the number of missiles wouldn't matter unless part of our strategy was to bring down all the missiles that were launched in an attack on the US, which it is not. This is of course considering that we have enough missiles to render Russia virtually non-existent, meaning all major target objectives would be destroyed.

Russia, even possessing more missiles than the US, would not take the trade-off. They could not bring down our counter-salvo, and thus they would for the most part be destroyed. It is like saying they would give up their entire nation just to destroy the majority of the US. It wouldn't happen, at least not with the current state of affairs. And Obama, the commander in chief of the armed forces, knows these things as well, as does the US military leadership. They likely realize that Russia is not giving themselves any huge advantage by building more missiles. If you want to blame someone for the US' military budget allocation, blame the person who started these pointless wars in the Middle East, because that has set back the US military in that it has chewed up way too much of our budget. Obama could not simply stop and withdraw all of these invested resources after taking office, because the combined aspects of policy and strategy had already been determined. One of the worst things a commander could do is simply abandon a strategy that had already gone so far in its implementation. My favorite example of abandoning a strategy and its costing dearly was Lee's invasion of the North prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. Had he stuck with the original plan he would have avoided pitched battles before reaching Washington, and especially would have avoided that battle, which was nothing more than a battle of attrition that served no strategic purpose whatsoever. The strategy of bringing the war to the North and forcing the defense of Washington should have been followed, rather than abandoned.

We should not make the mistake of thinking all those missiles are ACTUALLY armed with nuclear warheads, it could simply be a convenient lie to cover the real payload those weapons carry.

It is well known that Russia never stopped its bio-weapon research, and those multi warhead missiles would be perfect for carrying all manner of nasty surprises. China should not be excluded from this either.

All the info is available for the curious but check this link for nifty knowledge.

Russian Bioweapons NTI

When it comes to that many nukes does it really matter if Russia has one more than the US? It would not matter if Russia had 500 more. It frankly makes no difference. Nor do the 500 or so out allies in the UK and France have. At some point the US is going to field and anti missle system that will make the all dinosaurs any way. Until then the fact that both sides can destroy the planet several times over makes who has more deployed pretty damn silly. And what does any of this have to do with Obama? Did he time travel again?

Really? It's obamas fault? that's the best you could do for today's "let's hate on Obama" crap.

What do you want him to do... Nuke Russia? Build more nukes to add to the 1600odd stock pile?

ask Russia nicely to stop?

Grow up... Get your head out of the clouds ffs... This is the real world where Obama isn't to blame for everything... I know it's hard to accept but I'm sure you can try to have some sense.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

For the first time, Russia, which is in the midst of a major strategic nuclear modernization, has more deployed nuclear warheads than the United States, according to the latest numbers released by the State Department. Russia now has 1,643 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. The United States has 1,642, said the fact sheet released Wednesday. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

“Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty,” Mr. Inhofe stated in a recent op-ed in Foreign Policy. “The White House was at best nave to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit.” Mr. Inhofe stated that Russian deception in negotiating an arms reduction treaty while building up nuclear arms “poses a direct threat to the United States.” Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

www.washingtontimes.com...

Can we please for the love of God get rid of Obama now? Russia has been playing this game ever since the U.S. and other NATO allies PAID them to dismantle their missiles. They sure did chop up their old UN-accurate missiles, all the while they took our money and built new more accurate ones.

It gets even better!

China Conducts Flight Test of New Mobile ICBM

China’s military has conducted the first flight test of a new variant of one of its road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles in a sign that Beijing is increasing its strategic strike capability against the United States. The test of a new DF-31B missile was conducted Sept. 25 from a missile test range in central China.

And wait, here comes the kicker

The new DF-31B is the latest addition to China’s rapidly growing nuclear missile arsenal that includes older silo-based missiles and five other road-mobile missiles. They include the long-range DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs, intermediate-range DF-26Cs, and medium-range DF-21s—a missile the Chinese have developed into a dual, nuclear-conventional weapon that includes an anti-ship variant. A DF-21 variant also is believed to be used as China’s anti-satellite missile system.

freebeacon.com...

So its ok for everyone else to build intermediate nuclear missiles but we cant! What group of Generals are not screaming to Congress right now when they should be demanding that they be allowed to or have Russia and China called out on this right now?

If we do not hold their feet to the fire now then we need to start building the MX missiles and make them road mobile instead of that moron shelter system they had came up with that caused the program to die from cost. 75 percent of the cost of that program was not even the missiles themselves, it was the moronic shelter system.

Just to give you an idea of what the shelter system looked like, it served two purposes for all that do not know. One to keep the missile hidden in any one of many shelters so the Russians would not know which one it was in, HOWEVER all the shelters had the ability to open the top like a garage door to show the Russians by Satellite that we had a certain number of missiles. Now tell me if that made any dam sense!

waynebiddle.com... A nice site on the once great missile we had but lost do to cost and dumb policy.

I know nukes are not good but I for one do not sleep at night knowing our Minuteman missiles only have ONE warhead on them and the silos are do to reach their end of life by 2018. This all the while the Russians have new accurate missiles that are hard to find with multiple warheads.

Bring back the MX multiple warhead monster, Pershing intermediate range missile and our stealth Tomahawks for our Bombers. All these awesome systems were dismantled under the BS START Treaties. They were simply the best systems one could want, besides the MX shelter system.

The Russians were scared to death of these systems and they wanted them gone or they would not deal. This could have been the worst deal ever made between nations. One has to wonder why not one single U.S. president has called Russia out ever since they started building new ICBMs. They have left us in a situation to where most of our nuclear deterrent means nothing after a surprise first strike.

www.youtube.com...

One thing that I have learned over the last 40 years dealing with Russia is that whatever the US has as a limiting issue the Russians are 10 times worst. They are great at hype but in the end they can't walk the walk....

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I really feel that a country that has ONE MORE nuke than us,is a silly point to be honest. Its not how many you got that matters,as others have posted,we can destroy this world with what we have,and so can Russia. Just because you have them,doesn't mean you will ever use them.

Both Russia and us have had close calls where we thought we might have to bomb the other country. Restraint won out on both sides. Neither country wants a nuclear winter for the world. It is a lose/lose situation for everyone on planet earth. I think the only way any of the big countries would use them is if and only if they knew that they were going down and decided to grab a Samson complex along the way,and take out all those Philistines with them.

a reply to: miniatus

i think that all the countries that have nuclear capabilities should enter in a agreement that if ANY country used one

all the other countries in the world would strike back in kind .

would any country risk firing a nuclear missile if they knew that to do so would mean the end of their country for ever .

i know it sounds harsh and the innocent folk of the country would die but maybe thats what is needed before we can get rid of all nuclear weapons for ever .

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

?


How many times does one have to Nuke Washington or Moscow before they're determined to be eradicated?

Anymore than once would simply be bouncing rubble....