• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Anyone else need access to Pentagon secrets?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

montanastate33

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana
WASHINGTON – The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and "several thousand" more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.

The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons.

The U.S. has previously regarded such details as top secret.

The figure includes both "strategic," or long-range weapons, and those intended for use at shorter range.

The Pentagon said the stockpile of 5,113 as of September 2009 represents a 75 percent reduction since 1989.

A rough count of deployed and reserve warheads has been known for years, so the Pentagon figures do not tell nuclear experts much they don't already know.

Hans Kristensen, director of Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said his organization had already put the number at around 5,100 by reviewing budget estimates and other documents.

The import of the announcement is the precedent it sets, Kristensen said.

"The important part is that the U.S. is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark," he said.

Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen "builds confidence" that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers.


Any thoughts on this? Doesn't seem smart to me to tell the world how many nukes we have (a closely guarded secret for 50 years). I'd bet a lot of money Russia never admits the exact amount they have. China and Russia are calculating their odds right now as to how long until they become the dominant powers in the world.
 
THe only thing the obama administration is serious about is undermining America.
 
Faster horses said:
There is that word again. :evil: He wants transparency on this??????? :shock: :mad:
We've got a LYING IDIOT in the White House.

I truly have never feared for my country as I do now.

Might as well give out the warheads' locations and disarming codes so we can be even more transparent to the world!
 
montanastate33 said:
Any thoughts on this? Doesn't seem smart to me to tell the world how many nukes we have (a closely guarded secret for 50 years). I'd bet a lot of money Russia never admits the exact amount they have. China and Russia are calculating their odds right now as to how long until they become the dominant powers in the world.

From what I read- with what has came out in the past 20-30 years from some of the top KGB folks - the Russian spy network for years knew exactly what we had (since the Manhatten Project of the 40's)-- and also knew they were way behind the US in numbers--altho recognized together we could easily both produce Mutual assured destruction (MAD) - which is the policy both countries operated under for several years ....

Much of what Russia put up was bluff- and much of what the politicians/military industrial complex lobbyiests kept spending saying we needed it to match them was political BS....


Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight Eisenhower January 1961
 
Oldtimer said:
montanastate33 said:
Any thoughts on this? Doesn't seem smart to me to tell the world how many nukes we have (a closely guarded secret for 50 years). I'd bet a lot of money Russia never admits the exact amount they have. China and Russia are calculating their odds right now as to how long until they become the dominant powers in the world.

From what I read- with what has came out in the past 20-30 years from some of the top KGB folks - the Russian spy network for years knew exactly what we had (since the Manhatten Project of the 40's)-- and also knew they were way behind the US in numbers--altho recognized together we could easily both produce Mutual assured destruction (MAD) - which is the policy both countries operated under for several years ....

Much of what Russia put up was bluff- and much of what the politicians/military industrial complex lobbyiests kept spending saying we needed it to match them was political BS....


Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight Eisenhower January 1961


So are you saying it is good to 'come clean' about how many nukes we have? So we are honest with the world?
 
Angusgord said:
Calling our president a lying idiot sure shows the kind of man you've been raised to be Faster Horses ,your reading media hype written by a white right-winged nazi


actually nazism was left winged. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism)

National Socialist German Workers' Party (German:Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei , abbreviated NSDAP)


goordie, I think you are the victim of American progressives and their re-writing of history.
 
montanastate33 said:
Oldtimer said:
montanastate33 said:
Any thoughts on this? Doesn't seem smart to me to tell the world how many nukes we have (a closely guarded secret for 50 years). I'd bet a lot of money Russia never admits the exact amount they have. China and Russia are calculating their odds right now as to how long until they become the dominant powers in the world.
From what I read- with what has came out in the past 20-30 years from some of the top KGB folks - the Russian spy network for years knew exactly what we had (since the Manhatten Project of the 40's)-- and also knew they were way behind the US in numbers--altho recognized together we could easily both produce Mutual assured destruction (MAD) - which is the policy both countries operated under for several years .... Much of what Russia put up was bluff- and much of what the politicians/military industrial complex lobbyiests kept spending saying we needed it to match them was political BS....
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. DwightEisenhower January 1961
So are you saying it is good to 'come clean' about how many nukes we have? So we are honest with the world?
What was Reagan and Gorbachevs standard "Trust- but Verify" !!! My question is- and was Reagans also- do we need enough nukes to blow up the entire planet 10 fold- or 100 fold (Mutual assured destruction (MAD))- or won't enough nukes to blow it up the first time pretty well handle the situation... :???:
 
You don't need the old type, that's for sure. Hypersonic missiles and space based lasers are the way to go. Also unmanned Hypersonic aircraft.

3 strategically placed, (one each over Peru, Papua New Guinea, and Uganda), space based platforms (weaponized space stations) could observe pretty much the whole globe. They'll be the eyes, ears and fist of the US. They will be the command centres for the unmanned hypersonic aircraft/spacecraft, aided by a swarm of satelites

Anybody that believes obama isn't being deceptive, and pandering to the disarmament crowd is mistaken.


0107global_main.jpg



X-37.jpg



1438a.jpg



http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1438/1
 
Oldtimer said:
montanastate33 said:
Oldtimer said:
From what I read- with what has came out in the past 20-30 years from some of the top KGB folks - the Russian spy network for years knew exactly what we had (since the Manhatten Project of the 40's)-- and also knew they were way behind the US in numbers--altho recognized together we could easily both produce Mutual assured destruction (MAD) - which is the policy both countries operated under for several years .... Much of what Russia put up was bluff- and much of what the politicians/military industrial complex lobbyiests kept spending saying we needed it to match them was political BS....
So are you saying it is good to 'come clean' about how many nukes we have? So we are honest with the world?
What was Reagan and Gorbachevs standard "Trust- but Verify" !!! My question is- and was Reagans also- do we need enough nukes to blow up the entire planet 10 fold- or 100 fold (Mutual assured destruction (MAD))- or won't enough nukes to blow it up the first time pretty well handle the situation... :???:

OT, I completely agree with you there. Having over 5,000 nukes is overkill. My point is that the government should not release that type of information. Doesn't it mean something that for the past 50 years (or ever since the nuclear technology was developed) it has been kept secret? Then just to one day come out and put out all the numbers just doesn't add up.
 
Now it seems that most folks here think that the Gov't ALWAYS LIES TO YOU...esp with this admn.


But....you believe this release??? :???:

you are taking for granted that this is fact?

well, as some of you seem to do you believe every email you get.......
 
From what I've read since the downfall of the USSR and opening of the KGB records-- the USSR intelligence knew right down to almost an exact number what we had for nuclear weaponry-- it was the US intelligence/political machine that was lax- and had greatly overrated the USSR's capabilities....

I can't see where disclosing the number of warheads weakens our position any-- when just a handful of them could wipe away the world as we know it....

Did all you folks scream when Reagan allowed the USSR/Russian military folks to visit the nuke sites- and oversee dismantling of sites with his "truth but verify" plan :???:

Give up all our secrets- NO-- but work with the rest of the world on putting a better hold on nukes--YES....
 
jingo2 said:
Now it seems that most folks here think that the Gov't ALWAYS LIES TO YOU...esp with this admn.


But....you believe this release??? :???:

you are taking for granted that this is fact?

well, as some of you seem to do you believe every email you get.......

What are you babbling about?

You don't believe that the Government has released the numbers, or you don't believe they have released the actual numbers?
 
Angusgord said:
hypocritexposer said:
Angusgord said:
Calling our president a lying idiot sure shows the kind of man you've been raised to be Faster Horses ,your reading media hype written by a white right-winged nazi


actually nazism was left winged. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism)

National Socialist German Workers' Party (German:Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei , abbreviated NSDAP)


goordie, I think you are the victim of American progressives and their re-writing of history.
BS! Nazism is as right wing,white only BS Bible thumping as any Republican can get ,read what your comrades are writing


Do you actually want to discuss it, or not?

Would you like to discuss it using a 3 dimensional political model or a straight line political spectrum?

I'll let you choose.
 
Angusgord said:
I am discussing my thought,s on Nazism ,just because you don't like it don't make it wrong

Just because you like it does not make it rignt either! :wink: :wink: :wink: In fact more than likely that would be a reason not to like it :D :D
 
Angusgord said:
I am discussing my thought,s on Nazism ,just because you don't like it don't make it wrong

Maybe you should rethink your thoughts, before you try to prove the intelligence of your thinking by discussing something you really have NOT thought about. Don't you think?

Try using a diary to collect your thoughts, instead of Ranchers.

Or seal yourself in a think tank, maybe the lack of oxygen will give you some clarity of thought.
 

Latest posts

Top