If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will be required to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
And yet, who would be the first to eliminate every single one of their strategic and tactical weapons? Sort of a catch 22 ain't it? And because nobody will ever be willing to totally disarm, the whole treaty thing is political hay making and a waste of time.
Actually, the US stock pile has been declining since 1965. Russia's stock pile has been declining since 1987. Currently they have fewer than us and the trend continues downward.
The total number, world wide was in 1986 when there were 65,056 weapons. The data in the chart I am referencing shows only through 2002, but eight years ago the total number of nuclear weapons in the world was 20,190. We have to go back to 1960 to find a lower number.
So much for your opinion of it just being all talk.
Implying the Russians haven't been selling stockpiles of nuclear material and equipment since 1991
I am not assuming anything. However it appears you may be willing to make this assumption. There are no hard numbers available on the matter. I'm sure the economic collapse in Russia has resulted in sales of nuclear material.
But NHMaster's claim is the number has continued to grow since the early 50's and clearly this not the case. The number has been in decline for years.
Where the material is or who has it is not germane to NHMasters comment. He claimed that the stockpile continues to grow despite 'talks' to curtail their growth.
Who has this material and how it will be disposed of was not mentioned, therefore I did not address that topic.
Spiff, even if the chart is accurate there are still almost 21 thousand weapons out there. 21 thousand!
I have serious reservations about believing any of the charts or statistics as to the real number of weapons on either side. I have a dark feeling that all sides have distorted and or just plain lied about the actual numbers since day one. Furthermore, even if the numbers are real does anyone really believe that the world will ever did themselves totally of nuclear weapons? And even if they did, the technology and the materials to manufacture them are still in place. This is why I still say that the whole discussion is nothing more than political hay making. Everyone gets a warm and fuzzy feeling when all the leaders get together and make a pact to rid the world of the nuclear menace, but in reality, they will never reduce the arsenal to zero and even one nuke can ruin your whole day. It's yet another issue that everyone likes to yak about but nobody will ever do what needs to be done.
Believe it or not, I respect your opinion. I even agree with parts of it. But an opinion is not fact. You can disagree with the facts I have provided. But explain to me why I should value your opinion over the facts as they are presented? And if opinions are the standard by which we should make decisions, why should I value your opinion over another opinion that may come to a different conclusion?
I have provided a link to my information.
I am not a nuclear arms expert, I know little to nothing about what is involved in maintaining a standing arsenal, how the reporting is conducted and verified, and so on. All I can do is look at the available data.
And the available data shows that by whatever metric has been used since 1945, the US stockpile has been in decline since 1965 and the Russian stockpile in decline since 1987. In 1986 the international sum was at its highest total at 65,056.
Contrary to your opinion, stockpiles have been declining for the past twenty four years.