How Many Nukes Do We Need?
Someone in the New York Times was saying that while we currently have 5,113 nukes, we only need 311. I’m not sure how he got to that number (because then I’d have to read like the whole article), but does that sound even close to enough? Let’s say we got in a war with everybody — we couldn’t even nuke every major city with that few nukes.
Think of all the uses there are for nukes. There’s war with other countries — or just when we get really mad at another country. And then there’s asteroids heading for earth we may need to blow up. And possibly alien attacks. Or a city may get overtaken by zombies, and we have to neutralize it. Or there’s just a really large amount of brush that needs clearing. Or we don’t like how the moon is looking at us. Or we need to wake Godzilla. Or we’re just really bored and want to see a cool explosion. Does 5,113 even sound like enough for all that?
I’m okay with reducing our official number of nukes to 311 if that may get other countries to drop their guard, but then we should secretly raise our actual number of nukes to a nice big number like 100,000. We’ll just have to hide them well. Like every streetlight in New York City: A launchable nuke. People are all worried about us having too many nukes, but can you think of anything worse than needing a nuke and not having one?
No you can’t.
Send to Kindle
(27 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
May 27th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Some say we should teach thermonuclear abstinence to schoolchildren. How will we prepare them for their future if they don’t know what to do with a thermonuclear warhead? Our benevolent government should hand out small scale thermonuclear warheads – millions of them! – so that they can learn via mistakes and successes.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Worse than needing a nuke and not having one?
No, but needing a president with leadership skills and not having one is running a close second
May 27th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I don’t mind us reducing the number of warheads in our inventory, as long as our method of reducing the inventory is by using them on political leaders we don’t like. Like Kim, Calderone, Ahmedinejad, Obama, and Chavez.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I don’t know about we – but I’d say 2 or 3 dozen just for my own self would be about right.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Agree with Keith. We should fire approximately 5,000 nukes at our enemies, suspected enemies, and insufficiently enthusiastic friends, until we’re down to 311.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Then what would we nuke the moon with? 311 isn’t nearly sufficient.
They can have my thermonuclear device when they pry my crispy fingers off of it.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Thanks, Joe. Besides, it’s good for the environment. The best way to combat global warming is nuclear winter.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The same argument holds for the number of bolts for my crossbow or the number of plugs for my 12 gauge. And for the number of bottles in the fridge.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Ha, ha, ha, Frank was reading the New York Times.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Nukes are a lot like toilet paper…better to have it and not need it…than to need it and not have it. So I say the more we have the better off we are.
May 27th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
More Nukes! Remember, you can’t beat your wife with nuclear arms.
And don’t forget, nuclear weapons solve problems that words can’t.
May 27th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
What’s this mindless liberal worried about? Even if we had 5 bazillion nukes, that p*ssy ass Communist douche bag Obama wouldn’t use
even one. It’s like having $1 million in the bank and never spending it, what’s the point?
May 27th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
You can never be too thin, too rich, or have too many nukes.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
At least one more than the other guys.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“I know what you’re thinking… did I launch 5113 nukes, or just 5112?
Well, in all the excitement, I have to confess that I sort of lost count… so what you have to ask yourself is, ‘Do I feel lucky?’
Well? Do ya, punk?”
May 27th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I have seen it estimated:
Somewhere between death and birth
There are now three thousand million
People living on this earth
And the stock-piled mass destruction
Of the Nuclear Powers-That-Be
Equals–for each man or woman–
Twenty tons of TNT.
Every man of every nation
(Twenty tons of TNT)
Shall receive this allocation
Twenty tons of TNT.
Texan, Bantu, Slav or Maori,
Argentine or Singhalee,
Every maiden brings this dowry
Twenty tons of TNT.
Not for thirty silver shilling
Twenty tons of TNT
Twenty thousand pounds a killing–
Twenty tons of TNT.
Twenty hundred years of teaching,
Give to each his legacy,
Plato, Buddha, Christ or Lenin,
Twenty tons of TNT
Father, Mother, Son and Daughter,
Twenty tons of TNT
Give us land and seed and water,
Twenty tons of TNT.
Children have no need of sharing;
At each new nativity
Come the ghostly Magi bearing
Twenty tons of TNT
Ends the tale that has no sequel
Twenty tons of TNT.
Now in death are all men equal
Twenty tons of TNT.
Teach me how to love my neighbour,
Do to him as he to me;
Share the fruits of all our labour
Twenty tons of TNT.
– Michael Flanders
(Since the population has doubled to 6 billion, we definitely need More nukes, ’cause I’m not sharing My twenty tons!)
May 28th, 2010 at 4:01 am
Over Nine-Thousand!
May 28th, 2010 at 7:04 am
“I’m not sure how he got to that number ”
It is a simple matter of deletion and transposition. Delete the 5 and you have 113. That’s too small, so move the 3 to the left of the 11. Voila! You now have 311.
Yes, we could have 95,311 with the same amount of effort.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:16 am
The only appropriate answer to that question is, “All of them.”
May 28th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Remember, you can’t beat your wife with nuclear arms.
Yet another reason to stay single.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Did the NY times include the launch codes given to them by Obama? Or were in the launch codes only published in the farsi edition?
Every American family should have a house, three kids, two cars, anf five nukes.
311 nikes? We need just that many for the next democrat convention, being held in Tehran.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:38 am
311 nukes……….
May 28th, 2010 at 10:44 am
The only good way to get rid of a nuke is to set it off. Otherwise clever people might find it and rearm it.
So it looks like we need about 5000 targets.
How about we set a few off on the far side of the Mexican border. That’s got to have an effect on illegal immigration. Plus they will be easier to round up if they glow.
if we use the rest on our enemies chances are we are going to run out of enemies a lot faster than Nukes.
I say we use any extras to drill for oil. One possible bonus, the radiation may improve gas mileage.
May 28th, 2010 at 11:20 am
If the New York Times says we only need 311 nukes, you know we actually need a 100,000 like you said. A good rule of thumb is, if The New York Times says it, it’s a lie. That is all.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Our beloved old Director of Operations, an Expert Aviator and a Fountain of Philosophy would have compared nuclear weapons to jet fuel, and he once proclaimed these immortal words of wisdom on jet fuel: “Cain’t never have too much gas… ‘lessn yer on fire.”
May 28th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
We need enough nukes ( and the will to use them) that will deter every tin horned dictator with delusions of relevancy by 10 to the bagillionth power. We need at least as many as would blow up Michael Moronic and his Hollyweird sycophants. I’m thinking 100,000 or more.
May 29th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
How many nukes do we need ?
Enough to Frighten Russia and China away from using their’s on us or our allies.
May 30th, 2010 at 2:10 am
311 is not enough for a ground-launched Orion. And I want one.
May 30th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
You forgot something we can actually use nukes on now.