Those are the only country's in the world that matter all the other are just pawns to be controlled

those are the only country's in the world that matter all the other are just pawns to be controlled

Attached: -nuclear-weapons-MAPPED-1450388.jpg (590x470, 54K)

We have 22 of them, but we store them for the US.

ur dick is small

I wish we would get rid of most of ours. They are only a deterrent and will never be used and it costs a fortune to maintain them. Even only 100 would be an effective deterrent.

>will never be used
because they do not exist

According to Russians themselves, they're in possession of a tactical nuclear warhead 3× stronger than the Tsar Bomba. 300megatons of power. That's amazing to me.

What the fuck do you need 6 thousand nukes for? Think of all the money you could have spent making your country better...

>80
Impressive. Explains where all our tax money went

Fuck that, make more! The more the better. I want to know that our NATO allies (I'd like to think are allies) can destroy the whole solar system, if needs be.

>You give them up first
This is why these nukes won't be retired, nobody wants to the vulnerable one.

Fuck vatniks, it should be the triple of this numbers, I don't see how will they have enough to destroy and end all life on earth with this meager numbers

Total number of n.w.o controlled central banks. If not 0 then not actually countries that '''matter"' but just like all the others that are just pawns to be controlled.

Attached: 1560368699417.gif (490x476, 3.52M)

Funny kike

We have 200 nukes!!
PROVE ME WRONG!

please nuke us

>obsolete weaponry that will never be used due to fear of mutual destruction and serves only as a pshycological deterrent
>extremely complex and tax draining, they keep dusting in their silos while drones and javelins do all the work
>implying that nations matters and the world isn't the playground of banks and corporations

We don't live in the 70s anymore kosta

It's mostly to know that if you fire 6000 at someone, even with the best missile shield technology, one or two will get through, and that's too many.

US can salvo 100 at a time, see what dies, then send another salvo. Control is in the NORAD mountain bunker, no worries about it being nuked.

Other thought is when you decide to do it, you hit so hard with so many that the other side can no longer respond, so your cities survive... until the ash clouds blow over to the US..

Underrated.

Only 1,113 are operational in the field (SECSTATE has confirmed this number).

The B-61s and B-83s are mostly in "Ready Reserve" status with less than 120 in theater in Europe.

The rest of the nukes are either old bombs being torn down or in mothball status.

>I wish we would get rid of most of ours. They are only a deterrent and will never be used and it costs a fortune to maintain them. Even only 100 would be an effective deterrent.
I think reducing America's arsenal to 1000 would be better. Maintaining first strike capability against Russia is obviously the main purpose of keeping 6000, but Russia's never gonna use that old pile of junk and reducing to 1000 would put enough pressure on Russia to reduce theirs in time.

to

The best thing that they all will automatically launch to target all over the world if they lost contact to HQ. Just imagine if something fucks up in the army net.