Why countries hold thousands of nukes?

[Anonymous]

I see a need for max 5

[Drewtate]

MAD (Mutually assured destruction). So opposing nuclear armed countries know that if they go to war with each other that they will each be destroyed.

America has tipped the balance in our favour with its Aegis cruisers and patriot missile systems but even one nuke getting through would be catastrophic. Not just the destruction of a city but the radiation and the nuclear fallout which would posion crops, water, soil, the air and possibly blot out the sum for a time. All this would cause radiation sickness, cancers, tumours, famine, disease etc.

Russia supposedly has hypersonic technology but this is unlikely. We see Russia still using technology from the 1970s/80s.

[purplepoppy]

Because a lot will get destroyed before they're launched in the early stages of a war. Plus you don't fire them all at once.
Take an USA v Russian war as an example.

First there's an attack from Europe with the aim of destroying launch sites and command centres. Russia responds in kind. The aim is to reduce the number of missiles that can be fired at cities.

Then the big hit intercontinental missiles from America come. If Europe's done its job most will get through and more importantly Russia won't have many to throw back. The aim here is to destroy the opponents economic centres.

So even though both countries have a big stockpile not all will be used. It will most likely be we destroy one city and so do they back and forth until one side surrenders

[Skinhead-1979]

As soon as the size of your stick no longer matters you'd better make damn sure you have a lot of sticks.

Besides that... What do you think an enemy country will try to do first? Exactly, Nuke your nukes first.

So while many of your Nukes may be getting destroyed in that first strike, you will have many more to launch in retaliation; and if the enemy has a robust air defence system, you better make sure you shoot many Nukes so at least a few make it through.

Besides that... Where is the fun if you can only destroy the world once? Nah, a 100x times over is better

[ohsheeT]

There's a lot of countries that are poor that are little and no matter what they know they're going to get their ass kicked from other countries but if they do their going to say hey I'm going to wipe your ass out too.
. Just like we have a lot Russia has a lot China has a lot and it's all in the name of you fuck me I'm going to fuck you... But here's the whole thing leaders of countries just need to fucking grow up it's not all about them it's about the little people in their countries. Cuz all the little people are what makes the countries live and survive and tick

[RebelinSteel]

Because if the have only 5 and those are on a sub or a geographical location and get taken out, then there is no counter response. There is also a theory about post strike protection, for example if the US and Russia exchange Nukes, one or both will take out South America and or Africa to stop and chance of them being a threat post nuclear war. Of course China would be taken out by both, that’s a lot of nukes as it’s a large country. Just because your country is not in the war, they could be a target… maybe.

[V_Injector]

To secure peace, you must prepare for war. If the enemy sees you don't have the ability to fight back, they'll fuck with you.

Think about it, how many nuclear countries has the United States invaded in the last 80 years? The answer to that is why you should get a shit ton of nukes.

[NaultD]

Mutual assured distribution. Or

M. A D.

So one nuke goes off all nukes flatten the globe. Creating the fallout universe video game.

In terms of modern day ordinance and calculated military demands of technology, nukes are out classed and completely outdated. We can have fire bomb raids 100x more destruction 1000x safer the next day and move troops then nukes.

The only power in nukes today is destroying the world with 1,000,000 of nukes at once.

[jshm2]

Russian Federation 5500 nukes
United States 5000 nukes
United Kingdom 280 nukes
France 250 nukes

The thing is Donald Trump fucked up the nuclear proliferation treaty. So no one really know now how many nukes there definitely are.

To make things worse, Russia has hypersonic technology - it can send 10 nukes before the USA manages to send one. This is why it's important to have allies. The allies of the USA and Russia are a better "defence" than any nuke.

[genericname85]

because like it or not: humanity is just anothe ranimal. and so the human animal display all the stupid territorial and tribal behaviors that animals display. one of these displays is trying to impress an opponent with the power that you have. that's what's happening on a geopolitical scale. while we still love to make ourself believe "we're better than all the other animals" and some of us even straight up believing that we're not litterally animals by definition.

[bobby_bush_eater]

The term nuke is far more complex than you might imagine.

There's 3 types of nuclear warheads alone, after that it gets far more complex.

The bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were free falling bombs, literally just falling out of the plane.

Today those still exist but there's also ICBMs and all kinds of other horrible things nobody wants to find out about.

[hahahmm]

War is violent. A few nukes would not be violent enough to convince politicians to stop fighting, safe in their comfy bunkers. In fact it's not a given that thousands of nukes would either. The real problem are politicians.

[lightbulb27]

what if someone takes out those 5? so you need 10. what about al the submarines and if they are disconnected. each sub needs them.

etc...

sick hugh... all because of insecurity!

[Kaneki05]

Because as others said MAD. You need many upon many to stop anyone getting the bright idea of trying to use one.

[exitseven]

It's better to have a nuke and not need it than to need a nuke and not have it

[Asker]

But i read it goes into 4k or so

[Berethor]

Use of nukes could escalate to nuclear holocaust, 400 nukes could wipe out humanity.

[jahaims]

Mutually assured destruction. You don't know what a nuke does/is, or what they are for if you think a country only needs 5...

[RingOfFire]

"I see a need for max 5"

You are a national security arms expert?

[Staximus]

Because they are dumb and getting into a pissing contest

[DrPepper12]

Gotta keep those defense jobs...

[dustybiker2]

Ignorance