If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Hey Congressman, how many nuclear weapons do we have? "Uh, eleventy?"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 88
    More: Fail, nuclear weapons, United States, Federation of American Scientists, Phil Gingrey, John Garamendi  
•       •       •

3922 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 08:15:33 PM  
The correct answer is too many.
 
2013-06-21 08:31:59 PM  
The correct answer is not enough.
 
2013-06-21 08:32:54 PM  
The correct answer is potatoe.
 
2013-06-21 08:36:09 PM  
Have you seen the people that make up Congress?  I want them to know as little as possible about how many nukes we have and where they are at.
 
2013-06-21 08:42:51 PM  
The more important question is "how many mine shafts do we have?"
 
2013-06-21 09:22:57 PM  
We need enough to scorch the Earth back to Noah's time. God promised He wouldn't flood again through 40 days and nights of rain. Technically, a flood of explosive force, fire and radiation are not the same as drowning.

God works in mysterious ways.
 
2013-06-21 09:23:35 PM  
We need to get rid of them all.

Drop all 7700 of them on Kansas.
 
2013-06-21 09:25:07 PM  
Did anyone know this before now?
 
2013-06-21 09:25:51 PM  
Yosemitesamifnobama....jpeg
 
2013-06-21 09:26:37 PM  
Why would we need more than, say, 1000?
 
2013-06-21 09:30:16 PM  

vernonFL: Why would we need more than, say, 1000?


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:30:39 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 09:32:55 PM  

Zeno-25: [img.fark.net image 800x627]


Egads! man, are you trying to blind me??
 
2013-06-21 09:33:56 PM  
They're expensive to maintain and having zillions doesn't make any difference above having 10,000 or 1,000. We have too many.
 
2013-06-21 09:52:58 PM  
Obama: "I intend to reduce our nuclear stockpile by 1/3".

GOP: "OMG!  Obama wants to disarm the United States!  He wants to render us helpless in the face of the threats posed by the rest of the world!"

Global Zero: "Can you tell us when you would use a nuclear weapon?"

GOP: "..."

Global Zero: "Do you have any idea how many nuclear weapons we DO have right now?"

GOP: "..."

Obama: "Do you see now what the f*ck I have to deal with every goddamn day?  Don't get mad that I can't turn chicken sh*t into chicken salad."
 
2013-06-21 09:53:45 PM  

Zeno-25:


That thing looks cool if you're stoned and on a mobile.
 
2013-06-21 09:59:08 PM  
It's too bad we can't set them off anymore.

I'm not saying we should. But the explosions are cool,
 
2013-06-21 09:59:47 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: We need to get rid of them all.

Drop all 7700 of them on Kansas.


If you can keep the contamination out of Colorado, I endorse this.
 
2013-06-21 10:03:19 PM  

atomic-age: Almost Everybody Poops: We need to get rid of them all.

Drop all 7700 of them on Kansas.

If you can keep the contamination out of Colorado, I endorse this.


I once had a Coloradan tell me "Happiness is a Texan heading south with an Okie under each arm".
 
2013-06-21 10:05:08 PM  
Why not eleventy-one?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-21 10:07:21 PM  
Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his hookerintern.
 
2013-06-21 10:07:37 PM  
The stultifying thing to me is how many tactical nukes we maintain. As if using even one wouldn't escalate any land war into a regional and then theater-wide hot war.  And we have thousands of them.
 
2013-06-21 10:12:35 PM  
I'd like to get rid of all nukes, but if I had to choose I'd much rather cut the conventional military- that we actually use to kill people- down to size and maintain the nuclear deterrent. Get rid of the aircraft carriers and overseas bases if you're actually concerned with US militarism.
 
2013-06-21 10:16:25 PM  

TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his hookerintern.


That is a good point; I was expecting tue article to list a bunch of Congressmen that were actively involved in strategic policy or pillorying the President's arms reduction talk.  But it was just a random sampling of  unexpecting reps ambushed by an advocacy group.
 
2013-06-21 10:27:53 PM  
They should have also asked what the US should do about ethnic cleansing in Freedonia.
 
2013-06-21 10:29:29 PM  

EvilEgg: The correct answer is too many.


Lionel Mandrake: The correct answer is not enough.


Both answers are correct.  The ability to kill everybody is too much but the ability to kill everybody keeps everybody afraid to find out if it's true.
 
2013-06-21 10:34:52 PM  
www.firstshowing.net
 
2013-06-21 10:39:28 PM  

TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his hookerintern.


I thought we were taking that as a given. It's not a useful fact unless you're actively working on US nuclear policy, and I wouldn't respect any random Congressman to have much idea.

That said, you'd probably find more Senators who have at least some idea, mainly because they just debated and ratified a new SALT treaty three years ago- in the old fashioned way. They locked all of 'em in a room together (the technical term is, "in closed session", which they do for classified stuff, though rarely with the full Senate) to hash it out. In a fun bit of trivia, when they do have the entire Senate in closed session, they use the Old Senate Chamber, since you can fit everybody, there's only one phone line, and no cameras or microphones that can be messed around with. They went into closed session in there at a few points during the Clinton Impeachment, too.
 
2013-06-21 10:40:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The more important question is "how many mine shafts do we have?"


The correct answer is "MEIN FUHER, I CAN WALK!!"
 
2013-06-21 10:44:40 PM  
 Why would anyone expect Congress-critters to know that? Most of them don't even know what powers are constitutionally delegated to Congress.
 
2013-06-21 10:57:49 PM  

TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his intern.


This. I do like how they only asked Republicans, though (Assuming the article is correct and I am not too drunk to miss it). I bet most congresspeople would get it wrong.

Look, we know the Republicans are pieces of crap for the most part, don't make a stupid question that you cannot realistically expect them to know.
 
2013-06-21 11:01:23 PM  
If they knew anything, they'd be lobbyists
 
2013-06-21 11:05:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Lionel Mandrake: The more important question is "how many mine shafts do we have?"

The correct answer is "MEIN FUHER, I CAN WALK!!"


You can't fight here, this is the war room.
 
2013-06-21 11:11:18 PM  

machoprogrammer: TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his intern.

This. I do like how they only asked Republicans, though (Assuming the article is correct and I am not too drunk to miss it). I bet most congresspeople would get it wrong.

Look, we know the Republicans are pieces of crap for the most part, don't make a stupid question that you cannot realistically expect them to know.


FTFA: The above video includes interviews with Republican Reps. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri; Phil Gingrey of  Georgia; Morgan Griffith of Virginia; Steve Womack of Arkansas; Rob Wittman of Virginia; Tom McClintock of California; Duncan Hunter of California; Mark Amodei of Nevada; Bill Flores of Texas; Democratic Reps. Donald Payne Jr. of New Jersey and John Garamendi of California; and New Progressive Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi.

They buried it in the text, and you qualified your statement, so no snarky comment from me. Besides, I already have you favorited as "Cool Guy", so no prob.
 
2013-06-21 11:11:36 PM  
To be fair, unless they are involved directly in appropriations, defense, or other such relations with the DOE or DOD, do you really expect every member of the Congress to know how large our stockpile is exactly at any given time?

If they are not members of the appropriate committee and know how many nukes we have, fine, fantastic, but it doesn't really effect how they do their job so long as they at least know we have more than 1000.
 
2013-06-21 11:19:15 PM  
How come the people that are saying Congress is wrong but then don't know the right answer themselves?  Where did the Federation of American Somethin' Somethins get 2600 extra nuclear warheads?  Ebay?


/Just save enough to create Carparkistan when we get tired of their nonsense.

// How many bullets?  Ships? planes? Missiles? Soldiers? Helmets? Latrines? wow...not knowing how many implements of war we have is really a tip of lip type of data we need Congress people packing away.

///And don't forget, Nuclear detonations could trigger Nuclear Winter.  Worth a shot.  We get rid of terrorism in the middle east and cut our dependence on their oil by making it uninhabitable.  Then Nuclear Winter counteracts Global Warming.  Terrorists get their 72 virgins, no dependence on Middle East oil, a couple thousand less Nuclear Warheads and cure Global Warming.   That's change we can believe in.
 
2013-06-21 11:35:47 PM  

jaytkay: They should have also asked what the US should do about ethnic cleansing in Freedonia.


Ooo, I saw that one on Jimmy Kimmel.
 
2013-06-21 11:39:16 PM  
Hey congressman, what's in that health care bill you voted for?
 
2013-06-21 11:48:56 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The more important question is "how many mine shafts do we have?"


Besides the two your Mom has?
 
2013-06-21 11:50:23 PM  

machoprogrammer: TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his intern.

This. I do like how they only asked Republicans, though (Assuming the article is correct and I am not too drunk to miss it). I bet most congresspeople would get it wrong.

Look, we know the Republicans are pieces of crap for the most part, don't make a stupid question that you cannot realistically expect them to know.


It's even more ridiculous when they are asking Congressman to guess their number.  Their number was 50% higher than the department that actually accounts for them and would deploy them.  They put that part at the end too.
 
2013-06-22 12:00:41 AM  

Churchill2004: maintain the nuclear deterrent


Who are we deterring?  How many nuclear weapons would be need to deter them?
 
2013-06-22 12:05:40 AM  
Oh and hear is the report abstract from FAS on U.S. nuclear warheads.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/2/77.abstract

FAS 2013: 4,650 warheads
DoD 2009: 5113 warheads
GlobalZeroIQ 2013:: 7700 warheads

it appears GZ is unable to understand the FAS report they cite.  I personally just reduced the arsenal by 3,050 warheads by reading.  I practically cut it in half.
 
2013-06-22 12:11:48 AM  

Bacontastesgood: Churchill2004: maintain the nuclear deterrent

Who are we deterring?  How many nuclear weapons would be need to deter them?


 Apparently the number we have has sufficiently deterred them so I say stick with what's working.
 
2013-06-22 12:12:09 AM  

Bacontastesgood: Churchill2004: maintain the nuclear deterrent

Who are we deterring?  How many nuclear weapons would be need to deter them?


I said I'm anti-nuke, I just find a bunch of never-gonna-be-used nukes sitting around less objectionable than what we use our (much more expensive) conventional forces for.
 
2013-06-22 12:23:37 AM  
If we get rid of our nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union will come and take over us all. Vladimir Putin will force us to fight bears like he does. The conservatives will be too fat to fight the bears and the liberals will refuse to hurt the animals so Putin will turn the survivors into commies.
 
2013-06-22 12:46:55 AM  

TheBigJerk: Honestly?  Unfair question.  A congressman doesn't need to know more than, "enough to end the world" for day-to-day, and if he's making a specific policy decision he can do it while he has the numbers on hand, given to him by his hookerintern.


The problem is that  one or two is enough to cause a major disaster if something goes wrong. Knowing how many are on American soil could someday be the sort of information they need offhand in ten minutes while they watch a mushroom cloud come out of a base in Nevada.

/Your weapons are not toys. They can, and will, go wrong. Not so much of a problem with a sword; a  huge problem with a nuclear warhead.
 
2013-06-22 01:02:01 AM  

Turbo Cojones: Lionel Mandrake: The more important question is "how many mine shafts do we have?"

Besides the two your Mom has?


You only know of two?

pfft...fkn amateur
 
2013-06-22 01:02:41 AM  

EvilEgg: The correct answer is too many.


If the year was 1944, you might be right.
 
2013-06-22 01:14:45 AM  
OMG...new scandal.  

Tea Party " We were never told the US had nuclear weapons.  Why is Obama discussing this with Putin before us?"
 
2013-06-22 01:27:38 AM  

EvilEgg: The correct answer is too many.


This.

I got to see a respected nuclear history historian / author call for getting rid of all our nukes, full stop. The rukus in the room afterwards was amazing.

But seriously, at the very least we can continue to scale our arsenal way the f--k back. I'm sure someone has done the math and I'm too drunk to bother Googling but the dollar amount to guard (fast track to career military advancement! Wait, opposite), maintain them, and monitor them has to be staggering


And even then elderly nuns can still break into Oak Ridge facilities.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report