about.
This is your statement
Yes, the nuclear stockpiles/warheads and the missiles are stored separately by other nuclear weapon states.
To which I pointed out that that is not true in every case and gave examples. You responded with a link.
"Ballistic Missiles: China uses liquid fueled missiles which would take some time to prepare for launch, and reportedly stores the warheads ploying the separate from these missiles."
I pointed out in the previous point that the Chinese are deploying Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.
Namely the XIA class SLBMS that carry Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles:
The Type 092 missile submarine carries twelve JuLang-1 (NATO code-name: CSS-N-3) two-stage, solid-propellant, submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Each missile carries a single 25~50kT nuclear warhead. The two rows of missile launch tubes are situated behind the sail under the raised deck. The basic variant JL-1 has a maximum range of 2,150km with accuracy (CEP) of 600m; the improved JL-1A may have a maximum range of 2,500km with increased accuracy.
No matter, you may want to read your references , it clearly states:
There are currently about 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Of these about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice
Obviously, the US is not the only nuclear capable country that maintains some of its stockpiles in a ready status.
Being in a state of high alert does not necessarily mean nuclear tipped missiles ready to be deployed. Or whatever the technicalities of these terms mean, I am not an expert.
Anyway, the point of my whole argument, which you are missing, is that the US which seems to be injudicious in handling its weapons, (irrespective of how careless others are) should not always be advising and being an arbiter on matters of nuclear weapons. And I do not see why the US needs to have ~15,000 nuclear tipped missiles. But as you argued earlier, hey there is a war on!!
If all you want to do is cherry pick on what I have to say, then I do not see the point in arguing with you.
I am not an expert
Sums up the whole exchange. You are consistently wrong in every assertion numbers, readiness and how they are deployed, so, you right..there is no point.
The US maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment. Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen (Jan/Feb 2006). "U.S. nuclear forces, 2006". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62 (1): 68-71.
The US maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen (Jan/Feb 2006). "U.S. nuclear forces, 2006". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62 (1): 68-71.
again..cherry picking.. I said I am not an expert on the technical terms and word play, but I do get the gist.
You did not address the broader issue I was talking about, but instead you pick on terms you see is convenient for you to argue about and cut and paste from websites. This does not make you an expert either!
