Nuclear polifiration, who pays for it & who decides...

[RainbowUnicorn]

how many planned parentohood clinics need to close to pay for 1 new nuclear missile ?

how many new nuclear missiles can be purchased from cancelling 30 million working class US citizens health insurance ?

are new nuclear missiles a financial profit or loss for those who pay for them ?

who is it that decides to buy them ?

who pays for them ?

who makes them ?

Should countrys like Mexico, Syria, philippines, Cuba & Ukraine become nuclear armed countries ?

i am not gaslighting !
these are serious questions asking for people to put their thinking hat on and post their simple or complex opinion and or thoughts.
feel free to add some countrys to the list e.g Palistine ? Jordan ? UAE ? Turkey ? Nigeria ? Egypt ?

USA & Russia have enough stock piled nuclear material to sell nuclear weapons to every other county in the world.
(not counting their 15,300 exisiting nuclear war heads that are armed and ready to fire at a city somewhere in the world right at this very moment),

As of 2014, there are 219 official and de facto capital cities in 195 countries. Twelve countries have more than one capital city. The island country of Nauru has no official capital city; instead the government offices are located in the Yaren District.

source for capital city numbers


just doing some rough math and a bit of statistical guesswork and there is 400 million people in all the worlds capital citys and considering there is also other citys that are also targetted which would be several in the same country you can easily double that number.
this makes 800,000,000 people who will be instantly vapourised in a nuclear war within the first 45 minutes.
Given rough population density and spread you could expect to double that figure within 48 hours.
however this is where it gets slightly odd because the urbanisation of people on studys show most countrys have around 60% city-urban dwelling.
now given the global population 8.5 billion that gives around 5 billion people who will be directly in the blast zone and dead within an hour or soo.

USA & Europe will be compltely wiped off the map with USA sustainning a 99.4 % death rate within a year to 6 months.

0 % chance of survival for 99.4 % US citizens
0 % chance of Survival for 80% of European Citizens
0 % chance of survival for 75% Russian Citizens
0 % chance of survival for 85% Chinese citizens
0 % chance of survival for 95% UK citizens(not counting scotland & Ireland)
India is quite difficult because it would not have anywhere near as many nuclear warheads targetted at it yet...
its entire system of food and water and government would likely fall apart once only 2 or 3 citys were hit by pakistan
innitially probably only around 30 to 40% population loss in teh first 2 days but bulging out to around 60% to maybe even 80% within 2 years of radioactive poisoning and starvation & civil war.


makes me wonder whos going to buy the latest apple iphone & will it be cash or credit

speaking of apps...

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MmjlFrNC7mk

[C C]

how many planned parentohood clinics need to close to pay for 1 new nuclear missile ? how many new nuclear missiles can be purchased from cancelling 30 million working class US citizens health insurance ? are new nuclear missiles a financial profit or loss for those who pay for them ? who is it that decides to buy them ? who pays for them ? who makes them ?

Perhaps literally a matter of life and death at times within some borders.

"South Korean officials warn that any aid would at some time be used to support the government of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. They say he is spending billions of dollars on nuclear and missile tests while most of his people live in poverty. [...] Nearly 600,000 people need urgent assistance because of recent severe flooding in North Korea as the winter season approaches. [...] Floodwaters also damaged 30,000 hectares of crops that were almost ready for harvest." http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/nor...46038.html

But on the flip side, even though NK's population might arguably be suffering as the result of the program, it's contended to be the least expensive.

"North Korea was at the bottom of a 2011 list on nuclear arms spending by Global Zero, a group campaigning to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The full cost of Pyongyang's program that year was estimated by the group at $700 million, making it the lowest spender among nuclear states, beneath Pakistan's estimated $2.2 billion, although the analysis was made before the North's two most recent nuclear tests. By comparison, the United States spent $61.3 billion on nuclear weapons in 2011, according to the report.

"[...] North Korea has developed a nuclear weapons program despite poverty and international sanctions, using home-grown technology and virtually free labor to cut costs, experts said. South Korean government analysis has put North Korea's nuclear spending at $1.1 billion to $3.2 billion overall, although experts say it is impossible to make an accurate calculation given the secrecy surrounding the program, and estimates vary widely." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0UP1G820160111

[Syne]

[Image: WarheadsGraphic_161103.png]

It is important that one country remain in parity with the leading holder of nuclear arms (currently Russia). And it is important that some countries, like Israel surrounded by countries that expressly intend their genocide, have a clear edge in threat capability.

[RainbowUnicorn]

[Image: WarheadsGraphic_161103.png]

It is important that one country remain in parity with the leading holder of nuclear arms (currently Russia). And it is important that some countries, like Israel surrounded by countries that expressly intend their genocide, have a clear edge in threat capability.

iran probably has a few i would guess.
interesting to think how easily it might have been for syria to get nuclear weapons say 5 years ago.
UK have just re-newed their submarine ability to build or re-fit their fleet. i would guess they probably will add some more warheads to their capability.

do you agree with the us president about arming japan and south korea with nuclear weapons ?
i wonder at north koreas response to such an act.
i also wonder about the re-distributio of weapons to allied countries.
for instance if china moved nukes into the philipines and russia moves nukes into cuba and chrimera and a few other places.

it feels like the world is on the brink of a new nuclear weapons arms race.

[Syne]

iran probably has a few i would guess.

If not, it probably won't be long...after the Obama Iran deal.

interesting to think how easily it might have been for syria to get nuclear weapons say 5 years ago.
UK have just re-newed their submarine ability to build or re-fit their fleet. i would guess they probably will add some more warheads to their capability.

do you agree with the us president about arming japan and south korea with nuclear weapons ?
i wonder at north koreas response to such an act.
i also wonder about the re-distributio of weapons to allied countries.
for instance if china moved nukes into the philipines and russia moves nukes into cuba and chrimera and a few other places.

it feels like the world is on the brink of a new nuclear weapons arms race.

No, I don't agree with arming Japan, since there's no evidence they face any existential or looming threat. And as long as we keep conventional defenses in Korea, it's probably more dangerous to escalate things by arming them with nukes. I don't think redistribution is likely, but we'd have to reevaluate what any such move may be foreshadowing.

The only nuclear arms race I see happening is among the middle-east Arab countries.