How old is the USA nuclear weapons?
482918
Actually, they do expire due to radioactive decay.  Usually, they are dismantled and disposed of.
789612
Ok and you can find articles on how to build nuclear weapons on the internet do that mean you have one or even have the capacity to make one in your basement? So what l am sure he was trying from the 90's to build one but that don't mean he had one and we had to rush to war to stop him from using it.
774531
A nuclear weapon is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon is capable of destroying an entire city.\n\nIn the history of warfare, nuclear weapons have been used only twice, both during the closing days of World War II. The first event occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second event occurred three days later when a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The use of these weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of around 100,000 to 200,000 individuals and even more over time, was and remains controversial — critics around the world charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war. This topic has seen increased debate recently in the wake of increased terrorism involving killings of civilians by both state and non-state players, with parties claiming that the end justifies the means (see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion).\n\nSince the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing and demonstration purposes. The only countries known to have detonated such weapons are (chronologically) the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Various other countries may hold nuclear weapons but have never publicly admitted possession, or their claims to possession have not been verified. For example, Israel has modern airborne delivery systems and appears to have an extensive nuclear program with hundreds of warheads (see Israel and weapons of mass destruction), though it officially maintains a policy of "ambiguity" with respect to its actual possession of nuclear weapons. Iran currently stands accused by a number of governments of attempting to develop nuclear capabilities, though its government claims that its acknowledged nuclear activities, such as uranium enrichment, are for peaceful purposes. South Africa also secretly developed a small nuclear arsenal, but disassembled it in the early 1990s. (For more information see List of countries with nuclear weapons.)\n\nApart from their use as weapons, nuclear explosives have been tested and used for various non-military uses.
330604
A couple of issues with your question.\n\nThe US is no longer testing nuclear weapons, and production is limited to what is required to replace older systems that are obsolete (read the SALT-II treaty).\n\nNext, of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons I would say the ones most likely to use them are Pakistan (which would lead to its anihilation) and Russia, out of desperation and impotence.  The chances of the US using nuclear weapons is fantastically small.\n\nThe US, and the UN for that matter (if you come up out of your hate america haze long enough you would realize that France, Germany and the UN are the ones leading the charge against Iran) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it seems very likely that they will use them on their neighbors.\n\nBesides, would you give a loaded pistol to a three year old and expect no one to get hurt?  Same idea with Iran.
16463
Let me guess, you are Russian? \n\nYes, Russia has a lot of nukes. Since the demise of the USSR, the US has gained the advantage of knowing where a lot of them are. Ironically, as part of nuclear reduction agreements, the US actually PAYS Russia to destroy the agreed nuclear weapons. The operations are constantly overseen by US reps. I know this because I met two of these representatives in Votkinsk Russia. They were there monitoring a factory that was dismantling Nukes. As part of the reductions agreements, Russia can also monitor the US, but I guarantee they aren't paying us for it. \n\nSo which country has the best weapons? I would say that the US has more sophisticated weapons than just plan ol ballistic missiles. Nukes are good if want to blow up entire cities--but that isn't a very feasible idea these days. It just doesn't go over very well politically. \n\nSo all in all, yes, Russia has the nukes. But ever since the end of the cold war, the US has continued spending billion and billions on defense while Russia has really let off on their emphasis on nukes and and other weaponry. Yes, they are still developing and creating new weapons, but just not at the rate of the US.
734827
Yes, we have nukes.  Yes, we have chemical weapons.  We also have landmines.\n\nWe call them "special weapons" or "multipliers."
1066124
They've not sufficiently provoked us for a nuclear attack. Not that I want it to get to that point, but there's many steps to be taken inbetween.\n\nAnd nuclear war is not inevitable - look at the Cold War. Even when it became a hot war (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan), the nukes stayed within their silos.
18891
As I recall, when I was a kid (I'm 31 now) we had a civil defense plan in place but it was in the event of a nuclear war. Now that the threat of nuclear war has significantly diminished, I'm guessing the need for Civil Defense faded as well.
885475
i think it is stupid and irresponsible.  The US is the only country in history ever to use an atomic weapon, and on civilian targets, what right do we have to dictate who can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
57738
Currently, the Russian military has been considerably diminished from where it stood 15 years ago at the height of the cold war. Most of the strategic weapons (submarines, bombers, etc) have been mothballed due to cost cuts. By comparison, the US military is perhaps the world's most well equipped. \n\nYou mention nuclear weapons. Both nations have limited strategic nuclear weapons due to the various treaties designed to limit the proliferation of such weapons. The old Russian weapons systems are in many cases not in the best shape to be used, since many of their strategic weapons depended on complex and hard to maintain liquid fueled missiles. US missiles are all solid fueled, and much more stable and reliable.\n\nThat being said, if anyone ever attempted to invade Russia, history would not be on their side. The Russians may have old technology and equipment, but they have a toughness bred of long oppression and much suffering. They have been to the edge of hell as a nation many times, and lived to talk about it. We in the US get all bothered when gas goes up a nickel, or when our cellphones malfunction.
276208
Yes it has. It has had a nuclear weapon since the 70s. The main plant is called Daydamona and there are others.
178530
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it sounds like they need alot of upgrading.  They don't have as many nukes targeted on the USA as i had thought, although one would be enough.
43263
after the nuclear war scheduled in next few decade
604822
The atomic bomb, such as those developed in the Manhattan Project during WWII, was just a first type of nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapons developed in the years during the Cold War, after WWII, were designed to be even more destructive.\n\nWhile atomic bombs are considered nuclear weapons, in general, the average destructiveness (usually measured in kilotons) of one of those early atomic bombs is much less than the average destructiveness of the more advanced nuclear bombs that followed.\n\nIn the past few years, there has been research into making nuclear weapons that have very low levels of destruction - for use in battlefields rather than for destroying whole cities.
703806
Do they have the right? \nThe nuclear weapons is a danger to the wealth of this world.(It is said that they can destroy the world inumerous times) But, more and more, we see an increasing trend of evil politicians in USA allowing it to be constructed at an ever increasing rate. Do they have the right to threat the world just because it lies mainly within their border? They are proving to be incapable, but the rest of the world seems powerless to stop the destruction their greed is causing! Can we trust the political will of the USA people to clean up their government and start to protect what many feel belongs to us all (the world)?
1081678
About 75 active warheads and about 115 Total.\n\nThis maynot be the latest count.Got the info from a site given in the source column
1068436
"Atomic Bombs?" To dated! Nuclear weapons and all the guidance trimings? You Betcha Ya! Kinda makes you sleep a little better at night knowing Americas ally in the middle east has your back there doesn't it!