Strategic ICBMs ~ 800 Warheads (Yield 300-500Kt ea.)
Sea-Based ICBMs ~ 1440 Warheads (Yield 300Kt ea.) [SSBNs]
~ 144 Warheads (Yield 200Kt ea.) [Fast Attack]

yep. cuz you didn't read what I wrote. For one, all of those weapons would not be able to be launched because they would either be destroyed on the first strikes, or there would be no command & control systems left to arm and fire them after the first or second strikes. Second, more than 1/3 of what you list as current armament are tactical weapons and most wouldn't be fired in an all out exchange, plus their yields are too small for any long term climate damage.

Plus simply adding up the # of warheads and the yield per class doesn't give you a good picture of total tonnage or even average tonnage. You could still be off by at least 1 standard deviation using that technique, possibly more.

Ok, so cut it in half... you're saying that no long term climatological changes would be in effect for 1/2 or even 1/3? Ok... I'm no climatologist, but if one volcano can effect the global climate, I don't see how we can miss having 192,000 Kilotons (1/3 of the smallest figure) of Nuclear explosions, and resulting material floating in the stratosphere without effecting the climate...

and for the record, I'm having a spirited discussion... and I DID read what you wrote...

If you really think that the Nuclear Command Control and Communications system would be broken for 2nd and 3rd strikes, I might suggest that your information regarding the strength of the nuclear arsenal of the United States might not be accurate. I am, however, interested in how the SLBM fleet would be disabled... and therefore could not fire their weapons...

RE: AM - Gore warns on climate change