The talk is reducing from 1,500 to 1K. That still seems like 900 more than is needed. That would cover even the most hawkish foreign policy.
Today's Poll: Should the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal be reduced?
Submitted by Howard Owens on February 11, 2013 - 9:10am
- Howard Owens's blog
- Login or register to post comments
February 11, 2013 - 11:02am
#3
February 11, 2013 - 11:24am
#4
True that, Howard. Another thing I consider is that I don't know how much we spend on guarding and storing nuclear warheads, but I'm sure it's significant. With all the whining about the defense spending reductions required if the federal gov. goes into sequestration, I'd rather we cut that out as opposed to cutting the pay increase to the military that Panetta has suggested.
February 11, 2013 - 1:10pm
#5
Kind of a mute issue,,,,,,,,,,, We couldn't believe the government if they said they did reduce them!!
February 11, 2013 - 3:02pm
#6
Howard, what do those numbers 1500 to 1000 represent? Delivery vehicles, missiles kilotonnage or something else? Last I knew there were over 10,000 warheads in the US arsenal. If it's less than that, very good. But at one time it was over 10,000. A MIRVed missile may actually contain a dozen separate warheads, so counting missiles only gives a partial view of the situation. Also, the kiloton size of the bombs used in Japan is a tiny blip compared to modern warheads measured in megatons. Those who voted against reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal from 1500 to 1000: what do you think the United States would be able to do less of? As Dave indicates, how many times could the earth be completely destroyed (blast, fall-out, environmental destruction) in order for you to fee safe?
How many times do we need to be able to blow up the Earth? Really