Replies

“Has to be approved by Congress.”

God almighty I pray you are right and that Congress has more common sense.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t “deterrence” require a credible counterforce? Smaller arsenals imply the chance that a disarming first strike could end with making a nuclear war less “unthinkable”.

I could be wrong, but it seems security is enhanced when both sides are absolutely convinced that neither can’t win. That said, Russia has been exposed as violating the ABM treaty long before the end of the Cold War (see William T. Lee, “The ABM Charade..”), have “dual use” SAMS (to be capable against both aerial and ballistic targets, and we don’t have SAMS defending the contenintal US since the 1970’s) and are still digging the biggest nuclear hardened facility in the world by a factor of a couple hundred at Yamantau Mountain, the use of which is unclear to our intelligence and not discussed by the Russians.

So Bam Bam buddy; do you really want to trust our existence to these guys good intentions? The same guys in their communist years killed tens of millions of their own people? Making nuclear war less painful from our arsenal doesn’t seem like a wise choice there genius.